Comcast Donates Heavily To Defeat Mayor Who Is Bringing Gigabit Fiber To Seattle 356
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Andrea Peterson reports in the Washington Post that one of Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's big policy initiatives has been expanding the quality and quantity of high-speed Internet access throughout the city. However incumbent providers, particularly Comcast, have invested heavily in defeating McGinn in the mayoral election. While Comcast denies there is any connection between McGinn's broadband policies and their donations, the company has given thousands of dollars to PACs that have, in turn, given heavily to anti-McGinn groups. One of McGinn's core promises in the 2009 campaign was to 'develop a city-wide broadband system.' The mayor considered creating a citywide broadband system as a public utility, like water or electricity. But aides say that would have been too expensive, so the mayor settled on public-private partnerships using city-owned dark fiber. This dark fiber was laid down starting in 1995, and the mayor's office now says there are some 535 miles of it, only a fraction of which is being used. In June, the partnership, called Gigabit Squared, announced pricing for its Seattle service: $45 dollars a month for 100 Mbps service or $80 a month for 1 Gbps service plus a one-time installation cost of $350 that will be waived for customers signing a one-year contract. For comparison, Comcast, one of the primary Internet providers in the area, offers 105 Mbps service in the area for $114.99 a month, according to their website. If Comcast is indeed attempting to sway the election, it would fall in line with a larger pattern of telecom interests lobbying against municipal efforts to create their own municipal broadband systems or leveraging city-owner fiber resources to create more competition for incumbent providers. Peterson writes, '...if Comcast's donations help Murray defeat McGinn, it will send a powerful message to mayors in other American cities considering initiatives to increase broadband competition.'"
Plausible Deniability (Score:2)
It's good for the gov't, and good for the corps too!
Shame We the People get screwed when they use it
Re: (Score:2)
*End* This System
Re: (Score:2)
It's good for the gov't, and good for the corps too!
Shame We the People get screwed when they use it
Corporations are People, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Stop giving politicians money for making promises. Give them money for actually improving things. The teachers union won't need to "contribute" if education improves, and the state starts to benefit from the things that the better educated folks come up with. Under your current system, anyone who is really bright would just leave the country.
Too expensive (Score:3)
It would be nice if they'd offer 10Mbps to $10.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, the wants of the many subsidize the needs of the few.
And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
...Lobbying needs to be illegal. Period.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lobbying used to be called bribery. Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates.
Wonderful! Im a candidate. Funds, please.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funds, please.
5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.
Then we expect some expense reports for the funds, and remember we may audit those, and there's all sorts of felony stuff for misusing the funds. And you can't hide behind a corporation. This is on you.
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
Re: (Score:3)
When signing petitions, people will sign just about anything ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l02E4cj4Vvo [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying used to be called bribery.
Not anymore. Corporations are people too, you insensitive clod. Our Supreme Court, in their lofty wisdom, has said so. You're just jealous because our corporate citizens can buy more and better politicians than you.
. Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates
Public campaign financing. That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be wanting is instant run-off elections so that honest public servants would stand a chance against "friendly" candidates bought and paid for by your corporate betters. Learn your place, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why... (Score:4, Interesting)
if Comcast's donations help Murray defeat McGinn, it will send a powerful message to mayors in other American cities considering initiatives to increase broadband competition.
This is the USA, completely oblivious to the message that most other developed counties would get, which is indeed that corruption should be illegal, not called "lobbying" and legal.
Here again you have the 1% ruling the country acting against the 99%, and the relayed message is that the 1% elected representatives better bow to the 1% rulers. And what's the point of electing representatives, then ?
Re: (Score:3)
Define lobbying. If I write my Congressman and say, "stop the dam". I've just lobbied. I think what you're really aiming at is, me writing the Congressman and saying, "Remember me? I'm one of your tier-1 donors who also donated an extra $100,000 to your PAC. Build the dam".
The former is a legitimate functioning of our system. The latter is bribery that flies under the radar because some lawyers baked just the right logic pretzel so, "money is speech".
IMHO, get
Re: (Score:3)
If I write my Congressman and say, "stop the dam". I've just lobbied. I think what you're really aiming at is, me writing the Congressman and saying, "Remember me? I'm one of your tier-1 donors who also donated an extra $100,000 to your PAC. Build the dam". ... The former is a legitimate functioning of our system. The latter is bribery that flies under the radar because some lawyers baked just the right logic pretzel so, "money is speech".
