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.

for more info on Lafayette Louisiana debate

For links to all sites debating municipal broadband in Lafayette Louisiana

www.gumbofile2.blogspot.com

Cities Offering Broadband

As a retiree I cannot afford both a dial-up ISP AND Broadband service at today's current high prices. State/Local governments should be allowed to offer this service if they desire to do so. This provides more competition & hopefully, lower prices. I'm shocked Fla. & other states have specifically disallowed this competion. It just proves (again & again) "Big Business" runs the country & not what's best for the common people.

Cities Offering Broadband

As a retiree I cannot afford both a dial-up ISP AND Broadband service at today's current high prices. State/Local governments should be allowed to offer this service if they desire to do so. This provides more competition & hopefully, lower prices. I'm shocked Fla. & other states have specifically disallowed this competion. It just proves (again & again) "Big Business" runs the country & not what's best for the common people.

SBC took over DSL in SF giving less for more!

Our initial DSL service for public consumption in San Francisco was provided by small innovators with limited service areas,all using leased Pacific Bell lines. The ADSL was great, and coexisted peacefully with Pac Bell's service when it started up. The service was expensive at ~$50 a month, but allowed those who could not afford fast systems to have web access at a useful speed. When SBC took over, the small providers were closed out and the only option was SBC's "DSL"...a PPPOe service which ties up all resources on older systems and is barely faster than dial-up. They claimed to lack the equipment for ADSL, inspite of the fact that their lines and hubs were the very ones used previously. The reality was that they did not want to maintain the servers and D-slams required to do the job properly, and since they were the only game in town, figured that they didn't have to. They would make your system do all the work, but charge the same rate for a service that rendered many home systems useless and closed a lot of home businesses. After 2 years, we finally are seeing a few small ADSL services starting up again-I guess enough disgusted users quit SBC and went back to dial-up that they were forced to lease the lines again. If it takes the threat of publicly controlled broadband to bring prices down and service up: so be it. The big providers keep forgetting the meaning of service, and don't care that internet access is the one thing that allows many low-income persons to find any work at all. I spend 6 or more hours a day on line scrambling for work, and several more executing contracts, doing follow-ups, and searching for the opportunities and information which might let me dig my way out of the hole I am in now. Even if a publicly held service was PPPOe, at least it would be cheaper and if it was ADSL, SBC would have to lower the price for their sad offering- to a level that is more in keeping with the reduced service. Wi-Fi is already almost blanketing the city, and soon the little providers will power up more hubs and the D-slams will expand to my area. I will be the first to change over...paying $20 less for ADSL and cutting my computer time in half. I say if the big guys won't administer DSL fairly, it should be publicly controlled. It would be a whole lot easier if they would just provide a good service at a fair price.

SBC took over DSL in SF giving less for more!

Our initial DSL service for public consumption in San Francisco was provided by small innovators with limited service areas,all using leased Pacific Bell lines. The ADSL was great, and coexisted peacefully with Pac Bell's service when it started up. The service was expensive at ~$50 a month, but allowed those who could not afford fast systems to have web access at a useful speed. When SBC took over, the small providers were closed out and the only option was SBC's "DSL"...a PPPOe service which ties up all resources on older systems and is barely faster than dial-up. They claimed to lack the equipment for ADSL, inspite of the fact that their lines and hubs were the very ones used previously. The reality was that they did not want to maintain the servers and D-slams required to do the job properly, and since they were the only game in town, figured that they didn't have to. They would make your system do all the work, but charge the same rate for a service that rendered many home systems useless and closed a lot of home businesses. After 2 years, we finally are seeing a few small ADSL services starting up again-I guess enough disgusted users quit SBC and went back to dial-up that they were forced to lease the lines again. If it takes the threat of publicly controlled broadband to bring prices down and service up: so be it. The big providers keep forgetting the meaning of service, and don't care that internet access is the one thing that allows many low-income persons to find any work at all. I spend 6 or more hours a day on line scrambling for work, and several more executing contracts, doing follow-ups, and searching for the opportunities and information which might let me dig my way out of the hole I am in now. Even if a publicly held service was PPPOe, at least it would be cheaper and if it was ADSL, SBC would have to lower the price for their sad offering- to a level that is more in keeping with the reduced service. Wi-Fi is already almost blanketing the city, and soon the little providers will power up more hubs and the D-slams will expand to my area. I will be the first to change over...paying $20 less for ADSL and cutting my computer time in half. I say if the big guys won't administer DSL fairly, it should be publicly controlled. It would be a whole lot easier if they would just provide a good service at a fair price.

