HappyBunny
Hi. Cram It.
Premium
join:2001-06-23
Long Beach, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Azusa fights Charter
Interesting article...
»www.whittierdailynews.com/Storie···,00.html
Apparantly some of the cities are beginning to fight back--deciding to make cable and broadband public utilities. This has worked for electricity and water, why not cable? In the former, it has resulted in lower rates and better service than SCE provides--perhaps the same will be true for cable. Interesting idea though.
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin |
|
TearAbite
join:2001-07-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
 ·surpasshosting
·Charter Pipeline
|  .
funny.. i used to live in Azusa.. and work for that newspaper!
But, that's the right thing to do.. if you dont get good service, SOMBODY has to fight back or they will never get better!
.
..
...
--
......"The U.S. Will Hunt down those Responsible"George W. Bush |
|
cmptrblder
join:2001-01-16
Altoona, PA
| reply to HappyBunny
I would love to see this in Altoona, PA......Oh how I'd love to see this. 
What would be even better is everyone putting there foot down to the Blair County Commissioners and City Officials and say enough is enough. Don't renew there 2 year agreement, let it hang for awhile. The city here has nothing to loose, heck Charters even trying to stick it to the city anyway over the public access channel. |
|
Front
Frontek
Premium
join:2002-09-07
us | reply to HappyBunny
Interesting.... |
|
Jaime
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to HappyBunny
»Home Grown Trend Continues |
|
hszeto
join:2002-06-05
| reply to HappyBunny
San Bruno Municipal Cable is a good example!
I usually believe private sectors are far more efficient than government run business. In contrast, cable services have no intra-model competition in almost all franchise areas. That may be the difference. In other words, with competition, private sectors are far more efficient. Without competition, government or community run may be better, at least governments or communities don't pay millions dollars to executives no matter what!
Another good example is San Bruno Municipal Cable high speed Internet access. For those people not familiar with San Bruno, California, it is an average city in any term with about 42,000 residents (about 50% white, 20% Pacific Islander or Asian, 20% Hispanic and 10% other race or black), immediately adjacent to San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Look at their prices and the variety of services at their no-frills web page at »www.sanbrunocable.com/, it bets almost all cable and DSL Internet access providers combined as it offers a lot of services that cable Internet access providers even with business packages don't offer yet it offers speeds most DSL providers cannot even come close! Not to mention sanbrunocable.com has been listed in top 10 spots at »/archive/ regularly!
Now, isn't time to call up and write to your city councils or county supervisors? Before cities and counties are thinking about taking over cable services, I just hope bottom rated cable companies can learn something from San Bruno Municipal Cable fast.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-05 00:38:17] |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| My question is on this, and this is a personal opinion, not related to Charter in anyway.
Broadband is not a utility, so if a town does not get a return on their investment who foots the bill?
The Taxpayer does in some way, shape or form.
Broadband is not like electricity or gas, gas and electricity are essential to life, whereas broadband is not.
As much as I would not want to be without broadband, I could live without it and lead a normal, happy life. This is a choice many people make everyday when they decide that broadband is not worth the price to them. How will cities and municipalities account for these people. They have to recoup their losses by either raising prices or raising taxes.
Broadband is not like electricity and gas where you cannot just shut people off if they fail to pay their bills. I personally would not want my city to become an ISP, why because my property taxes are high enough. |
|
bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO
| The best part is in Cali, the "utilities" are de-regulated.
BTW, utilities ARE private buisness, regulated by the local government, unless de-regulated. So what makes one think the private buisness owned utility will work out better? The only one who thinks it will is the owners and benificiaries who will gain profit from this endevor.
Its really a bandaid solution that can rip open in an explosion of massive problems.
Enjoy!
--
guycad: It may take you days and large clumps of hair to get it to work,CyberSchnook:I am so screwed--I haven't had large clumps of hair for years. |
|
InnerMe
join:2002-08-30
| reply to pit_viper
I'd think it would end up costing the end user MORE because they'd need many more people to maintain the system if each municipality was in charge of it.