Forget about the donations; they're an irrelevant distraction. The real problem is representative acting against the interests of the very people they're supposed to represent. If a politician accepts a bribe and yet still does the right thing (which may or may not be what he was bribed to do) then there is no problem. If the same politician does not take any bribes, but votes against his constituents' interests, that's a problem.
My proposal would be to allow any representative's constituents to hold a vote
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing about the first amendment. It includes this line about having the right to petition the government. Guess what that's also known as. "Lobbying"
Lobbying in general is not a Bad Thing (TM). But it's current incarnation, where money is proportional to the amount of ear- or face-time you get with your representative, is definitely not what the founders had in mind. Of course they also had in mind that only white male land owners could have any say in anything... so take that with a grain of salt.
At
Re: (Score:2)
Lobbying used to have a legitimate purpose. Then money got involved.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a whole universe between "people should shut up" and "people with money can spend unlimited on corruption if they call it contributions".
Almost all democracies limit the money flowing around politics. None has done it perfectly, but the US has a particularly bad version.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it is a phony equivalence meant to enable a wealthy few to dominate the conversation of politics.
In other words, it's a god-damn dirty lie.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment.
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Because, see, the First Amendment gives the People a right to petition the government for redress of grievances; what it does not provide for is a way for any person or group to buy the legislation they want to have enacted.
Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech, because free speech is an equal proposition, and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do. I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Those are fine slogans for a bumper sticker, but difficult boundaries to make into enforceable law. You have to walk a fine line between closing every possible loophole and still protecting legitimate free speech. I have yet to hear any proposal that would actually achieve that balance.
Re:And this is why... (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be difficult about creating a boundary between the rights of a paper entity, a corporation, and a flesh-and-blood human being? Person has rights protected by the Constitution, corporation does not. It ain't rocket surgery.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really hard, impractical for the "collectives" people want to ban. You don't like Corporations but do like Unions, while I am the opposite (or visa versa). It doesn't matter. IF you allow one collective to do something, you have to allow all of them the same.
My solution is to prevent collectives from contributing to other collectives (campaigns) and buy their "speech" themselves, explicitly. If Comcast (or union) wants to elect a candidate, they should create their own campaign and fund it themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And this is why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment. As bad as Lobbying sounds not having the law that allows Lobbying to occur would be much much worse.
Bull. Nobody is talking about removing your right to write your elected officials a letter asking them to do or not do something. What is being talked about is removing your right to stuff the envelope full of money.
Re: (Score:3)
I like what that politician is saying, therefore I am supporting him in using his right to free speech, and by doing so, essentially saying the same things he is. I have that right.
If you like what that politician is saying, tell people that. I'm not proposing to impinge on your right to speak freely. I am proposing to impinge on your current ability to PURCHASE. If you like what a prostitute has done to your genitalia, you are not (currently) permitted to (legally) give her money. The sex isn't illegal. The payment is. If it's not okay to purchase a good time, why is it okay to purchase a lawmaker?
If you think that the right to free speech means you have only the right to stand on the streetcorner and pontificate using your own vocal cords at passersby, then you are sorely mistaken. Free speech is free as in unfettered, not free as in doesn't cost money. Effective unfettered speech requires money.
Strongly disagree. Amplified unfettered speech requires money. You are permitt
Re:And this is why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Greed is the real problem. Today's crony capitalism is just the latest way for the destructive force of unchecked greed to manifest itself. Greed consumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism is driven by greed, it is the basic underpinning of the theory.
Capitalism is driven by demand, which is not the same as greed. It recognizes the existence of greed and doesn't break down in its presence, unlike most other systems, but it doesn't reward greed when it leads to irrational behavior. More than anything else, capitalism rewards rational analysis of costs and benefits and voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit (in short: enlightened self-interest).
And Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
people will continue to parrot the line that the reason the U.S. has expensive and slow internet service is because the country is too big.
"It's too big!"
Nonsense. If it's too big, how in the world did you get those water, sewer and phone lines?
Watch how many people will say the same thing again and again in comments below.
"It's too big!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "It's too big" argument only applies in the country or in small towns (like here in Montana). After all, most of these areas do not have sewer or water lines but instead use septic and wells. But it makes absolutely no sense in the big cities of the United States where all of this infrastructure exists. We shouldn't be concerned that some areas have expensive Internet service, but it is concerning that everyone has expensive Internet service.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, because water and sewer lines don't need to connect to a national network, and the "hard work" of building the phone infrastructure was paid for when we had a different regulatory regime. In fact, most small towns in the US would still have small independent exchanges with poor (or no) connectivity to the national network if it wasn't for some key regulatory decisions made in the 1930's and 1940's.
