Comcast Tries To Derail Fort Collins Community Broadband (dslreports.com) 93
Karl Bode reports of Comcast's efforts to "derail Fort Collins community broadband": Colorado is one of more than twenty states where incumbent broadband ISPs have quite literally written and purchased state protectionist laws prohibiting towns and cities from getting into the broadband business, even in instances where the private sector has failed to deliver. But Colorado is unique in that town and cities in the state have been able to vote locally on whether to overturn this ISP-lobbying-for- law, SB 152. And guess what? They keep voting to exempt themselves from the law, usually overwhelmingly. Dozens of cities and towns continue to opt out of the restrictive state measure during local elections. More than 100 have done it so far, which should tell you plenty about how locals feel about their local broadband options. Fort Collins, Colorado will be the latest to try and table a petition on November 7 simply exploring the idea of opting out of this state provision and considering a city-run broadband network. But Motherboard highlights how incumbent ISPs like Comcast have already spent more than $200,000 to prevent this conversation from even happening. To be clear Fort Collins isn't certain to proceed with such a network, but incumbent ISPs are terrified they've even begun to have the conversation, and have been running ads like this one to try and derail it.
america (Score:5, Insightful)
Government of the people, by the corporations, for the profit.
If you can't vote and can't be put in jail, you shouldn't be able to lobby or contribute to politicians. Corporations are NOT people.
Re: (Score:2)
They are people when it helps them, and not people when it would not... They get the best of both worlds...
I'm thinking of morphing into a company myself...
Re: (Score:1)
Anonymous, Inc.?
Re: (Score:1)
If you can self identify as a company, I should be able to self identify as a dog, and be allowed to run around naked and pee wherever I dam well feel like.
Its a brave new post modern world.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't far from the reality today. As insane as it sounds, if you fuck your wife with your dick and she gets pregnant, you can legally claim "Well, I was actually biologically a female the entire time!" even if you look and talk like Arnold Schwarzenegger, sport a beard, and have made no attempt to even look female, because identity is now legally considered to be fluid in most cases.
This is called identity politics. You're just a consciousness, and your intelligence and identity has nothing to do with
Re:america (Score:4, Funny)
Re: america (Score:4, Interesting)
$200k is a couple dozen ad spots on the local TV and radio station
Unless you're the cable company and you can run ads as often as you want for free within your own system.
Re: (Score:3)
It's part of the carriage contract.
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming they're able to sell all of even the prime time slots. The loss of profit combined with the sunk operating cost means they're losing far less money running ads on their own network. Whether you truly call it free or not is a matter of perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Again and again.. sometimes I have to compare this to the plot-line for the rebellion in the two-season scifi series Continuum.
The series centers on the conflict between a group of terrorists from the year 2077 who time travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2012, and a police officer who unintentionally accompanies them. In spite of being many years early, the terrorist group decides to continue its violent campaign to stop corporations of the future from replacing governments, while the police officer
Re: (Score:2)
Again and again.. sometimes I have to compare this to the plot-line for the rebellion in the two-season scifi series Continuum.
The series centers on the conflict between a group of terrorists from the year 2077 who time travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, in 2012, and a police officer who unintentionally accompanies them. In spite of being many years early, the terrorist group decides to continue its violent campaign to stop corporations of the future from replacing governments, while the police officer endeavours to stop them without revealing to everyone that she and the terrorists are from the future.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1954347/
Continuum ran for four seasons, a total of 42 episodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
ALL Internet service (and cable TV) should be municipally owned, and run as a non-profit utility that is billed at cost. Something has to be done to control the extreme insane price gouging that the big ISPs and Cable TV companies are perpetrating on us.
Italy (Score:1)
Keep an Eye Out (Score:3)
Keep a very close eye out on the state GOP reps and senators that have pushed this legislation to see where the kickbacks are going.and who is getting them.
As Ben Franklin said, the constitution created for us a republic, if we can keep it. With the GOP in charge stand a very good chance of loosing it.
Longmont (Score:1)
It took a couple tries to get it passed in Longmont (45min south of Ft Collins) but we now have fiber broadband. Built out very quickly
Re: Longmont (Score:2, Informative)
Super fast too! I just moved to Longmont from Berthoud and I wrnt from paying Comcast $60 per month for 25Mbps to paying Nextlight $50 for 1000Mbps (actually, my wireless router seems to max out at around 700Mbps, but that's not really Nextlight's fault).
Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of Comcast :-)
Re: (Score:1)
How the internet should be...