And just because the city provides it doesn't mean that it would be good, we have lots of water issues here. So if broadband becomes a utility then what do you do when stuff is running crappy? Call and complain, if they need to bring in a bigger backbone watch your taxes go up. |
|
danc694u
And Your Point Is?
join:2002-01-10
Moody, AL
| reply to pit_viper
said by pit_viper  :
Broadband is not like electricity or gas, gas and electricity are essential to life, whereas broadband is not.
You must be loads of fun on a camping trip 
NONE of those items are needed to live. They are luxuries!! All of them. Just like broadband.
We had no running water, no indoor plumbing, and we cooked on a wood burning stove, until I was 10. I'm still alive. The old houseplace still stands (barely).
Reality sux..............
No I wouldn't want to return to those days. But, I could if need be.
Homeless people do this EVERY day.
--
A bird doesn't sing because he has an answer. He sings, because he has a song. |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| reply to bigbeartech
said by bigbeartech :
The best part is in Cali, the "utilities" are de-regulated.
BTW, utilities ARE private buisness, regulated by the local government, unless de-regulated.
Enjoy!
Not in my town--I pay my water and electricity bill to the city.
Gas is provided by a different company. |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| reply to danc694u
said by danc694u :
said by pit_viper :
Broadband is not like electricity or gas, gas and electricity are essential to life, whereas broadband is not.
You must be loads of fun on a camping trip
NONE of those items are needed to live. They are luxuries!! All of them. Just like broadband.
We had no running water, no indoor plumbing, and we cooked on a wood burning stove, until I was 10. I'm still alive. The old houseplace still stands (barely).
Reality sux..............
No I wouldn't want to return to those days. But, I could if need be.
Homeless people do this EVERY day.
You know what I meant...Their are protections that prevent these people from being *shut off* if they fail to pay, because they are essential to there well being. |
|
Marilla
I Am My Own Arbiter
Premium
join:2002-12-06
Belpre, OH
| reply to HappyBunny
Re: Azusa fights Charter
There's something that's always hit me about this sort of thing (utilities) and what I consider to be the complications here, also apply to cable TV/Internet service.
Basically, a 'normal' business like, say, a clothing store just sits on the corner. Even if the city runs a clothing store, as long as they don't prevent other clothing stores from coming in town, and provided they don't otherwise have an unfair advantage, there's no reason that couldn't work. (it should also be mentioned that there's really no reason for a city to operate a clothing store.. but stay with me here!)
Likewise a department store, coffee shop, car dealer, etc etc.
However, when you start getting into businesses that require right-of-way throughout a city in order to operate at all, you have a different story.
First, I'll start with a couple statements: One; I'm almost as pure Libertarian as you can get when it comes to business; my belief is that government's only role in business of any sort should be simply to assure that the law is followed by all - big or small.
There are many small details there, and this post is not meant to address those. There is, however, one big exception to this, and that is businesses that are like 'utilities' in that they require infrastructure that is practically impossible for a business to own and control entirely.
You see, you can buy land and slap a Discount store on it. Provided the government has it zoned for what you want to do, you are set.
But if you want to provide telephone service, electrical service, water, sewer, natural gas, or cable TV/Internet, that won't do.
Fact is, as has been mentioned, people can live quite well without running water, sewer service, electricity, or telephone service. Granted, cable TV/Internet is less useful than any of those, but still. What ties them all together is that great infrastructure is needed to provide them.
And this is why I just shake my head every time someone says, "Well look at X, Y, Z... that's proof that 'deregulation' doesn't work!" when the reality of the situation is that it's pretty much impossible to 'deregulate' these things!
The government ALWAYS must maintain a primary relationship in the provision of all of those services. Even in markets where there are many options, the government needs to mediate and control how those options are applied. IF the government simply stands aside completely, what you will have is chaos, where only the 'strongest' will be able to provide anything.
One can look at the news for examples of how difficult it has been... for example, one cable company complains about how another is running their cables in such a way that seems to 'block' theirs. One phone company complains about having to resell the lines it has invested millions upon millions in to another company that, comparatively, has done nothing.
