Comments on: Cities brace for broadband war
Across the U.S., cities are planning tax-funded broadband networks. But they face fierce resistance from Bells and cable operators.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- AT&T resumes online iPhone sales in NY
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
- Quark Promote lets novices make promo materials
December 28, 2009 1:39 PM PST
- Consumer groups urge block of Google-AdMob deal
December 28, 2009 12:45 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I am in Lafayette Louisiana working on bringing Fiber here... One thing that seems to be missing here in the conversation of Municiple vs. Private Business is - WE TRIED PRIVATE BUSINESS - we begged Bell South and Cox Cable for a YEAR! No go, the only thing they told us is that they would bring "FIBER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD" in the next 10 years. This is just not acceptable.
Municiple is the only way to go for us, other Cities may have the option of having a private company who wants to do this for them and sees the opportunity. We have TERRIBLE broadband access now, and the incumbants have been terribly slow to respond and slow to upgrade services.
Hope that helps in the discussion.
THANKS
Stephen Handwerk
LafayetteComingTogether.com
Why make uninformed comments? Corperations grow into areas steadily over time. They aren't in the business of going broke trying to build out areas that don't offer a good ROI. With growing, any business must still keep it's level of service high and the cost of doing business with connections to other networks, service rollouts and network maintenance cost more the bigger you get.
I'm also sick of hearing that TV, and broadband are like public utilities when they are not. Just think of all the good things you could do if you didn't sit your lazy @$$ down and watch more TV and surf more porn.
You might even be able to teach underprivledged kids how to get a leg up, get some discipline, and get somewhere, instead of giving them a way to spend more time on thier @$$es. Don't wonder why Americans are the fatest people on the planet.
Please don't kid anyone when you say it's for edjucation unless you teach them how to use a pc safely and correctly- they'll be playing games or downloading/sharing music and spreading viruses causing the network to slow down worse than everyone coming home to check thier email.
Basically anyone that stands to make $$$ of this project will try to argue every point in thier favor.
I'm not buying into any of it, I won't be paying for it and those in office will be wise to spend thier time fixing the real problems the citizens are complaining about instead of how to make America into the new socialist republic. I mean let's all think really hard about what our government is elected to do. If they can't fix the current issues facing them, they'll never be able to fix something as complex as a fiber network.
//EOR
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/21/100/
BPL is not shut down in all of the cities where it has been tried, though.
For more information on BPL, see http://www.arrl.org/bpl
Ed Hare
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/10/21/100/
BPL is not shut down in all of the cities where it has been tried, though.
For more information on BPL, see http://www.arrl.org/bpl
Ed Hare
First, no sane company would want to be a business partner of a local government, knowing that it would evitably be the first get squeezed when city hall needs more money. If you a politican what would you choose: (a) raise taxes, (b) cut social service, or (c) extract more money from a few companies, who end up taking the blame for higher fees? Even in the unlikely event that the project is successful, there is no guarantee that it would continue. Newly elected official could pull the plug out of party politics. A Republican might want to please Christian fundamentalists who object to the city's involvement in spreading smut. A Democrat might might make unreasonable change to the cost structure because he was compaigning against corporate greed. And there's always Joe Citizen, who might put a completely uneconomical proposal on the ballot. Basically, it's a no-win situation.
Second, a multitier system is inefficient. The system is by design inefficient already, building out the area where the utilization is low. Adding in middlemen to the equation would only it worse. The competition that you mentioned would yield little when the companies have only one supplier--the government--with whom they have zero bargaining power.
Third, service would be terrible. When something goes wrong, the companies will blame the government and the companies will blame the government.
Fourth...I could go on but that's really beating a dead horse.
First, no sane company would want to be a business partner of a local government, knowing that it would evitably be the first get squeezed when city hall needs more money. If you a politican what would you choose: (a) raise taxes, (b) cut social service, or (c) extract more money from a few companies, who end up taking the blame for higher fees? Even in the unlikely event that the project is successful, there is no guarantee that it would continue. Newly elected official could pull the plug out of party politics. A Republican might want to please Christian fundamentalists who object to the city's involvement in spreading smut. A Democrat might might make unreasonable change to the cost structure because he was compaigning against corporate greed. And there's always Joe Citizen, who might put a completely uneconomical proposal on the ballot. Basically, it's a no-win situation.
Second, a multitier system is inefficient. The system is by design inefficient already, building out the area where the utilization is low. Adding in middlemen to the equation would only it worse. The competition that you mentioned would yield little when the companies have only one supplier--the government--with whom they have zero bargaining power.