Local governments install and maintain their own broadband cables (just like the sewers, water pipes, roads, and so on) and then the ISPs pay us for the privilege of using the last kilometre/mile. With fiber, there's plenty of bandwidth to our homes for providers to share.
Gas and electric is another discussion, and another legacy, but the same principle applies: municipalities should own the infrastructure to the dwellings, and providers should pay for the privilege of connectin
Re: Longmont (Score:1)
Does Colorado ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The federal government typically gets involved to prevent state rights when it comes to corporations. They have done it to override the energy industry with fracking. Even if the both the state and county vote against ruining their environment the federal government will override and nullify the laws usually with executive orders by the president or pork barrelled in an unrelated bill like a federal budget.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the other way around. Nobody is stopping Comcast from putting in their own fiber. But Comcast is interfering with a public function.
To Table something - US vs Brits (Score:5, Informative)
" Fort Collins, Colorado will be the latest to try and table a petition..."
US English - to table something means to put it away without further discussion. "Let's table this motion till next week."
British English - to table something means to place it on the table for discussion. "Let's table this ISP motion and vote on it."
I always thought DSLReports was US based and used US English... who knew?
E
P.S. WAY TO GO FT COLLINS and the other 100 CO cities that have fingered "you're number one" to Comcast and the telcos.
Re: (Score:2)
This one? https://www.amazon.com/Large-F... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think they accidentally a few words and meant that Comcast was trying to table it.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, I believe “tabling” something is used in the sense that it’s currently somewhere more prominent (i.e. in our hands, up front, on the screen, etc.), so tabling it would be a reduction in its prominence, whereas elsewhere it’s assumed that it’s being put before everyone. But yes, I agree it’s confusing, especially since we already have a shelf for that as well, and I’m glad we agree on the meaning of “putting something on the table”.
Re: (Score:2)
Your understanding is thorough, and because of it you are missing the point, that the slashdot summary is usually inconsistent with the content of the article.
I don't give a fuck about traffic. (Score:1)
But I sure could use the new fiberoptic link. I think Comcast underestimates how much people actually care about fast broadband therese days.
How about this? (Score:4, Funny)
You paid $200K to not have any competition? Then you have to invest at least $400K into building/upgrading the infrastructure that you just prevented from happening. You have one year otherwise you forfeit your rights, you lose your $200K and you give everything built/upgraded so far to the competition you just prevented.
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote at least $400K.
What's the point of paying not to have competition (how is that even legal in the first place, it's bribes and corruption) and then not take over the market you just paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Expect a $50 government surcharge in your next Comcast bill. Have a nice day
Re:How about this? (Score:4, Insightful)
You paid $200K to not have any competition?
No, they paid $200k for advertising to express their ideas and opinions. And it isn't just "not have any competition", it is to prevent taxpayer based, non-profit, non-franchised competition. Three very important concepts.
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system. It's money taken under threat of force from everyone in a municipality. There is no risk to the investors, they are going to get their money back whether the project is a success or not. They're the rich people who are making profit by investing. The same rich people that we think already make too much money. Tax-free muni bonds are a low-risk profit maker for investors.
The system is non-profit, which means they can undercut the incumbent and force it out of business by always having lower costs. We have laws against corporations "dumping" to do this, and people routinely oppose companies like Walmart that can afford to operate at a loss for some time in a new market, but if a city can do the same thing to a for-profit that's just peachy?
And finally, the municipality is avoiding the franchise process altogether. That's the laws and contracts that require the incumbent cable company to pay fees for access to the public rights-of-way, and provide certain service guarantees like covering the entire franchise area with a variety of services, not just internet. Even if the "city broadband" pays franchise fees, they are paying them to itself and thus what one hand counts as an expense the other counts as profit.
How is it hard to imagine that any company that has invested money and time into building a system, based on contracts signed by both parties, to oppose a change that makes their contracts still binding but doesn't require those who compete with them to have the same provisions? If you ran an auto repair shop, let's say, where you had contracted with the city to lease a parcel of land from them with a provision that they'd send all city maintenance to your shop, and suddenly the city is letting a competitor use city land for their auto shop for free, paying the competitor's employees, and sending all their business to that other shop, wouldn't you object?
you forfeit your rights, you lose your $200K and you give everything built/upgraded so far to the competition you just prevented.
This is a fascinating idea, and I wonder how we apply it to other advertising. Do political candidates who spend $200k in political advertising but don't win the election owe $200k to the winning competitor and have to give the winner all of their campaign stuff? The losing political candidate did try to spend $200k to not have any competition, so why wouldn't your idea apply?
