myhoes
Michael Extreme User
Premium
join:2003-10-05
Laval, QC
clubs: | greedy
the only reason comcast and sbc are bitching is probably because they make less money that way
--
And that my friends is what they say is..That! |
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: |  They probably looked at where one municipal system failed and made it seem as if all municipal systems fail.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C |
|
tirebiter
join:2002-02-16
Champaign, IL
 ·Comcast
| Busy-Bodies
Not to be too picky: "local adds" s/b "local ads".
If the government is providing your Internet, what is to stop them from controlling your access to content deemed inappropriate? Local governments attract busy-bodies who think they know what's best and often try to force their views on others. |
|
BizFinancing
Premium
join:2003-01-10
Port Orchard, WA
| reply to myhoes
Re: greedy
Seems like typical behavior for these 2.
Have a similar set up near here that works very well and offers great competition for Comcast & Qwest.
Not only has this muni system been good for residential customers but also for local businesses, local loop rates are half what Qwest charges and most CLEC's have partnered with them to get the better rates. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to tirebiter
Re: Busy-Bodies
Local governments also approve franchise agreements with the private sector cable cos right now. They allow for "adult content" right now.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
myhoes
Michael Extreme User
Premium
join:2003-10-05
Laval, QC
clubs:
| reply to tirebiter
and whats stopping theme from spying on your internet activities wasn't there a news thing about the FBi wanting to put some kind of filter so that they can look at the web content that is being viewed whats stopping them if there the ones who are actually providing the service
--
And that my friends is what they say is..That! |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | You're right.
But I'm a heck of a lot more afraid of Comcast than I am of my Mayor.
The lesser of the two evils is my local gov. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| The same thing that stops private providers from blocking access to certain content would stop municipal providers.
Municipalities would have no reason to behave any differently than any other provider. (Except that their purpose would be to provide service, rather than to provide profit.) |
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
|  reply to BizFinancing
Re: greedy
said by BizFinancing  :
Seems like typical behavior for these 2.
Every dog has his day, I wouldn't be suprised if their day wasn't too far away.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C |
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: |  reply to tirebiter
Re: Busy-Bodies
The Govt. needs pron, too. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | so why not make it super high speed!!!:)
Let's do this right! |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
·AT&T CallVantage
| Won't work.
This will not work in a capitalist market.
See: »www.fcw.com/geb/articles/2004/03···4-04.asp
If I wanted to come and set up a WISP in one of these cities, now I cannot (or would be foolish to do so). How can you compete with the entity that regulates you? The same goes for Cable and Telco. No municipality should be able to compete in the private sector against companies over which it holds authority or regulatory power.
Say that I do choose to compete with the municipality. First of all their funds are raised with taxpayers dollars backing the bonds. I, on the other hand, must raise capital funding.
Secondly, if the municipality starts to feel threatened by my superior service and lower prices, they may start denying my permits, revoking my business license, or having the building inspector harass me. Don't think it will happen? It will.
The govt. (big or small) has no place competing in the telecom sector.
Instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a BB system, perhaps they should concentrate on finding other ways to foster competition in the private sector.
--
I like it when you call me Big Pappa. --- Fight terrorists »www.e85fuel.com/ |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| As I posted earlier this week....
Read on from Jim Baller, the lawyer defending in front of the Supreme Court.....
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24mar..
"We are disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling today in the Missouri case. Three points stand out from the majority's opinion.
"First, the Court made clear that the decision is not a ruling on the merits of municipal telecommunications. The Court merely observed that municipalities have a "respectable position" on this, that there are arguments on the other side, and that the FCC has "minced no words" in saying that "participation by municipally owned entities in the telecommunications business 'would further the goal of the 1996 Act to bring the benefits of competition to all Americans, particularly those who live in small or rural communities in which municipally-owned utilities have great competitive potential.'" Slip Opinion at 4-5.
"Second, the majority gave two main reasons for finding that the term "any entity" in Section 253(a) does not cover public entities. One reason was that Congress could not have intended to create the "crazy quilt" of potential outcomes from state to state that could result if "any entity" were interpreted broadly. We, like the dissent, would have preferred that the majority decide the case on the basis of the facts before it, rather than on the basis of hypotheticals that may never arise.
"Third, the majority's other main point, in which Justice Scalia concurred, was that Congress had not spoken with sufficient clarity in Section 253(a) to satisfy the Court's high standards for determining whether a federal statute preempts a traditional state power. We disagree, but when eight justices of the Supreme Court have spoken on a point like this, we must accept their conclusion.
"As to the future, we note that only a handful of states currently have barriers to municipal entry, and we hope that other states will take to heart the FCC's admonition that such barriers are unwise, unnecessary to achieve any legitimate state interest, and contrary to the purposes of the Telecommunications Act. Some states have already reversed or relaxed barriers enacted in the past, and we hope that this trend will continue as well.
"We also hope that state legislators everywhere will realize that, without the involvement of local governments, our Nation cannot achieve our national goal of rapid deployment of truly advanced and affordable telecommunications services and capabilities to all Americans, including those in rural and high cost areas.
"A victory in Missouri case would have been helpful, but it is by no means the end of the road. The economic, educational, occupational, environmental, quality-of-life and other stakes for communities across the United States are so high, that they have no real choice but to continue to press forward whenever and wherever necessary."
Jim Baller
The Baller Herbst Law Group, P.C.
