Leaving the FoldCommunities provide their own cable? ( old news - 01:51PM Thursday Feb 07 2002) tags: alternatives · bandwidth Tired of less than stellar service, three Illinois towns along the Fox River have decided to leave the fold of the cable juggernauts and explore the realm of providing cable, telephone, and Internet on their own, a move that's found significant success in communities throughout the United States. Privatization has been a popular word during the short but tumultuous lifespan of the internet. In 1993 the government privatized management of the internet backbone, and over the past decade has supported privatization of such sectors as satellite communications and domain registration. The trend could now find itself getting shoved aside by smaller government entities tired of the outright miserable price and performance offered by modern day cable, phone and internet providers. Enter the "little guy": Charles, Geneva and Batavia Illinois have formed a cable commission tasked with funding a study to explore options for the area to take over providing cable, phone and internet service to area residents. Using the success of such cities as Spencer, IA; Thomasville, GA; and Palo Alto, CA as benchmarks and blueprints, the tri-city community of 70-80,000 is looking to offer its residents a fiber network for municipal and educational use, and intend to use these facilities for the public network as well. The city of Geneva is busy gathering public support from a link on the city's website, quizzing residents on the level of customer and technical service provided by AT&T, with hopes of providing enough ammunition to justify refusal of AT&T's extension and growth of the AT&T franchise through the area. Progress on the project, which has been under way for a year, can be tracked through St. Charles status reports, which has documented "field trips" to other communities who have had success with similar rollouts. As it stands now, the community has issued an RFP (request for proposals) for consultants to conduct feasibility research, with responses expected by March 9th. Should AT&T be worried by a community of less than a hundred thousand considering such proposals? Unlikely, but the movement could serve (and actually already has) as precedent for similar communities likewise frustrated with life under the umbrella of the mega-providers.
Related:- TDS Telecom Launches 50 Mbps Fiber
- Netflix To Offer Standalone Streaming Video Service
- Metrocast Offers Fiber To The Home
- ISPs Don't Really Want Per Byte Billing
- BitTorrent Gets A Little Smarter
- Boston Wonders Where Its FiOS Is
- Comcast Launches Wireless Broadband In Philly
- Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
|
 |  | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: Sounds great! This time I have to agree with you. ISDN is the beauty of the internet. It works just like it was designed too. Nowadays there is an ISDN "network" which means if you join 1 ISDN service, you can get service all across america. They share the phone lines. So 90% of companies in my area that sell ISDN use the same ISDN phone numbers and modems and networks. I pay same for ISDN as I do for dialup ~$13/month. and as you said $25 dual channel if my wife will hang up the dang phone...
Thats how DSL was supposed to be...We shall see.
I loved ISDN. All the rest are getting on my nerves. I would love to pay for cable by the bit. I would use ISDN all the time, and use cable to download RPMs and software patches, game demos, etc.
I still have ISDN telephone because you get 2 phones with it and its cheaper than 2 phones without ISDN!
Privitization. Why? Its so obviously an evil thing. It simply makes some family rich. And only those who are already rich can afford to make a bid on the privatized service. This does not serve the people. Anyone hear the excellent report today on Amtrak privitization being proposed?
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes
9:16
| |
| | | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Re: Sounds great! said by dnoyeB:
ISDN is the beauty of the internet. It works just like it was designed too.
ISDN is not the beauty of the internet around here as Verizon can Charge whatever They want per Hour for Data (otherwise known as Internet Access) Traffic on ISDN, While for Voice access Verizon charges a Fixed monthly fee, Otherwise I have to agree with What you said. I would get DSL, but I live beyond Verizons (ex-GTE) 16,200 foot DSL limit and There is no IDSL out here as Verizon will not allow It as They have a Cash Cow known as ISDN already in place, And thats as modern as We get here, At least until Charter Pipeline gets done putting in the Fiber Optic cable everywhere across Hesperia. | |
| | | | 
vice8686
join:2000-10-13
Lancaster, CA
| Re: Sounds great! I'm in the same boat as you here in Lancaster. But, I was fortunate enough to get IDSL. At $105/month, it's alot, but not enough for me to go back to dial-up. We have Adelphia cable out here, and like you, we're waiting patiently for them to complete whatever they have to complete in order for us to get internet service through them. | |
| | 
stevent$
Since 1965
Premium
join:2000-08-31
Mohrsville, PA
| Yeah, it sounds OK.....until you have to live it. In Kutztown, PA, that's the way things are run and many of the residents don't like it because of the monopoly. The town has squashed all competition.