Third, service would be terrible. When something goes wrong, the companies will blame the government and the companies will blame the government.
Fourth...I could go on but that's really beating a dead horse.
I add this suggested reading to the mix: check out http://
mediacitizen.blogspot.com for more information on
corporate control of public information utilities like
broadband and dial up.
See also In These Times story on Broadband Companies
take over of the internet now going through courts that
could affect your ability to go anywhere and see anything
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2077/
I would much rather the local public government run cable
internet connections than corporations. At least with the
government I get a vote. When was the last time you
organized a shareholder meeting of a corporation to make
a change in their by laws? Nada zip never.
And in the interest of information equal to power, power
should be distributed as far and wide as Jefferson possible.
That means the corporate control and greed should now
and public utilities should either mandate broad public
networks at low cost like in Korea ( where they have 10 x
the through put at $20 a month -- come on Comcast--
Korea? ) or cities should take over cable, build cable and
wireless and run them.
To sum up: corporations involved in high speed internet
are now seeking to change the laws and make the internet
just like cable tv and tv where you have no say about what
you see and a range of viewing options that 300 channels
deep and no different from each other.
Search for Cable & Telecommunications Association v.
Brand X Internet Services to see more on this.
2. Internet high speed access is a public right and should
be available free or at low cost to every citizen.
3. Cities and states should work together to create
interstate information highways that give citizens, not
corporations-- control over internet activities.
Best to all.
Tim
You honestly can't tell me that you trust the government to do a better job at providing hi-speed broadband than private industry ?
2)What article in the constitution gives us this broadband internet right?
3)South Korea is a much smaller country than the USA,that is why they are able provide hi speed broadband to more of it's citizens.
I add this suggested reading to the mix: check out http://
mediacitizen.blogspot.com for more information on
corporate control of public information utilities like
broadband and dial up.
See also In These Times story on Broadband Companies
take over of the internet now going through courts that
could affect your ability to go anywhere and see anything
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2077/
I would much rather the local public government run cable
internet connections than corporations. At least with the
government I get a vote. When was the last time you
organized a shareholder meeting of a corporation to make
a change in their by laws? Nada zip never.
And in the interest of information equal to power, power
should be distributed as far and wide as Jefferson possible.
That means the corporate control and greed should now
and public utilities should either mandate broad public
networks at low cost like in Korea ( where they have 10 x
the through put at $20 a month -- come on Comcast--
Korea? ) or cities should take over cable, build cable and
wireless and run them.
To sum up: corporations involved in high speed internet
are now seeking to change the laws and make the internet
just like cable tv and tv where you have no say about what
you see and a range of viewing options that 300 channels
deep and no different from each other.
Search for Cable & Telecommunications Association v.
Brand X Internet Services to see more on this.
2. Internet high speed access is a public right and should
be available free or at low cost to every citizen.
3. Cities and states should work together to create
interstate information highways that give citizens, not
corporations-- control over internet activities.
Best to all.
Tim
You honestly can't tell me that you trust the government to do a better job at providing hi-speed broadband than private industry ?
2)What article in the constitution gives us this broadband internet right?
3)South Korea is a much smaller country than the USA,that is why they are able provide hi speed broadband to more of it's citizens.
There are plenty of commercial companies who don't take your tax money and then charge you for using thier service. Plus those same companies also inject millions into local communities.
What if I had a different service- do I still have to pay the tax?
The bottom line is this isn't something government should do. They regulate those business who provide that, which is direct conflict of interest.
I'm suprised the so-called citizen's are even considering this. I wonder which one's have the gov's ear.
sad.
Internet would be the same way. After costs were taxed, maintaining the networks would be a small tax. OR they COULD justify it as a revenue maker...that would have to go to voters.
If they billed a high price to access the broadband, then they would intend to directly compete for SAME people the high priced broadband companies do now. There is NO incentive for broadband companies to LOWER prices to get a few dollars from low-income people.
There are plenty of commercial companies who don't take your tax money and then charge you for using thier service. Plus those same companies also inject millions into local communities.
What if I had a different service- do I still have to pay the tax?
The bottom line is this isn't something government should do. They regulate those business who provide that, which is direct conflict of interest.
I'm suprised the so-called citizen's are even considering this. I wonder which one's have the gov's ear.
sad.
