Hundreds of Cities Wired With Fiber, But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unusable 347
Jason Koebler writes: 'In light of the ongoing net neutrality battle, many people have begun looking to Google and its promise of high-speed fiber as a potential saving grace from companies that want to create an "internet fast lane." Well, even without Google, many communities and cities throughout the country are already wired with fiber — they just don't let their residents use it. Companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Verizon have signed agreements with cities that prohibit local governments from becoming internet service providers and prohibit municipalities from selling or leasing their fiber to local startups who would compete with these huge corporations.'
Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service. But that should not be an issue.
The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.
The pipes terminate at a government facility that the government leases space at to ANY AND ALL companies that want to provide ISP services over those pipes. As cheap as possible but without allowing one company to lease ALL the space.
Then switching between ISP's should be as simple as moving a patch cord.
Your taxes pay for the pipes and their maintenance and the facility and its maintenance (minus the lease revenue).
Re:Noncompetition (Score:5, Insightful)
but at what point does it violate the law?
It started violating Federal and State antitrust laws many, many years ago.
The deeper question you should really be asking is: why haven't they been called on it?
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service.
Is a road, street lighting or waste disposal a 'service'?
Is intarwebs a service?
Re:Level playing field (Score:2, Insightful)
you're on drugs if you think your local government will upgrade their networks every time netflix doubles their data that they send. it might seem good now but 5-10 years in the future if local governments run the ISP's out of business they will laugh at you when you complain you can't stream 8K or whatever the next one is. they will act like any other local utility and tell you to wait 5 years until they gather enough data that there is a demand for it, then take another few years to study the problem, then spend another 5 years begging for money in the budget and finally upgrading the network
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for starters, they could try using the billions they've been giving to providers to upgrade their damn equipment even though they never do...
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the government going to come up with the billions of dollars to buy out the investors in those companies?
Who gives a shit? It's not the government's responsibility to coddle obsolete industries and their investors. Or at least, it SHOULDN'T be the government's responsibility.
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are a little bit confused on what the "backbone" is. It is not the same as the "last mile" which is what I am discussing.
In my suggestion, each of the ISP's that were leasing space would also need a connection to an "upstream" provider. Whether that was one of the backbones or an intermediary would be up to each company.
All the government does is provide access to the pipes from the government site to the houses.
Re:Annoying. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Where is the government going to come up with the billions of dollars to buy out the investors in those companies?"
We found more than that to fund killing people in the middle east for more than 10 years... It would not be hard at all to find the funds to buy up all the backbone companies.
A war well waged (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nationalize" ... whatever.
How is it what we have all that different from nationalized net access when 99% of users are locked into one of three major providers who then use that money to buy legislation and ordinances which favor them making even more money.
In the choice between a monopoly or nationalization, nationalization is a no brainer, because out of it might spring real competition as a GP poster pointed out, by leasing the pipes to any and all ISP wannabes. In contrast, monopolization leads to fat profits at users' expense, poor service, and crappy laws and it can never ever get better. Obviously, a free market would be better than either the other two, but we have a free market in net services like N. Korea has a free and open society.
Secondly -- exactly who invested in the network? I know I saw a recent article about cable companies taking Federal money to build out their networks and then claiming those lines aren't covered by common carrier rules --- a corollary to "socialize losses, privatize profits" would thus be "socialize expenses, privatize profits." I did find this about Comcast using $40m of public funds to build itself an office building Philly:
http://newslanc.com/2014/01/16... [newslanc.com]
Also how these assholes are making competition illegal: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Or what about the fact that to lay all this wire, they are using public utility rights of way. If they aren't going to be a public utility they should have no right to use that right of way -- it's a kind of robbery of the commons -- a robbery of every American.
Until these monopolies start actually using their own money for stuff, the whole cry for the investors shit is just that, fetid stinking steaming shit. Cry a river of it. Then go swimming.
Re:Annoying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Annoying. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. The last mile is prone to natural monopoly. It doesn't make sense to install multiple fibers.
So the core decision is preference between handing the last-mile monopoly over to a private company, or to the government. A pretty good case can be made for the government solution. I'd sure like more than one choice (aka no choice) in provider for my cable Internet.
Re:Government ISP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Annoying. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you willing to pay for it in higher taxes?
Re:Annoying. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Annoying. (Score:4, Insightful)
In cases like this with unclear optimal solutions, the government gets out of the way and lets private industry pick the horses. The government provides the easement for placing the lines, but responsibility for constructing and maintaining the lines rests with the private companies. That way a wide variety of solutions are tried, not on the government's dime, and over time it becomes clear which solutions are superior.
At this point though, it's pretty clear that fiber to the home is the future. There's still some uncertainty about exactly the type of fiber interfaces, but for the most part changing those won't require burying completely new cable. So while I think it was necessary to have the intermediate step where private companies offered different types of Internet service, I can also agree with now having the government provide Internet service over fiber lines. (Well, provide the fiber lines. The service itself along with any peering agreements should be offered by private companies, since it's not at all clear what arrangement of peering agreements is optimal.)
Government of the people ? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first came to America I was very impressed with the idea that America has a government of the people, by the people and for the people
For a kid from a Communist country, I can't tell you how much awe I had for the notion that a government is actually on the side of the people !
But then ... I was naive
It turns out that the government of the United States is not what I imagined to be
The government of China is definitely NOT on the side of the people - and they do not have to be, because they never say that they are a democracy
But in the United States of America, we are supposed to be a Democracy, which means that the government has to rely on the VOTES of the people in order to be formed
So, what the fuck has gone wrong ???
Re:multiple cell towers too, or grocery stores (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why there would be multiple ISPs AT THE DATACENTER.
Do you have ten different sets of plumbing running to your house so you can pick and choose between the best supplier of fresh water? A dozen different power cables so you can switch power company easily?
Re:Government of the people ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government of the people ? (Score:4, Insightful)
And here's why they win. They've convinced Americans that the battle lines are "left vs. right", "republican vs. democrat", "liberal vs. socialist".
This keeps people fighting amongst themselves, arguing whether their shade of grey is the "right" way to run a government.
It's pretty obvious to an outsider what the power division is in America. It's pretty obvious if you look at america's decline over the past decades & see how authority has been consolidated & maintained. It's pretty obvious if you look at how fear and uncertainty are utilized by the government to herd the population in the direction they want them to go.
The battle lines are: "rich vs. poor". They almost always have been.
Until people understand that, and as long as people believe that stupid side issues like minor health care reforms (and yes, they are quite minor), gay marriage, abortion, gun ownership, immigration reform, etc are what is going to ruin / save the country, the longer the people in power stay that way.