Confirmation

Confirmation

wireless acess

Why do not individuals (voters) have some say in how states go
on the matter of municipal (including states)involvement of
wireless networks for municipalities (including states).

[Thomas, David]

Internet Connectivity Is NOT the Domain of Corporations

The internet was founded by ARPA, an arm of the government.
It took the arm pulling and cajoling of independent consultants
for the telephone companies and cable providers to EVEN
CONSIDER providing internet access. It hasn't even been ten
years since the companies even provided this service, and now
they want to claim it as their domain?!

A handful of cities, across the country, first gained the ability for
internet access by coupling this service with their electric
companies. Within these communities it was a run-away
success.

[Thomas, David]

Internet Connectivity Is NOT the Domain of Corporations

The internet was founded by ARPA, an arm of the government.
It took the arm pulling and cajoling of independent consultants
for the telephone companies and cable providers to EVEN
CONSIDER providing internet access. It hasn't even been ten
years since the companies even provided this service, and now
they want to claim it as their domain?!

A handful of cities, across the country, first gained the ability for
internet access by coupling this service with their electric
companies. Within these communities it was a run-away
success.

[fredmenace]

The companies are scared

Obviously not all local governments are going to want to do this, and obviously some will do it well and some will do it poorly. But in the past, some cities have run their own utilities services, offering better service and lower prices than the major corporate providers in the area (such as PG&E). The possibility that they would run a broadband internet access service better and cheaper than Comcast, SBC or Verizon scares the bejeezus out of those corporations, as it would erode their profit margins. They like the current competition just fine, because it only forces them to be as good as one or two other competitors, who also have poor customer service and bloated prices, and robust profit margins to protect. But a government-run entity with potentially no profit motive would be too much competition, in their mind.

State governments banning local governments from providing such services is despicable, but hardly surprising - just another example of who really runs government at the state level and above (money talks).

[fredmenace]

The companies are scared

Obviously not all local governments are going to want to do this, and obviously some will do it well and some will do it poorly. But in the past, some cities have run their own utilities services, offering better service and lower prices than the major corporate providers in the area (such as PG&E). The possibility that they would run a broadband internet access service better and cheaper than Comcast, SBC or Verizon scares the bejeezus out of those corporations, as it would erode their profit margins. They like the current competition just fine, because it only forces them to be as good as one or two other competitors, who also have poor customer service and bloated prices, and robust profit margins to protect. But a government-run entity with potentially no profit motive would be too much competition, in their mind.

State governments banning local governments from providing such services is despicable, but hardly surprising - just another example of who really runs government at the state level and above (money talks).

Does anyone have a problem with gov. run wireless data networks?

All other issues aside, am I the only one that sees the chilling future behind these public wireless initiatives? Completely, COMPLETELY government run data networks. If it so easy to access a private wireless network that they may have installed in someone's home, imagine having a municipal network that spans the entire city, one in which you would probably have great difficulty staying out of. This entire idea just wreaks of government oversight, spying, eventual censorship, and personal/private data collection and monitoring. This, and this above all things, seems cause to oppose such 'public service mandates.'

[volterwd]

Simple availability

doesnt mean you need to use it... i would never use a wireless connection as my main line anyways... id want a hardwired connection...

and the governments who would be setting these up are the local governments of small cities/towns... not large cities... this isnt big brother... this is just people getting together making high speed when someone else wont

Not quite right

My husband is in the business of providing wireless broadband pipeline and for cities, business or companies providing ISP services. The cities don't plan to install it or maintain it. They generally just want to find some people who can put in the pipeline to provide the services to their own municipality both in an emergency and then allow the use of what they have put in to the residents in the surrounding area of coverage. They really just envision it and hire someone hopefully competent to put it in and maintain it for whatever cost model they would like to see. They don't run it and aren't interested in maintaining it.

