Municipal Internet

[ClydeR]

If you do a Youtube search for Chatanooga and internet, you'll see that Chattanooga has the fastest internet in the country. It's 200 times faster than the average internet that the rest of us have. Sounds good? Well, it's not. The problem is that it's provided by the city, instead of by a private company. At least the backbone is provided by the city. You can see why that's bad.

Cable companies are working to help state legislatures and Congress understand the problem so that more states -- and hopefully the federal government -- can pass laws preventing it. But Obama is pushing in the opposite direction. He wants the FCC to allow local cities and communities to build their own networks in areas where private companies are not providing fast internet.


President Barack Obama is delving more deeply into broadband issues as he tries to put his stamp on the nation’s Internet policy — setting up more conflict with congressional Republicans and telecom giants that dominate the industry.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-broadband-internet-republicans-114265.html)


Obama’s speech Wednesday — backing efforts to spur city-run broadband networks as an alternative to private-sector providers like Comcast and Verizon — incensed Republicans who see it as just another attempt to over-regulate the industry with a Washington power-grab.

“Each day we see more policies coming out of this White House that attempt to wield greater power and control for the federal government,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) said in a statement, describing the president’s stances as a “new federal takeover of state laws governing broadband and the Internet.”

The president — speaking at Cedar Falls Utilities, which runs a municipal network with some of the fastest Internet in the country — called for the FCC to knock down state laws that restrict community-run broadband.

[~Rocktar~]

Actually, it is provided by the Electric Power Board, the local power utility that is a non-profit agency of the city. The city has almost no say in how it is run and gets no revenue from them. They did get a development grant from the Federal Government to help pay for it. I use it, it works great, is super fast and since they used the existing power infrastructure to run lines and access, it cost a lot less to the consumer than if a new private fiber company came in to install it. Oh, and we have Comcast high speed cable Internet (they fucking suck) and some have Uverse (almost as sucky as Comcast) fiber access available as well.

Since the Federal Government paid most of the money to deploy electric power, provided grants and loans for telephones and cable deployment even for private companies, how is it wrong that the same principles be used for fiber deployment? Other than Google and a few large telecom companies who were initially financed and continue to get loans from the government, I don't see many people putting out the money to deploy fiber. Or for that matter do much in the way of any Internet unless they get some grant, loan or subsidy. So, if it has worked and continues to work even though it is a government program, how is this evil? The same crap went on to deploy cable everywhere and still goes on to deploy phone service. The simple fact is, the massive up front cost of such things usually requires some government loan or grant.

So, enlighten me as to why assisting in deploying a service that helps "provide for the welfare" of the people is wrong?

If people were really against over-regulation in the telecomm industry they would level the playing field for all telecom companys in all services with uniform standards of taxes, quality and accessibility. Stop letting the FCC limit RBOCs (Rebional Bell Operating Companies, the baby bell compaines) and not limit competition. That would either choke cell companies to death trying to meet land line quality standards because they can't even come close, or liberate the RBOCs to deliver cell, long distance, TV, internet and so on at a much much lower price nation wide to more people than now.


Oh damn, I just realized this is a ClydeR post, sorry guys. It's late so I will leave my reply here anyway.

[Thondalar]

Competition is always a good thing. As long as we're not forced to use the municipal option, nor taxed for it whether we use it or not, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Jarvan]

Competition is always a good thing. As long as we're not forced to use the municipal option, nor taxed for it whether we use it or not, I see nothing wrong with it.

Well, technically.. every federal tax paying American is taxed when the fed gives a grant to a city to do this kind of thing. So you could argue that you were taxed to supply it.. and if you are in a different city, certainly not able to use it.

But that is rather meaningless... because the fed spends money on lots of things around the country that people in other parts can't use.

Your right tho, if you aren't forced to use it.. who cares really. THO.. since it's a non-profit that is running it.. they could end up pricing the competition out of the market.