What is scarier is the "forfeit your rights". The right to free speech is kinda important. Or maybe every losing candidate in a political arena loses his right to free speech and we never hear from them again. One and done. Yeah, I like it.
If the broadband market is so underserved that cities think they have to do it, why aren't there more broadband companies springing up to serve this teeming mass of yearning netizens? You'd think that anyone who came to town offering a cheaper alternative to the incumbent, using cheaper distribution systems and not burdened by non-internet services (like paying ESPN and local broadcast carriage fees for cable TV) would be raking in cash hand over fist.
And yet, we hear that these companies don't show up. They leave the huge piles of cash on the table for the cable company to rake in. (We "hear" that, because in my city there is an alternative that uses cheaper distribution systems and is competing quite well.)
Comcast cannot stop competitors who follow the required franchise process from entering the market, so where are the competitors -- if there is a demand?
The fine article tries to point out that the
Re:How about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they paid $200k for advertising to express their ideas and opinions. And it isn't just "not have any competition", it is to prevent taxpayer based, non-profit, non-franchised competition. Three very important concepts.
I have received three mailings and seen ads on Satellite TV "local" channels from a coordinated disinformation campaign opposing the city's proposal. The points made are carefully crafted to scare voters into believing in highly unlikely risks and that municipal internet will take away from other priorities (specifically road maintenance). While I do consider this free speech, the views expressed appear carefully crafted talking points that have distinctly false implications rather than honest "ideas and opinions".
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system.
Not true. While, the taxpayers are the ultimate guarantor of the bonds, it will be subscribers to this network who pay the costs, including the interest and principal on this debt. The proposal has to be revenue neutral - otherwise it is a tax which the city cannot under Colorado law raise without a new vote.
The system is non-profit, which means they can undercut the incumbent and force it out of business by always having lower costs.
Boo, hoo! The sole reason the city is looking into this is that the "market" has failed to provide the options that many of us want, and has unreasonably elevated prices due to lack of competition.
And finally, the municipality is avoiding the franchise process altogether. That's the laws and contracts that require the incumbent cable company to pay fees for access to the public rights-of-way, and provide certain service guarantees like covering the entire franchise area with a variety of services, not just internet. Even if the "city broadband" pays franchise fees, they are paying them to itself and thus what one hand counts as an expense the other counts as profit.
The franchise model is a choice a city makes coupled with an agreement with a franchisee to provide access to the internet to the people in the city. When better options become available, it is the city's duty to explore them. Comcast is working hard to prevent this, having lobbied hard to pass a ridiculous anti-municipal-competition law, and now flooding the city of Fort Collins with misinformation. We owe them no duty of "fairness" vis-a-vis existing franchise fees here. Indeed, if Comcast cannot provide better service than the city at a better price, then they should no longer be entitled to a privileged monopoly withing the city.
How is it hard to imagine that any company that has invested money and time into building a system, based on contracts signed by both parties, to oppose a change that makes their contracts still binding but doesn't require those who compete with them to have the same provisions? If you ran an auto repair shop, let's say, where you had contracted with the city to lease a parcel of land from them with a provision that they'd send all city maintenance to your shop, and suddenly the city is letting a competitor use city land for their auto shop for free, paying the competitor's employees, and sending all their business to that other shop, wouldn't you object?
Giant cable companies are the opposite of naive in business dealings like this, taking advantage of loopholes and lobbying strongly (>$18M, in the case of Comcast) to get what they want. This is the big league and if Comcast can't make it, they don't deserve to play.
Re: (Score:2)
and that municipal internet will take away from other priorities (specifically road maintenance).
The taxpayers are not a bottomless pocket. I've already pointed out, if you get a $150 million levy for a bond to build municipal internet, you are a LOT less likely to get any bonds for other things like building roads or schools or hospitals or whatever else might be more important. And the focus of the government becomes passing this bond measure instead of working on other things. They do specifically consider the timing of bond and tax measures based on likely voter reaction to being asked for too much
Re:How about this?...Contracts (Score:1)
The idea of a contract is great in theory. (Generally) two parties freely choosing to bind themselves to an (assumed to be) mutually beneficial agreement. In practice, not so much especially when the contract is between entities of grossly disparate positions of "power" (which means whatever it needs to mean to enable discussion).
There is little "freely" when the choice is to accept an agreement written by a more powerful entity with no possibility of negotiation or do without a facility that is in a pra
Re: (Score:2)
There is little "freely" when the choice is to accept an agreement written by a more powerful entity with no possibility of negotiation or do without a facility that is in a practical sense a basic requirement of reasonable participation in society.