It IS, in fact, too big given our current way our telecommunications infrastructure is paid for. The on
Re:And Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the current incentives, telecom companies don't even have an incentive to pull fiber even in large cities! That's the goddamn problem here!
The rural fiber cost issue is a red herring. It is absolutely not an excuse for failing to provide decent connectivity in urban areas. (For example, I live about 3 miles from the center of a metro area containing 5 million people, and all I can get is Comcast cable for $$$$$, shit DSL, or shit Wi-Max.) This should be considered absolutely unacceptable in 2013 in urban America.
The real issue is regulatory capture, and anyone who says otherwise is a lying asshole shill.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet service in the country.. it's-- it's... It's too big!
Re: (Score:2)
Plain Old Telephone Service lines are a lot cheaper than hi-speed data pipes.
And water lines? Sewer lines? In the house I grew up in we didn't have such a thing. Most people in truly rural settings don't. Like them, we had a well (with an electric pump to give us running water in the house) and a septic tank and field.
Kleptocracy... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just the way capitalism works in the US. Corporations buy politicians (and get rid of politicians who don't go along with their program).
The free market is wonderful.
USA is number 1 !!!!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a free market. That's crony capitalism, which is condemned in no uncertain terms by the free-market types.
Perhaps Google's plan is working? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this what Google wanted? I've always been under the impression that Google didn't necessarily want to become a large ISP, but instead wanted to spark competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has enough money that if this is what they wanted then they'd have it.
And how would they have achieved it? Merely having money doesn't always help.
You've drank too much of the "do no evil" kool-aid they've been dishing out.
First, it's "Don't be evil". Second, how is Google's evil-ness or lack thereof relevant to whether or not Seattle succeeds at deploying gigabit fiber over the objections of Comcast?
Hard ball (Score:2)
Why can businesses donate? (Score:2)
Businesses aren't people, they can't vote. Why are they allowed to donate vast sums of money to politicians? And we wonder why we are in the lobbyist->politician->corporation mess we're in now.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are businesses allowed to donate vast sums of money?
Because the people who set the rules are politicians. Politicians who get vast sums of money from businesses and don't want to see those vast sums go away. So they might make some token rules to make it seem like they're getting rid of the vast sums, but they won't REALLY get rid of the vast sums.
It's the same reason why the "politician pushes a lobbying firms agenda->retires->gets a cushy job in said lobbying firm->lobbies his former "co-wo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they are banded together to make money, and if they're making money from the government then taxpayers pay the bill.
RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the numbers in the article a Comcat executive contributed $700 and the company contributed $10,000 to PACs. Sorry buit I doubt that $10,700 will buy an election.
Look at all contribution to People for Ed Murray [wa.gov]. The total contribution are $122,800 making Comcast's contribution 8.7%.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting words in people's mouths is unreasonable.
So, what you're saying is, Comcast and it's executive are morons, then? Or they just love throwing money away, perhaps?
Why does there have to be only extremes? Comcast contributed a reasonable sum to support a candidate who thinks like they do. Is it a sure bet? No. Is it a sure failure? no.
Now, are you saying if Comcast had contributed $122,800, then it'd be possible to call it a legal bribe and then disband Comcast?
I don't care about hypotheticals. Lets deal with what actually happened. Campaign contributions are there to support candidates and calling reasonable contributions "heavy" is an exaggeration.
To that end, I think $10,000 would probably be enough to buy the ear of most people, especially when they need "experts" in an area anyways.
Your opinion of most people is pretty low. It would take a lot more than $10,000 in campaign cont
US lagging behind in pricing compared to world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless things changed while i wasn't looking, at least Canada and Australia, very much first world countries, are getting screwed over way more than the US. I know Canada had a lot of oversight, too.
Its mainly just lack of competition that's the issue. Regulations are definitely needed, but alone they do nothing if no one wants to play ball with the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
If any company could lay cable in a town, there would be more competition and better prices.
There is little justification for that position. Instead, it is far more likely that there would be no cable laid or prices would be higher. This sort of infrastructure is known as a Natural Monopoly [wikipedia.org].
Competition is key (Score:3)
I don't care what any of these companies do as long as they aren't my only choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Does choice still matter if every competitor acts the same?
What the rest of the world calls corruption... (Score:5, Insightful)
...in the US is called "lobbying".