--
darn that stevent! | |
| | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| Re: Sounds great! So, it was already a monopoly. At least this monopoly will be held accountable for their actions. What accountability does your privitized cable monopoly have??? None. If your socialized cable monopoly screws up, they get voted out of office and are unemployed. That's accountability and responsibility. EVERY TRUE REPUBLICAN SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SOCIALIZING ALL MONOPOLIES BECAUSE THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY. I'm sick of people just blindly bashing all government run businesses without examining it intellectually. It's very easy to just dismiss it as being commie. | |
| | | | 
Eatmeingreek
Gentard
join:2001-06-29
San Francisco, CA
| Re: Sounds great! said by 2farfromCO:
I'm sick of people just blindly bashing all government run businesses without examining it intellectually.
All government run businesses suck - hard. Amtrak anyone? Or maybe the US Post Office.
Having said that, the only thing worse than a public monopoly is a private one.
Capitalism is such that a for profit company will always screw their customers if they have a monopoly. This is necessarily true. It costs less to give you less service.
If you can't get service from someone else, and you can't live without this service, they can charge you whatever they want, and you will pay it. No matter how shoddy the service. Because it's better than the alternative - no service. That's why phone and power companies have to be regulated.
Most other things you can't live without are publicly owned monopolies, like the water service, and rightly so. I believe all infrastructure whose nature is such that it makes competition infeasible should be publicly owned.
I'm all for my city/county owning and maintaining the communications media to my house. But I also want to be able to pick between several providers of content over that medium, be it TV, voice, and/or Internet access. Ideally I'd like to be able to pick and choose so I could get my phone service from one company, and Internet access from another, for example.
Not that it'll ever happen. Local politicians are usually too corrupt, and the large communications companies have too much money to grease their palms. But I can dream.
--
Honey, the fairies are going to drive me to drink - My brother. | |
| | | | | 
natter
join:2000-12-18
Littleton, CO
| Re: Sounds great! "If you can't get service from someone else, and you can't live without this service, they can charge you whatever they want, and you will pay it. No matter how shoddy the service. Because it's better than the alternative - no service. That's why phone and power companies have to be regulated."
So true. I used to have dsl and then I bought a house. No dsl or cable here. I got this wireless connection that is great when it's great (60% of the time).
I could never go back to dialup. I would rather just read a book at night. haha | |
| | | | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| Well fine then have the goverment own the infrastructure. That's fine too. However, you do realize that isn't the viewpoint shared by any REPUBLICAN. REPUBLICANS LIKE THE MONOPOLY STATUS QUO. How can you say that government run companies suck hard when you've never seen it. Didn't you read the initial posts $38 digital cable adn $30 cable modems??? Does that suck???? I'd throw the largest celebration in the history of humanity if my city got that. Please, don't just give me the same copout commie bashie rhetoric give me evidence. I WANT 1 EXAMPLE OF ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT RUN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT HAS EVER FAILED!!!!! SOMEBODY GIVE ME 1 EXAMPLE OR I DECLARE MYSELF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS GENIUS OF THE UNIVERSE. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Eatmeingreek
Gentard
join:2001-06-29
San Francisco, CA
| OK, I give you the phone system in Argentina before it was privatized. It would take years and cost thousands of dollars to get a POTS line. No, not in the distant past, it happened as recently as the late '80s.
Uruguay's phone system was similarly screwed up, but it improved markedly after the return of Democracy in 1985. They've had to improve because private cell phone companies are eating them alive. However, I'm sure it's still vastly more expensive and takes longer to get than phone service here in the U.S. I'll check with my relatives and get back to you.
Satisfied? Now please stop shouting.
--
Honey, the fairies are going to drive me to drink - My brother. | |
| | | | | | 
Dirk Daring
join:2000-08-03
Ashburn, VA
| You know... I was going to flame your 'republican this, republican that' bull*hit viewpoint... but I don't think I will now. It's far more entertaining to watch you make yourself look like an idiot when its clear you don't know a thing about politics.
Keep up the 'anti-republican' posts. I for one, am enjoying the laugh!
Dirk
[text was edited by author 2002-02-08 08:26:23] | |
| | | | | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Ask the Brits how much they like BT.