[Thondalar]

Well, technically.. every federal tax paying American is taxed when the fed gives a grant to a city to do this kind of thing. So you could argue that you were taxed to supply it.. and if you are in a different city, certainly not able to use it.

But that is rather meaningless... because the fed spends money on lots of things around the country that people in other parts can't use.

Different can of worms. I'm generally against government "grants" in their entirety anyway, but here I was speaking more to local taxes, like an addition to your property tax.



Your right tho, if you aren't forced to use it.. who cares really. THO.. since it's a non-profit that is running it.. they could end up pricing the competition out of the market.

Non-profit doesn't mean they don't pay their employees or have operating expenses. If a city wants to provide its citizens with a service that a private company isn't offering, so be it. The rub here, to me, would be if the municipal service is restricted in some way...blocking sites or altering search results. I generally try to avoid tinfoil hat scenarios, but the distribution of information has always been something that people in power try to control. The internet is a boon for freedom because you can find information that you otherwise probably would never hear about. I don't think older politicians understood what was really going on with it, but as the years go by and the politicians get more and more tech savvy, it's not surprising me that the internet becomes more and more of a political issue.

[Seran]

If you do a Youtube search for Chatanooga and internet, you'll see that Chattanooga has the fastest internet in the country. It's 200 times faster than the average internet that the rest of us have. Sounds good? Well, it's not. The problem is that it's provided by the city, instead of by a private company. At least the backbone is provided by the city. You can see why that's bad.

I'm hoping that you are being facetious when you claim having a lightning fast internet speed is bad, simply because it's run by a non-profit municipal organization. They offer fiber-optic speed internet connections and channel lineups far cheaper than any private company does. That isn't a bad thing, it's great to give major broadband and cable providers a run for their money.

[Gelston]

I'm hoping that you are being facetious when you claim having a lightning fast internet speed is bad, simply because it's run by a non-profit municipal organization. They offer fiber-optic speed internet connections and channel lineups far cheaper than any private company does. That isn't a bad thing, it's great to give major broadband and cable providers a run for their money.

ClydeR is a troll handle. Never take him seriously.

[Warriorbird]

Community fiber offers a tremendous commercial advantage. My girlfriend seriously considered Chattanooga as a location for a business plan because of it.

[Androidpk]

I like capitalism but I hope companies like comcast and twc burn to the ground. Figuratively speaking.

[Gelston]

I like capitalism but I hope companies like comcast and twc burn to the ground. Figuratively speaking.

Companies like comcast and TWC can hardly be called capitalist.

[Androidpk]

Companies like comcast and TWC can hardly be called capitalist.

Vulture capitalist?

[Gelston]

Vulture capitalist?

I don't really consider it capitalism when they make agreements to actively not compete with each other.

[Androidpk]

I don't really consider it capitalism when they make agreements to actively not compete with each other.

Oligopoly then.

[~Rocktar~]

Oligopoly then.


http://youtu.be/0ilMx7k7mso

[Back]

The White House is facing opposition not just from Republicans. Incumbent telecoms like AT&T and Time Warner Cable have worked state legislatures to install barriers to city-run Internet services. The industry says local government-run broadband networks often fail, leaving local taxpayers on the hook. But it also threatens their business models — Internet-service providers usually face little competition in individual markets.

...

“We don’t need unelected bureaucrats like FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler dictating to our states what they can and can’t do with respect to protecting their limited taxpayer dollars and private enterprises,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said in a statement.



But it is ok for corporations like AT&T and Comcast to dictate legislation? C'mon man!

[~Rocktar~]

But it is ok for corporations like AT&T and Comcast to dictate legislation? C'mon man!


About as legit as an uppity Socialist college professor who came out saying how he was betting the American public were stupid and in the process sold everyone to insurance and big pharma.

[Thondalar]

I don't really consider it capitalism when they make agreements to actively not compete with each other.

This.

Besides that though, there's a lot of funny business going on in general with government subsidies, grants, no-bid contracts....not just telecomms, but large businesses in general. The big evil bank/finance/insurance companies love Obamacare because it gives them more people paying for a product they'll most likely never use...yet somehow Obama sychophants can lambast these companies in one breath and tout the legislation that supports them in the next. It's mind-boggling.