Quite sad, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
You're lucky I don't have mod points today.
and the problem is... ? (Score:2)
It's far from obvious that providing broadband using public infrastructure is a good idea. Why shouldn't Comcast oppose it? If not companies who have an interest in not seeing it happen, then who is going to oppose it?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps someone who can come up with some rational reason WHY it isn't a good idea?
Re:and the problem is... ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not for Comcast to judge whether it is a good or a bad idea. It is for the people of Seattle to decide.
If no-one but the broadband companies has an interest in not seeing it happen, then it's probably a good idea. After all, why should the rest of us make decisions based on what's best for broadband companies? The viability of their business model is not the concern of the general public; if someone else can provide the same service better and cheaper, too bad for them.
Privatization Madness (Score:2)
In an earlier time, the voters would have approved of broadband access as a public utility without much hesitation. We still have some public utilities today in the wake of those times (thank God). But such debates today are off-limits due to corporate ownership of the media. Notice how quickly Obama threw the single-payer advocates under the bus when the debates over health care began. That was a complete capitulation to the health insurance industry.(And some of you are naive enough to believe Obama is a
+1 (Score:3)
And the masses do nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Stories like this make me upset, because its the same as story about one soldier dying in a war where millions of soldiers are killed. This is one tiny example of how business works in America. Every day in every federal, state, county, and city goverment shit like this happens. Lets have a discussion about that.
Overselling it (Score:5, Interesting)
If Comcast's donations help Murray defeat McGinn, it will send a powerful message to mayors in other American cities considering initiatives to increase broadband competition.
This article was written by someone who didn't do their homework.
There are a lot of reasons McGinn is probably going to be voted out. I doubt anyone's even going to connect his defeat with his lip-service regarding city-wide fiber.
McGinn has consistently pissed off both the business community in Seattle and large chunks of its citizenry. It all started before he was mayor - a lot of people were leery he was too much of an ideologue. As candidates do, he claimed he'd be pragmatic - promising he wouldn't let his personal opposition to the Highway 99 tunnel affect his mayoral decisions regarding the voter-approved project. Of course he got into office and immediately did everything he could to derail the project (but failed miserably - in addition to being an ideologue, the dude is not an effective leader). Anyway, it's gone downhill from there...
well this is simple (Score:2)
Bloated corporate campain funding (Score:2)
There should also be a separation of corporations and state.
It's not all about broadband (Score:3, Interesting)
McGinn is mayor of Seattle, but not well-liked. First, he's a bully. He does the kinds of things you all condemn Comcast for doing. He uses his power to close down businesses he doesn't like. He closes roads so he can make them for bicycles. He opposed the tunnel that is going to clean up Seattle's waterfront. Meanwhile crime is up so much that it is unsafe to walk the streets. His response: Businesses should be gun-free zones. He's the opposite of the "Progressive" he thinks he is and ANYTHING that can stop McGinn is a good thing, including Comcast. Why is it okay for McGinn to do the things you condemn Comcast for doing? Living in a city like Seattle is not all about sitting home safe alone in your basement with oodles of bandwidth; it's about being able to walk to the corner grocery without being harassed by a "homeless victim" who wants you to turn out your pockets for him.
Re: (Score:3)
This is urban authoritarianism everywhere. But the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality ("whoever can stop him is a good thing") is just playing into the hands of urban authoritarians: the problem isn't this policy or that policy, it's the idea of politicians generally who abuse their office to amass more power.
It is not okay for McGinn to do the things people are condemning Comcast for doing. Both of them are bad, and we should have neither, but voting for a lizard to stop the wrong lizard
If McScwinn loses (Score:2)
it won't be because of this, it will be because the majority of people don't like taking out general purpose traffic lanes that carry 30K cars a day to make them dedicated bike lanes carrying 200 bikes a day
Re:Money climax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Money climax (Score:5, Funny)
I would say once enough of the middle class are unable to continue throwing billions of dollars at the corporate entities and that bubble does finally pop, mass starvation will hit.
I would believe that is when the revolution and major changes will take place. It is not a question of If but when (is that the question anymore?).
This is why I'm glad I own a remote farm and know how to work it.
Re:Money climax (Score:4, Funny)
Could you supply GPS coordinates and a harvest date?
Re:Money climax (Score:5, Funny)
What kind of remotes do you grow? And can you teach my grandmother? She can never figure out how to work her remote.
Reply to fix moderation (Re:Money climax) (Score:2)
Damnit!
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of remotes do you grow? And can you teach my grandmother? She can never figure out how to work her remote.
Those universal ones that work with every TV in the world except the one you own.
Re:Money climax (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not going to happen. This isn't 1930. Agriculture is a solved problem in the USA, with near zero marginal cost of production and almost no dependence on human labor.