A govt run telecom can't fail. If the government doesn't like how things are going, well, they have all the guns + a printing press to raise cash, just like in Argentina.
If a govt telecom did fail, it probably is because they were occupied and conquered.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | | | 
C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| This certainly could be good, especially if done correctly, and they do take care of deploying it carefully. They would have to consider the kinds of bandwidth stresses that may happen at maximum bandwidth saturation per home, and gauge accordingly; this overselling of bandwidth only leads to trouble.
I myself have been quite satisfied with my DSL provider, as I've had no real problems with them, except for mainly the USB modem that they had sent me initially. However, going with their PCI version really fixed a lot of that, as well as going with a new OS  .
Being where I am, there's no way that OOL would probably come down here, but if they did, I would probably sign up, for they seem to be the singular example of providing really good cable-modem access to their customers, according to the many reviews about the ISP on here. Just wish that they could come down south!  OOL - IMHO - would probably be the only cable-modem ISP that I would really consider favoring over my current DSL service.
However, if the city started to provide the i-net access for a good price, I might switch. but only if they take great care of making sure that the speed is there, and that the latency is low. I do too many things that require low latency for me to put up with anything getting dialup pings at ANY time of day.
--
Everything AOL touches just plain sucks. End of Story! | |
| 
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Already kicked out TimeWarner... Add Lebanon, Ohio (»www.ci.lebanon.oh.us)
to the list. They've subbed out to a local ISP to
provide access via their community cable TV (they
kicked TimeWarner out of town a while ago) and
soon-to-be local telephone system.
Cable TV ~$38/month for full digital tier, Broadband
cable Internet ~$28.95.
--
»www.brittanyrescue.org | |
| | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| Re: Already kicked out TimeWarner... Your digital teir is the same price as our analog. GOD DO I HATE ALL REPUBLICAN PRIVITIZATION PIGS!!! CABLE AND TELECOM SHOULD'VE BEEN SOCIALIZED FROM THE START. How we all got duped into buying this right wing deregulation trash just pisses me off to no end. NOBODY CAN POSSIBLY RUN INFRASTRUCTURE MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN THE GOVERNMENT. THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT!!! | |
| | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Already kicked out TimeWarner... If limited to local, perhaps State, governments - I'll agree. I don't think our FedGovt has done a particularly great job of managing infrastructure. The FCC, FAA, and FHA are all rather beureaucratic horrors, IMO.
But I think it would be a fine idea if every city, town, and/or county would run the local wire infrastructure. NOT run an ISP, but just the infrastructure...just like they do roads, water mains, etc. My power rarely goes out, my water runs fine, and the roads, well, not too bad a condition 
I do NOT think any company should be permitted to own infrastructure AND provide service.
KM | |
| | | | 
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
| Re: Already kicked out TimeWarner... said by KoolMoe:
I do NOT think any company should be permitted to own infrastructure AND provide service.
KM
I agree, it just creates more companies like Verizon to bully people around, and limits peoples choices, which increases prices. | |
| | | | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| That's fine but GREEDY REPUBLICANS won't even support that compromise. They sacrifice all of the core principles that they hold sacred(accountability and responsibility) by letting the monopolies go completely unacccountable and responsible for their mistakes. | |
| | | | | NekoShi
join:2002-02-08
Chandler, AZ
| Re: Already kicked out TimeWarner... said by 2farfromCO:
That's fine but GREEDY REPUBLICANS won't even support that compromise. They sacrifice all of the core principles that they hold sacred(accountability and responsibility) by letting the monopolies go completely unacccountable and responsible for their mistakes.
Ah, your just as greedy as us Republicans if you aren't prove it by giving me all you own.
Could you have said that with out the name calling? For some reason it makes your statement look less reliable.
--
My hart is the darkness. | |
| | | | 
nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL
| said by KoolMoe:
If limited to local, perhaps State, governments - I'll agree. I don't think our FedGovt has done a particularly great job of managing infrastructure. The FCC, FAA, and FHA are all rather beureaucratic horrors, IMO.
But I think it would be a fine idea if every city, town, and/or county would run the local wire infrastructure. NOT run an ISP, but just the infrastructure...just like they do roads, water mains, etc. My power rarely goes out, my water runs fine, and the roads, well, not too bad a condition
I do NOT think any company should be permitted to own infrastructure AND provide service.