Does anyone have a problem with gov. run wireless data networks?

All other issues aside, am I the only one that sees the chilling future behind these public wireless initiatives? Completely, COMPLETELY government run data networks. If it so easy to access a private wireless network that they may have installed in someone's home, imagine having a municipal network that spans the entire city, one in which you would probably have great difficulty staying out of. This entire idea just wreaks of government oversight, spying, eventual censorship, and personal/private data collection and monitoring. This, and this above all things, seems cause to oppose such 'public service mandates.'

[volterwd]

Simple availability

doesnt mean you need to use it... i would never use a wireless connection as my main line anyways... id want a hardwired connection...

and the governments who would be setting these up are the local governments of small cities/towns... not large cities... this isnt big brother... this is just people getting together making high speed when someone else wont

Not quite right

My husband is in the business of providing wireless broadband pipeline and for cities, business or companies providing ISP services. The cities don't plan to install it or maintain it. They generally just want to find some people who can put in the pipeline to provide the services to their own municipality both in an emergency and then allow the use of what they have put in to the residents in the surrounding area of coverage. They really just envision it and hire someone hopefully competent to put it in and maintain it for whatever cost model they would like to see. They don't run it and aren't interested in maintaining it.

[Mydrrin]

Reasons for municipal broadband

I would like to see broadband as a municipal thing, like roads
and sewers.

Seems very inefficient the system that is in place today, that the
system retards innovation. How many pipes for broadband do
you have possible going to your house? Cable, Telephone, Wi-Fi
and in the future Power lines. All of these have to lay out
infrastructure to get broadband to your house, it's like having
four different roads made by different companies to get to your
house, how inefficient is that? How much would costs increase to
have access to your house, this redundancy does not make
things cheaper, it is included in everyones cable, phone, power
bills. How much has everyones bills in these areas gone up, as
everyone gears up to compete in the information distribution
areas, this money has to come from somewhere, it is the
consumer locked into the monopolies that pays for this, and alot
of innovative companies are locked out because they don't have
the money to build a road to everyone's house. As the
technology shifts, there is a desperate struggle by these
companies because they understand that soon there will only be
a need for one pipe for information, entertainment, and
communication. There would be wisdom in government to
forsee this and guide the corporations to change to being
content providers and information services and not have them
spend the massive outlays required by each road to your house,
because the cost to the economy of these inefficiencies is large,
these costs are added to yours and everyones bills. To think of
the needed profit model for these companies: these four pipes,
if all had near equal market share, would need the infrastructure
for four homes to get the income from one, everyone would
have to pay those infrastructure costs, because every company is
paddling the same kind of boat. I think I have developed this
idea enough.

The other thing is content, later on in this development cycle
when you only have one form of information pipe, all the
content must come through the one pipe, the companies would
go after the best business models and would tie in content that
you purchase to these pipes, that would have the effect of
limiting the kinds of information that you recieve, by putting it
into nice bundles or however they package the information, to
make it a good "choice" for you. I would like to use the analogy
of a road again, let us say that you purchased the rights to a
road to your house from company A, along this road you have to
go down company A would have close to your house
restaurants, shopping, and entertainment...along some windy
paths you could go to other places. Company A can pick winners
and stifle innovation and competition and profits from
auctioning off access to your road to potential businesses. I
believe that the communtiy would be best served by building the
roads, and the companies build the malls, entertainment
supercenters, and stores.

Thank-you if you have read all of this.

[Mydrrin]

Reasons for municipal broadband

I would like to see broadband as a municipal thing, like roads
and sewers.

Seems very inefficient the system that is in place today, that the
system retards innovation. How many pipes for broadband do
you have possible going to your house? Cable, Telephone, Wi-Fi
and in the future Power lines. All of these have to lay out
infrastructure to get broadband to your house, it's like having
four different roads made by different companies to get to your
house, how inefficient is that? How much would costs increase to
have access to your house, this redundancy does not make
things cheaper, it is included in everyones cable, phone, power
bills. How much has everyones bills in these areas gone up, as
everyone gears up to compete in the information distribution
areas, this money has to come from somewhere, it is the
consumer locked into the monopolies that pays for this, and alot
of innovative companies are locked out because they don't have
the money to build a road to everyone's house. As the
technology shifts, there is a desperate struggle by these
companies because they understand that soon there will only be
a need for one pipe for information, entertainment, and
communication. There would be wisdom in government to
forsee this and guide the corporations to change to being
content providers and information services and not have them
spend the massive outlays required by each road to your house,
because the cost to the economy of these inefficiencies is large,
these costs are added to yours and everyones bills. To think of
the needed profit model for these companies: these four pipes,
if all had near equal market share, would need the infrastructure
for four homes to get the income from one, everyone would
have to pay those infrastructure costs, because every company is
paddling the same kind of boat. I think I have developed this
idea enough.