Nothing short of total nuclear war is going to interrupt the flow of bread or circuses in America. You'll have to find some other trigger for your revolution.
Re:Money climax (Score:5, Informative)
That's what votes are for (Score:5, Insightful)
Votes, not money, decide the answer; but you can campaign untruthfully with no ramifications. At that point money = votes.
Corporations don't live or breathe, people do. And the people who run those corporations and profit from them have the exact same weight in the ballot box as anyone else. Anyone who is used to getting their way every day because they have money finds this equality to be horribly unfair.
Here's the thing: if Comcast made a product that was so fabulous that nobody would even want a government run version we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Re:That's what votes are for (Score:4, Insightful)
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
Re:That's what votes are for (Score:5, Insightful)
So whats the solution? Make it illegal to state a political opinion? Make it illegal to pay someone to state theirs? Make it illegal to say political opinions on the air?
Yes. Yes. No.
Corporations have disproportionate cash resources compared to individuals and so should be disqualified from "expressing an opinion". If the CEOs, CFOs and CIOs want to influence elections to protect their gravy train, they can do so on a personal basis. They should never be permitted to redirect corporate funds towards campaigns. Also, while we're at it, to be fair no individual should be permitted to spend more than a reasonable amount as a campaign contribution. Say... $1,000
Candidates should stand on their merits, not their wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, while we're at it, to be fair no individual should be permitted to spend more than a reasonable amount as a campaign contribution. Say... $1,000
s/individual/person/; and you can limit corporations as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The EFF is a corporation. So we silence the EFF so they can't influence policy and elections?
Re: (Score:3)
So like-minded people are no longer to get together to petition the government for a redress of grievances? They must all do it individually?
Oh, and we'd have to disband the Democratic and Republican parties.
On second thought, your idea may have merit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: That's what votes are for (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
WAAAAAAAY to many
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the thing: if Comcast made a product that was so fabulous that nobody would even want a government run version we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You're giving Comcast WAAY too much credit. That should read "if Comcast made a product that reached the heights of mediocrity, a politician wouldn't be making waves with a 'Fuck Comcast' platform."
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they oppose a government program to put them out of business? Would car dealerships be upset if the city government opened up a lot and undercut their sales with taxpayer money? Is the government entering a market really competition when they can have all the tools of government to help them succeed?
Because it's not going to put them out of business -- it just means that they can't keep gouging their customers for mediocre service. Government exists to serve the public interest, which public broadband clearly does. If a national quasi-monopoly wants to try and offer better/cheaper service, then they're welcome to try.
What they have no right to do, however, is interfere with the political process. They do not get a vote, because they are not people, and I've never seen any viable argument for allowin
Re: (Score:2)
This is not to put Comcast out of business. It's to make Comcast compete better and provide a better service at a reasonable price, instead of gouging consumers and making massive profits. Things like this need to happen because there is no competitive market for internet access. If we did have a competitive market, then we would not need these government based efforts.
Have a look at the competitive electricity markets a few places have set up. This is how we need to do the internet. One company would
Re:just donate (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should anyone donate to have a government servant put in place? It's pretty ridiculous. There should be no donations allowed. And there should be voting on issues, rather than people. Being a politician should just be a job, not a popularity contest.
Re: (Score:2)
And there should be voting on issues
LOL, are you drunk?
Re: (Score:3)
Not yet, but I guess Switzerland must be.
Re: (Score:2)
According to one of my history teachers, the only reason public servants were originally paid is because they didn't think people would do the job otherwise. Of course, back then politician was rarely a full time job.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately most of the people who became pols were lawyers in their other job, so they were able to create the wonderful revolving door of writing laws so that only they are able to property exploit the loopholes that they inserted.
New Hampshire Rocks (Score:3)
In New Hampshire, legislators' salary is only $100 per year [wikipedia.org] so the politicians need jobs or independent wealth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Local politicians really are in it for their communities.
FWIW, just because one mayor isn't a total douche about broadband does not mean that all local politicians are "in it for their communities."
Hell, it doesn't even mean that any of that same mayor's other policies are sound.
Re: (Score:2)
It is free. It's called "Go to your local library."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this would be similar to the electric competition many cities have. One entity (private or government) running physical infrastructure under regulation. Then the people buy service from the provider of their choice with price (and other) competition aspects. For internet, it would be a fiber run (or multiple) to each home that can be used by the network stack provider (even Comcast) to connect each of their customers. Less regulation of the providers will be needed when there is competition.