KM
I don't trust my government to own my lines of communication. Enough said.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. | |
| andreo
join:2001-03-30
Des Moines, IA
| The way things should be! I've always thought that this is the way things should be anyway. With the ok cost of equipment I could have a connection to a neighbor or two. Those neighbors could have the same and then it would look like the old commercial for that hair shampoo. "I connected to two friends, and then they connected to two friends, and so on and so on..." It would cut out the middle man and the only thing that would pose a problem would be connecting to a backbone at places. throw in a low fee for renting the connection to a backbone and your up and running.
Andre | |
|
nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL
| Sure, it looks good on paper but so does Marxism and Homeowners Associations (which are synonymous). What happens when somebody wants to park their boat in the driveway, the internet equivalent of running a server that takes up a little bandwidth than the next guy? Hmmmmmmm? The Lawn Nazis will be on you like a Christmas sweater and you'll do and say anything to get either one off your back.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. | |
| | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT | Re: Sure, it looks good on paper What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism... | |
| | |
nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper said by cidhigh42:
What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism...
It's a great theory that discounts the penchant for human greed and selfish ambition. The human factor was not properly accounted for.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. | |
| | | | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper Marxism has never been really tried. System claiming to be Marxists have been established, but have never been followed through upon.
Before you compleatly discount Marxism, remember that it has never really been given a chance. Publicly owned Utilities are a great place to apply the Marxist / socialist ideology on a smaller scale.
With private owned utilities, we got enron. Let us see what the outcome of these community owned utilities is, and if it is better than that with enron, then let it be called a sucess for socialism / Marxism. | |
| | | | | redleaf
join:2000-09-12
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper said by cidhigh42:
Marxism has never been really tried. System claiming to be Marxists have been established, but have never been followed through upon.
Everytime I hear someone bring Marxism up, I hear this quote right after it, verbatim, like there is a string being pulled. Don't you see that the inherent flaw that nc1165 brings up:
said by nc1165:
It's a great theory that discounts the penchant for human greed and selfish ambition. The human factor was not properly accounted for.
Is the reason Marxism will never be tried? Because everytime it's tried someone with ambition ie.: Stalin, Ceaucescu, Castro, Pol Pot, Hussein, etc. will come along and take advantage of a naive system of government? But then people can keep on saying, "But it's never really been tried!"
Alright this thread skirts the edge of this post but I had to respond to that. | |
| | | | | | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT | Re: Sure, it looks good on paper You know what's "naive"?
Leaving everything up to these mysterious "market forces". It is much more logical to have some form of planned economy, one in which such "economic vodoo" is avoided. | |
| | | | | | | redleaf
join:2000-09-12 | Re: Sure, it looks good on paper I like market forces because they're neutral... most of the time. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eatmeingreek
Gentard
join:2001-06-29
San Francisco, CA
| said by cidhigh42:
Leaving everything up to these mysterious "market forces". It is much more logical to have some form of planned economy, one in which such "economic vodoo" is avoided.
But the fact is these market forces do work. That's how I have this computer, this house, the food in my fridge, etc.
Every time some genius thinks they can do better you wind up with some towns with too many toilets and no toilet paper and some others with lots of toilet paper and no toilets.
--
Honey, the fairies are going to drive me to drink - My brother. | |
| | | | | | | 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| said by cidhigh42:
You know what's "naive"?
Leaving everything up to these mysterious "market forces". It is much more logical to have some form of planned economy, one in which such "economic vodoo" is avoided.
Good. Then I will buy you a one way ticket to Cuba and you can have all of the "central planned nirvana" that you can handle.
Socialism is evil. It has been responsible for the deaths of millions.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 21:20:41] | |
| | | | | | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | | NekoShi
join:2002-02-08
Chandler, AZ
| said by cidhigh42:
Marxism has never been really tried.
Has true Capitalism?
Can a true form of Capitalism or Marxism be tried?
Just what are Capitalism and Marxism?
The basic idea of Marxism is that owners cheat workers, and the owners should be done away with.
The basic idea of Capitalism is you should be able to do what ever you want with what you own.
Could you have Marxism with in Capitalism? Yes, if workers became the owners. Like the ones who worked for Enron.
--
My hart is the darkness. | |
| | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| 10's of millions of dead Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, and so forth could answer that question, of what is wrong with Marxism.
When a company like Enron blows up in capitalism, it gets taken to court, the remaining assets divided up, and that's that. The secret police don't come to your house, unless that's what you call the New York Times.