Internet would be the same way. After costs were taxed, maintaining the networks would be a small tax. OR they COULD justify it as a revenue maker...that would have to go to voters.
If they billed a high price to access the broadband, then they would intend to directly compete for SAME people the high priced broadband companies do now. There is NO incentive for broadband companies to LOWER prices to get a few dollars from low-income people.
Although market forces often respond effectively to meet societal demands, the profit potential for a service/commodity does not always correspond with its societal demand.
The development of utility services serves to illustrate this point. As Americans, we agreed early on that telephone service should be universal; rural and urban customers should have equal access to quality service. In pursuit of this goal, as a society we agreed to a system of cross-subsidization whereby low-cost urban residents subsidized their relatively high-cost rural counterparts and business customers subsidized residential users.
Now perhaps you believe that this sort of government intervention was unnecessary and that residents and rural users should have been forced to pay what the market required. I would argue that we, as a nation, benefitted from this service universality and would have been far worse the wear had our "red states" remained isolated from their lack of a connection to the outside world.
Those of you that oppose regulation requiring the ILECs to roll out advanced services to all residents in their service territories AND oppose any form of municipal entry are clearly blinded by your market ideology. You need to give some ground and be reasonable.
Recognize that monopolistic utility behemoths providing telecom services are fundamentally different than lemonade stands selling juice in perfectly competitive markets. Although, we can start buying lemonade from "Stand B" (or C, or D...) when "Stand A" becomes too expensive, as consumers, we are invidually powerless over the utilities who (if unregulated) decide who will receive services and how much they will pay.
Although market forces often respond effectively to meet societal demands, the profit potential for a service/commodity does not always correspond with its societal demand.
The development of utility services serves to illustrate this point. As Americans, we agreed early on that telephone service should be universal; rural and urban customers should have equal access to quality service. In pursuit of this goal, as a society we agreed to a system of cross-subsidization whereby low-cost urban residents subsidized their relatively high-cost rural counterparts and business customers subsidized residential users.
Now perhaps you believe that this sort of government intervention was unnecessary and that residents and rural users should have been forced to pay what the market required. I would argue that we, as a nation, benefitted from this service universality and would have been far worse the wear had our "red states" remained isolated from their lack of a connection to the outside world.
Those of you that oppose regulation requiring the ILECs to roll out advanced services to all residents in their service territories AND oppose any form of municipal entry are clearly blinded by your market ideology. You need to give some ground and be reasonable.
Recognize that monopolistic utility behemoths providing telecom services are fundamentally different than lemonade stands selling juice in perfectly competitive markets. Although, we can start buying lemonade from "Stand B" (or C, or D...) when "Stand A" becomes too expensive, as consumers, we are invidually powerless over the utilities who (if unregulated) decide who will receive services and how much they will pay.
-preventing profiteering
-providing equitable access to all citizens
-eliminating any possible redundancy
The same standard applies to water, gas, and electric. So why is information different, just because it has a basis in entertainment? Because a cable company once strung line on government-owned telephone poles (yes, those poles that Verizon claims they own are actually gov't property leased to them)?
Local and state governments have one power that trumps all of this: eminent domain. Condemn the telephone poles and hire a contractor to string fiber. Lease connectivity to the fiber backbone to anyone. The leasing pays for the build-out. It's that simple.
I mean, Pennsylvania has to ask VERIZON to build infrastructure? It's so nice to see that your elected officials still have nice, easy to read price tags. Anyone voting for the cowards who passed that legislation deserve dialup forever. Losers.
-Remo
-preventing profiteering
-providing equitable access to all citizens
-eliminating any possible redundancy
The same standard applies to water, gas, and electric. So why is information different, just because it has a basis in entertainment? Because a cable company once strung line on government-owned telephone poles (yes, those poles that Verizon claims they own are actually gov't property leased to them)?
Local and state governments have one power that trumps all of this: eminent domain. Condemn the telephone poles and hire a contractor to string fiber. Lease connectivity to the fiber backbone to anyone. The leasing pays for the build-out. It's that simple.
I mean, Pennsylvania has to ask VERIZON to build infrastructure? It's so nice to see that your elected officials still have nice, easy to read price tags. Anyone voting for the cowards who passed that legislation deserve dialup forever. Losers.
-Remo
- for more info on Lafayette Louisiana debate
- by May 7, 2005 9:12 AM PDT
- For links to all sites debating municipal broadband in Lafayette Louisiana
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 4 pages (164 Comments)www.gumbofile2.blogspot.com