The other thing is content, later on in this development cycle
when you only have one form of information pipe, all the
content must come through the one pipe, the companies would
go after the best business models and would tie in content that
you purchase to these pipes, that would have the effect of
limiting the kinds of information that you recieve, by putting it
into nice bundles or however they package the information, to
make it a good "choice" for you. I would like to use the analogy
of a road again, let us say that you purchased the rights to a
road to your house from company A, along this road you have to
go down company A would have close to your house
restaurants, shopping, and entertainment...along some windy
paths you could go to other places. Company A can pick winners
and stifle innovation and competition and profits from
auctioning off access to your road to potential businesses. I
believe that the communtiy would be best served by building the
roads, and the companies build the malls, entertainment
supercenters, and stores.

Thank-you if you have read all of this.

Supreme Court has already ruled

Supreme Court has already ruled on this... city governments can do whatever is in the best interest of the people. Kelo v. City of New London (04-0108)

Supreme Court has already ruled

Supreme Court has already ruled on this... city governments can do whatever is in the best interest of the people. Kelo v. City of New London (04-0108)

[kenzrw]

Railroads are Still private

A factual error in this article stated that the federal government controls most railroads. This is not the case. Railroads are as private today as they were 150 years ago and pay taxes. For instance, Union Pacific built the first transcontintal railroad and they still own that private railroad with no federal subsidies, as do all the other freight railroads. The only section of railroad the federal government owns in a short segment in the northeast part of the coutry for Amtrak and commuter raii. In the rest of the country where Amtrak runs, it has to pay the private railroads to use their tracks.

[kenzrw]

Railroads are Still private

A factual error in this article stated that the federal government controls most railroads. This is not the case. Railroads are as private today as they were 150 years ago and pay taxes. For instance, Union Pacific built the first transcontintal railroad and they still own that private railroad with no federal subsidies, as do all the other freight railroads. The only section of railroad the federal government owns in a short segment in the northeast part of the coutry for Amtrak and commuter raii. In the rest of the country where Amtrak runs, it has to pay the private railroads to use their tracks.

[alucinor]

Gov. Involvement

I agree that government involvement should be kept to a minimum in business, but this is ~not~ federal government we're talking about -- local governments are most in touch with the people they're serving, and regular citizens have the greatest ability to control their situation here.

I guess this just continues the 200-year American trend of local governments having their power sapped by larger and more impersonal legislative entities -- including corporations, the fourth branch of USA, Inc.

gov't is not private

Local gov'ts are even worse than large gov'ts for being intrusive into the private lives of citizens. It is too easy for a few busybodies in a town or county to involve themselves in invasions of privacy wherever they can. Big business can be sued if its employees engage in unprofessional behavior regarding customer privacy, and big gov't is often too busy to bother the little guy and only responds tothe wealthiest private influence (which makes it more similar to big business), but a local city commissioner will often go on a crusade to get re-elected.

I would NOT want the same people who toss books out of public libraries deciding what uses are permissible across a city broadband network.

Remember: broadband involves a great deal of activity that is essentially private. I think that goverment-supported services that involve my communication and reading habits are not something I would want done by the same local politicians who are influenced by a local preacher who wants a dry county or a ladies' club that regulates what color you paint your house.

The very fact that, as the article points out, local government is closer to the "interests" of citizens is the dangerous fact: "interests of citizens" have been known to be the interests of "lynch mobs".

[bobanavrin]

Knowledge

Will the local governments have pay the same franchise fees as the local bells have to?
If you are not in the industry you don't have the
knowledge to argue. Local governments hold many ILEC projects back .