In a Marxist state, they'd just rewrite another 5 year plan, making the company incredibly bloated with people who aren't productive. Then repeat every five years until exposed as a fraud and cog of an evil empire.
Marxism is dead. Sometimes the rest of the twitching body hasn't gotten the signal yet.
Don't get me started about Canada. Family members sneak as much cash out of the country as legally possible on quarterly trips to the Caribbean, get health care in Detroit, and still even with some First Nation tax exemptions still give two thirds of their money to the govt.
Read the Canadian press. It's full of moaning about the brain drain of doctors, about tighter economic intergration. They are so fatalistic about it. There is this thing called harmonization underway, and the locals understand it to be absorbtion of the country into the USA. Want to talk about assimilation and futile resistance? Ask a Canadian.
The socialist utopia of the Great White North will be American in word if not deed in a decade. All Canadians are really Americans at heart, except they can drive correctly and play hockey properly.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-08 10:34:03] | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by cidhigh42:
What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism...
It ignores human nature.... just like "Free Market theory" does too. | |
| | | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper said by KrK:
said by cidhigh42:
What's so bad about Marxism? It's just scientific socialism...
It ignores human nature.... just like "Free Market theory" does too.
Um, free market theory counts on basic human greed, to look out only after your best interests. That's the Invisible Hand at work.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | wjwallace3
join:2002-01-17
Mount Tabor, NJ | very true! also regarding the above post, you have just built yourself a network with hundreds of points of failure. Plus you have to feel sorry for the guy on the end who can only push 10kbps because everyone else is using all the bandwidth. | |
| | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | Re: Sure, it looks good on paper Why should you design such a poor fault intolerant network. Is that how it works today? Why should the same citizens that are technicians for @home and AT&T and other broadband companies suddenly become stoopid since they work for the city? | |
| |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| What happens is the community finds out who you are. Declars that you are stealing from them. You get a bandwidth fine for abuse. Next offence you get fined and clamped.
Believe me, people will act when they can directly FEEL the impact of your negative behavior. | |
| | | 
Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper You've got the right idea Dnoye. If someone is going to run a web server maybe they should pay for what they use if they are using a lot of a scarce resource. If I decide to run a quake server or something like that sustaining a lot of bandwidth to the public Internet perhaps I should pay for that too. If you are building a network today though without some of the legacy issues and bottlenecks that the incumbent telcos and cable companies are dealing with and can invest in building something with an eye to the future (where everyone has a LOT more bandwidth) a couple people sucking up a little more bandwidth shouldn't be a big deal, nor should it be very expensive for you the provider. A big upside that I see of this kind of public net access is a great potential to develop a really kick butt local network infrastructure. I mean I'd love it if i could dial up a website to make reservations at local restaurants or order flowers from the florist down the street, or maybe order chinese food without having to overcome a language barrier. Etropolis tried to do a lot of this stuff, but never really could get off the ground because nobody wanted to invest any money in a local network infrastructure. Of course not all municipalities can do this, but then not all municipal governments are created equal. How many other governments could create a local electric utility and save their residents 30% compared to prevailing private sector rates in the state.
I'm not one that usually advocates government involvement in areas best left to the private sector, but I make an exception if government infrastructure exists that can decrease the cost of an essential public services while increasing the quality. Anyone that can't see the good in that has been worshipping at the temple of unregulated market forces just a bit too long.
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! | |
| | 
bhan261
join:2001-02-12
New York, NY | Agreed! There are some things in life that are better left to private industry (and the profit motive.) Hell...my city government can't even pick up the garbage properly! Why would I want to entrust them with my telephone and internet service. | |
| | |
See 18 replies to this post | |
| | | |
See 19 replies to this post | |
| cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT | Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. take me back
Enough is enough. Stop with the persolal attacks. | |
| | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT
| "With the right people running the show even the best system can fail. If its just repressive regimes that causes the failure how do you explain the economic success of some Fascist regimes?"
Some fascist regimes are sucessful because of centralized economic planning. Now, mind you, I am no proponet of fascism | |
| | | NekoShi
join:2002-02-08
Chandler, AZ
| Re: Sure, it looks good on paper said by cidhigh42:
Some fascist regimes are sucessful because of centralized economic planning. Now, mind you, I am no proponet of fascism
That doesn't answer my question. If the Marxism failed because the regimes that tried it were repressive shouldn't the Fascist ones have failed for the same reason?