2014 P Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 833-1144 (phone)
(202) 833-1180 (fax)
www.baller.com
In a addition, there's a requirement to play by fair franchising rules. What a muni collects in franchise fees from Comcast, they must also charge themselves.
In regards to a muni feeling threatened by your "superior service", I don't think it's going to happen. I'd maybe think about it if Comcast or SBC was going to run fiber to my home ever in the next 20 years. They're not, but my city could. I think I'll back my elected officals and my hometown rather than the Pirates of San Antonio & Philadelphia.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to nunya
said by nunya :
Instead of using taxpayer dollars to fund a BB system, perhaps they should concentrate on finding other ways to foster competition in the private sector.
That's lovely sentiment in theory, but fostering competition hasn't panned out in practice. I'd be delighted to see my tax dollars fund a municipal system that will eventually save the members of my community tons of money. |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to nunya
And who will be watching the Muni? Themselves? Please. You are entitled to your opinion as a user, but you need to sit back and look at the picture from the perspective a potential provider (now and in the future). I will walk right by any city even considering a municipally owned system. So will most other providers with any sense in their head. Now you are left with a single provider forever.
Should I get access to the tax payer dollars too? Just like a Muni?
Yeah right. I'll mail a letter out to every resident in town and tell them to send me $3 for my new WISP service. By the way, they are welcome to pay me another $30/month if they want to use the system. Realistically, that's what a Muni is doing.
Fortunately (hopefully) the taxpayers will have a say in how their money is used. I know I would be P.O.'d if my tax dollars went to fund a system that could easily be handled by the private sector. If there is money to be made in this region, somebody will find a way to make it.
If this were a participant funded co-op, I wouldn't have any gripe- because the govt. and tax dollars would be out of the picture. Perhaps the Muni needs to spur competition by granting (easy) easement, waiving permit fees, etc... to a co-op group (or any other facilities based competition).
--
I like it when you call me Big Pappa. --- Fight terrorists »www.e85fuel.com/ |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | said by nunya :
You are entitled to your opinion as a user, but you need to sit back and look at the picture from the perspective a potential provider (now and in the future). I will walk right by any city even considering a municipally owned system. So will most other providers with any sense in their head. Now you are left with a single provider forever.
Can you cite an example where this has happened?
Tacoma's Click! network is a wonderful example of a municipal system competing with a privately owned system. It seems to work fine.
said by nunya :
Should I get access to the tax payer dollars too? Just like a Muni?
Absolutely not! You're free to tack on 40% profit if your system is successful. Isn't that enough?
said by nunya :
Perhaps the Muni needs to spur competition by granting (easy) easement, waiving permit fees, etc... to a co-op group (or any other facilities based competition).
That's not what's preventing competition. Predatory pricing, anti-competitive behavior by incumbents, and extraordinarily high capital costs are the insurmountable barriers.
Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits? |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to nunya
That's not what's preventing competition. Predatory pricing, anti-competitive behavior by incumbents, and extraordinarily high capital costs are the insurmountable barriers.
HMMMM. What do incumbents have to do with my business? Absolutely nothing.
How am I going to raise capital when it comes to going head to head with City Hall? Who would be stupid enough to give me their hard earned money and expect something in return?
Can you cite an example where this has happened?
Not yet. But it will.
Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits?
Exactly my point. And what happens when competition starts to get in the way of govt. profits? They stamp out the competition or regulate the hell out of it.
I started to apply for the Rural Broadband initiative loans and grants. Shortly after diving into the mountain of paperwork, I realized that these loans are only catered to ILECs, CLECs, and other large corporations. My guess would be it's a nice little return for campaign contributions. Not people like me who actually want to push out into rural America.
Fortunately, my philosophy will probably be reflected by the courts and stymie Muni broadband until the rest of us can fill in the gaps. Co-op it, or forget it.
I think a lot of this talk is just posturing by muni's to get the CableCo's and Telco's to upgrade their systems. A lot of times it works.
I have blanketed two "major" rural areas that were without cable or DSL announcing my intention to provide wireless service. Within a matter of weeks the local cable company was running fiber out and stringing coax to these areas. Coincidence? Maybe, but I always kind of doubt it.
--
I like it when you call me Big Pappa. --- Fight terrorists »www.e85fuel.com/ |
|
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL | We're Baaaaaaaack!!!
Nuff said |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to nunya
Re: Won't work.
said by nunya :
said by JTRockville :
Why should public dollars fund private enterprise (by doing the things you suggested)? Will the public get to share the profits?
Exactly my point. And what happens when competition starts to get in the way of govt. profits? They stamp out the competition or regulate the hell out of it.
Munis use public dollars for public enterprise (not private). The goal of a muni system is to provide service for low cost, as opposed to private enterprise's goal of profit. So there isn't a situation where competition could get in the way of govt. profit. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
| reply to nunya
Unfortunately the ILECs and cable companies have left little choice but for customers to rely on MUNIs to provide the service. The ILECs are the one that were given their infrastructure "free" through cost-plus implementation and now don't want to share. It is cost-prohibitive for all but a MUNI to run the type of infrastructure now required.
ILECs want and competitor to now run a complete/redundant infrastructure to all homes without the guarantee the ILECs had of customers - the risk/reward just isn't there and the ILECs never had to face that risk. It is also an issue of critical mass - the ILECs were allowed to reach this state w/o competition and w/guaranteed profits.
TheGhost |
|