There are a million different troubles, and with each 'utility', many different routes have been taken.
In some cases, though, what has turned out to be the best is when the local government has control. But my guess is that the only time this works well is when that local government is one that has a high level of activity of the citizens. A government which never hears from it's citizens (except with some chads on election day) isn't any more likely to provide good utility service than a company more concerned about keeping it's market share than providing service.
What, I think, we need to understand is that utility-type services are entirely different from any other type of business. In some cases, I think what we may find is that it might be best for the government - that is, 'we the people' to provide some of the services. In other cases, though, things can be worked out equitably in a manner that gives proper 'credit' to the companies or entities which invested all of the original money, yet still permits others to enter the market, as well. |
|
IcEr3K
Premium
join:2001-01-19
Los Angeles, CA
clubs: 
| reply to HappyBunny
Very interesting.. I'm just waiting for Altrio to install in my area!
--
Good things come to those who wait... |
|
danc694u
And Your Point Is?
join:2002-01-10
Moody, AL
| reply to pit_viper
Re: San Bruno Municipal Cable is a good example!
said by pit_viper :
You know what I meant...Their are protections that prevent these people from being *shut off* if they fail to pay, because they are essential to there well being.
These protections you mention. DO NOT apply to Joe Blow. They are reserved for elderly, disabled, etc etc etc...
BTW, Broadband IS covered in some parts of the US, for people with disabilities. I know this for a fact.
When a person is disabled, communication is needed. Some of these people use video/audio monitoring applications which require broadband.
Ever heard of a Pace Maker for the brain? That's not what it's actually called, but it works on the same principle. It's for people who have seizures. I have a friend in NC, that just had one installed. And in NC, they will pay for the broadband bill Along with the cable TV, telephone, water, gas, and electricity.
I still stand by my original statement, none of the above is really needed. But, it sure makes the life of a recluse/handi-capped person a bit more bearable.
When was the last time you saw ANY broadband provider offer to do this, out of the goodness of their heart?
--
A bird doesn't sing because he has an answer. He sings, because he has a song. |
|
pinky321
join:2002-06-05
| reply to pit_viper
said by pit_viper :
Broadband is not a utility, so if a town does not get a return on their investment who foots the bill?
The Taxpayer does in some way, shape or form.
I agree that broadband is not an utility. In fact, I found City of San Bruno has a department just for Cable Television while there is an Utility Billing Division under the City Department of Finance as everyone can see at »www.ci.sanbruno.ca.us/sitemap.html
I further agree that in the event if a town does not get a return on their investment, tax payers do foot the bill some how.
Nevertheless, the chances for breaking even or even becoming profitable in the long run sure is greater than 50%. Otherwise, we will see fewer and fewer cable companies providing cable Internet access. The fact sure is the other way around. More and more cable companies are providing cable Internet access as well as additional services and products such as telephone and additional channels. In other words, it is more likely than not that such government run or community run broadband will be breaking even or become profitable in a long haul so the tax is not likely to go up just because of running cable services. Instead, city may get additional net income from such operations so additional and/or other services can be provided to its citizens without rising its taxes.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-05 20:04:05] |
|
pit_viper
1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24
Play_Hockey
| reply to danc694u
Nevermind -- don't want to get into a political debate here
[text was edited by author 2003-01-05 17:13:31] |
|
roee_z
join:2002-10-08
La Canada Flintridge, CA
| reply to bigbeartech
said by bigbeartech :
The best part is in Cali, the "utilities" are de-regulated.
Deregulation sucks. California's 2001 power crisis stemmed from deregulation. |
|
bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO
| I know... which is why those of you whom have gone through that can now think about the addition of the cable to your "utilities deregulation" debate... meaning it can be as bad as it is now, or worse.
--
guycad: It may take you days and large clumps of hair to get it to work,CyberSchnook:I am so screwed--I haven't had large clumps of hair for years. |
|
pinky321
join:2002-06-05 | No government classify cable as utilities thus far. |
|