Cable TV is not a basic requirement. The Cable TV companies did not write the franchise agreements. I was involved in the local government when we dealt with franchises, and the one we had contained a LOT of stuff that the cable company would rather not have there. We demanded PEG facilities and complaint response rates and had authority to veto channel changes. We pissed the cable company off on a regular basis by asking for, and getting, revenue statements to make sure they were operating within the profi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system. It's money taken under threat of force from everyone in a municipality. There is no risk to the investors, they are going to get their money back whether the project is a success or not. They're the rich people who are making profit by investing. The same rich people that we think already make too much money. Tax-free muni bonds are a low-risk profit maker for investors.
You reference the second sentence later in this diatribe, so presumably you just forgot. "The broadband budget is going to be funded 100 percent through subscriber fees," Atkins noted. "If you don't build the network, it doesn't magically create $150 million to spend on something else". Historically this is exactly what happens. Here is the exact same scenario played out a couple years earlier in california. Those people now enjoy $50 gigabit internet, and the taxpayers there never even needed to be forcib
Re: (Score:2)
You reference the second sentence later in this diatribe, so presumably you just forgot. "The broadband budget is going to be funded 100 percent through subscriber fees,"
Which means unless they get enough subscribers, they are going to be raising rates to cover the costs, or they are going to cut services. They cannot make this guarantee otherwise. They also will have ZERO subscribers while they are building the system, but building the system requires money. This money comes from -- the taxpayers. Involuntary investors.
Why do you believe politicians when they talk about blue-sky predictions of municipal broadband, but not when they talk about other things? Are politicians
Video comments (Score:5, Interesting)
"Comments have been disabled for this video"
I'm shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
The free market, and ONLY the free market, should decide who wins.
Sure. Let's get rid of the Sherman Act, and let ONLY the free market decide. You are naive, and ignorant of history.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a democracy (Score:2)
'Cause the internet won't speed this up (Score:5, Informative)
From the Comcast ad
It absolutely will.
I work from home, logged into my employer's computers over the internet.
That takes my car off the road 10 trips per week, during rush hour, the busiest time of day.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an easier way to speed up that traffic. It's cheap and effective, now hear me out because it will get complicated...
Wait 40seconds for the light to change to green. Seriously that is the amount of traffic in that city? I'm moving there! It's a utopia. The fact that Comcast thinks this high speed is a problem actually says a lot.
Municipal Broadband is awesome! (Score:1, Informative)
I live in Longmont, a city of 100,000 an hour south of Ft. Collins. Longmont set up a municipal broadband utility (NextLight) and is over 60% of the way to running fiber to every single building in city limits (29 square miles). My neighborhood got wired a year ago. I've got $50/month gigabit fiber that runs speedtest at over 930 mb/s - no transfer limits, no extra charges. It was even rated the fastest broadband in the country. Seriously, every medium-sized city should do this. Six people in the house, 20+
Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Against It Too (Score:2)
Were members of Fort Collins' Chamber of Commerce paid off by Comcast? I ask because they're against the idea and are pushing for a "No" vote.
Their statement: "While supporting the concept of a connected community, the Chamber is opposing this ballot issue while encouraging the City to come back with a stronger plan that favors public private partnerships"
Re: (Score:2)
Which invariably translates to "take public money and put it in private hands".
That advert is fantastic (Score:2)
'Cause the internet won't speed this [traffic] up.
Check out that traffic. There's like 2 cars in front of him at a red light in an otherwise completely clear road system.
They want to build more bridges and flash a picture of an over-constructed underutilised bridge.
They want to spend more on public safety even though they have spare fire engines sitting around doing nothing.
I can understand why Comcast finds this kind of available infrastructure threatening. People may actually get used to things going smoothly at expected pace.
Re: (Score:2)
That commercial was annoying as hell but I never would have seen it if it weren't for Slashdot.
I live in Fort Collins and traffic is very light.
It's sort of relative though. After living here for a while I sometimes curse at it, but then I remember when I lived in larger cities where traffic was really bad.
If I have to wait more than one light cycle to get through an intersection it means I shouldn't have ventured out during "rush hour" which doesn't actually exist here.
I am not going to vote the way Comc
Monopoly (Score:2)
The GOP hates hates communists so much because they dislike the competition with their mercantilistic monopolies.
Having a state run industry is THEIR thing - they just make sure it's owned by people that pay them rather than the citizens that vote for them.
Comcast executives (Score:2)
Comcast executives should be executed. By torture.
I have Comcast (Score:2)
Re: Comcast 1 Gbps for $499/month here. (Score:1)