The major telecomms are a little different though, because it's such a difficult industry to get in to without laying your own infrastructure. I've never once said our government can't be useful in these situations, just that they're usually not. This is one situation where they could do a great deal of good. As I previously mentioned, as long as there is no forced compliance, nor even the slightest possible indication of censorship, I'm all for it.

[ClydeR]

So, enlighten me as to why assisting in deploying a service that helps "provide for the welfare" of the people is wrong?

You're an Appalachian? Cool. Have you been on the Incline Railway? Is it scarier going up or down? See Rock City (https://www.google.com/search?q=see+rock+city&tbm=isch)!

Now, to your point. There are two big obvious problems with government owned internet.

First, a tax exempt competitor, like a city or a non-profit organization, puts legitimate business at a serious disadvantage, which stifles innovation. Competing with private business is not a legitimate government function.

Second, when the city's lack of expertise catches up with it, I don't want to have to bail you out.

[~Rocktar~]

You're an Appalachian? Cool. Have you been on the Incline Railway? Is it scarier going up or down? See Rock City (https://www.google.com/search?q=see+rock+city&tbm=isch)!

Nope, it's a tourist trap and nothing of interest to me. I have seen many of the state parks and nature areas, museums and much of the Appalachian Mountains though.


Now, to your point. There are two big obvious problems with government owned internet.

First, a tax exempt competitor, like a city or a non-profit organization, puts legitimate business at a serious disadvantage, which stifles innovation. Competing with private business is not a legitimate government function.

They are a non-profit public organization. Providing for the common welfare is a function of government goods and services and they do a very good job. They also entered the market much behind cable and telco providers of Internet service so I don't see them muscling out competition any time soon.


Second, when the city's lack of expertise catches up with it, I don't want to have to bail you out.

The City of Chattanooga can appoint members to their Board of Directors, that is the sum total of their influence. After that, the President and Chief Executive Officer is appointed by the board, it is a separate corporate entity and the City Council and Mayor have often had issues where they could not influence EPB in a hurry or unduly strong arm them into doing one thing or another. It is a regulated public utility and so the meddling that can be done is quite limited by State and Federal law to mitigate just such risks. They have a proven record of performance since 1935 so I think they are likely a good bit better equipped to manage a utility than many private companies. And make no mistake, Internet access is becoming a utility like power, water and sewer service.

So, again, other than your emotionally driven concerns, what other problems are there with publicly owned Internet access?

[Back]

Records obtained by The Verge show that Secretary of State Brown's letter (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521824670) to the agency was almost wholly written by a Comcast Government Affairs specialist. After a conversation with Brown’s staff, the Comcast official sent Brown a letter he had prewritten for her that even included her typed sign-off, name, and title. Brown’s office sent the Comcast document — containing just three sentences with new or altered language — to the FCC emblazoned with the official seal of the State of Oregon.


Since 2008, Comcast has contributed (http://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?c-t-eid=13005210&d-eid=644#%5B%7B1%7Cgro=d-id) nearly $10,000 to Brown's two campaigns for secretary of state. Neither Comcast nor the state of Oregon made any attempt tell the public of the corporation’s role in authoring Brown’s letter. Brown’s communications director told The Verge that Brown was too busy to be interviewed. (Neither Wood nor Todd Wodraska, the councilman from Jupiter, Florida, accepted requests to speak to The Verge about the letters they sent the FCC. Rosemary Harold did not respond to multiple interview requests.)

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/26/7878239/comcast-twc-fcc-merger-letters-politicians-ghostwritten

Not that this means the FCC will approve it but this just demonstrates how big money works.

[ClydeR]

Nope, it's a tourist trap and nothing of interest to me. I have seen many of the state parks and nature areas, museums and much of the Appalachian Mountains though.

There must be some reason why it's popular. You should try it! I dare you.