--
My hart is the darkness. | |
| | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT | Well, some of the facist regimes of which you speak were propped up by the United States, while many of the communist ones faced total, unfair opposition from the USA. I don't know, just somthing to think about. | |
| | | | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT | Thesis -> Antithesis
--------------------------
Synthesis | |
| | | 
jipper
join:2001-01-04
Stanton, MI
| Re: Don't know about this... In Holland here that is exactly what we are trying to do. The city has installed the fiber network and works with local ISP's to provide phone,cable, and of course Internet. As far as ATT goes that never will happen. Holland tried to make it work but ATT just put it's nose in that air. They would just as soon spend the millions on their own network so they can charge terrible rates. | |
| | andreo
join:2001-03-30
Des Moines, IA
| Didn't AT&T just try something like that with its current users. I don't have AT&T cable so I don't know the entire story. But I did read in the ATT groups that free days were promised for every day down. I also just read about ATT giving the users that were affected some free Real Network games and a handbag or something instead.
I think penalties like that would only make ATT (or any company) just provide even worst service since there's no real penalty involved. | |
| | 
cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL
| I grew up in St. Charles, and I can tell you first hand, people there have a lot of capital when they can afford to buy their children Mercedes Benzes to drive to school. Of course not everyone there is insanely wealthy, but there are certainly a lot of very wealthy and at least financially well-off people in the Fox Valley. | |
| | |
Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Don't know about this... They did a survey a few months ago that was published in our local paper, cybermud is correct, there is a lot of disposable income out here. Home are less expensive than most of chicago, while earnings are still pretty high:
"40.2 percent earn more than $100,000."(respondents from geneva, courtesy of the kane county chronicle)
Here's the whole article about the survey if anyone local is interested:
»kcchronicle.com/main.asp?Search=···=155&S=1
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! | |
| 
CitizenX9
join:2002-01-09
Longview, TX
| My local isp isn't bad? I use a local cable ISP. A little pricey but very reliable and i have a killer upload. 1mbps/512kbps for $65. I could of gotten 512/256kbps for $45. For $95 i could get 1.5mbps/1mbps (NEAR T1 SPEEDS). My cable has not been down once in about 5 months (since i'v had it) and they don't complain about me uploading at 60k/s all day either. I hope more local cable co's start their own isp instead of letting Time Warner come in and do it for them. | |
| |
Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: My local isp isn't bad? Hmmm.. I guess your cable co just must not have access to the kind of capital that ATT and TW have.. since they have built such an infe..... wait a minute.. that rocks citizenx, i wish i lived in your area
and news flash to everyone else, ATT is one of the biggest out there and their reason for not coming out to the fox valley so far has been insufficient return on their capital expenditure.. so go figure.. the premise that the big guys magically have access to huge amounts of capital and are willing to service everybody is quite faulty.
Hasn't anyone considered that economies of scale might refer to economies of the PROPER scale. Bigger is not always better. Bigger sometimes means more bloated, more inefficient, less likely to provide a good experience to subscribers, more difficult to react to changes in the Market. Why not have some elightened local public players take advantage of some favorable local synergies and make strategic infrastructure decisions that can positively impact a wide spectrum of consumers and businesses?
Rock on.
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! | |
| | |
CitizenX9
join:2002-01-09
Longview, TX | Re: My local isp isn't bad? Check out www.cablelynx.com That's my isp's site. Pretty good deals and coverage, they are slowly expanding all over texas/oklahoma/Louisiana. | |
| | |
nc1165
join:2001-04-10
Delray Beach, FL | Sounds like opportunity knocking if I ever saw it. Grab a backhoe and about a thousand miles of fiber and get to work.
--
If my enemy cuts me, I will drown him in my own blood. | |
| 
Jestocost
The Poodle Bites.
join:2000-10-19
Saint Louis, MO
| Industry Association and Considerations If you're interested in a longer list of communities that provide their own cable service, check out this link to their industry association:
»www.cabletvcoop.org/default.htm
Also, I think it's important to point out that some of these local cable systems have traditionally outsourced all of their broadband Internet services to companies like HSA Corp., which was never noted as a good service provider. HSA's gone (or going), but it's important to look under the surface to see what the city is offering.
--
I could make it all worthwhile as a rock & roll star. | |
| 
NekoAshide
join:2001-06-24
Greenville, TX
| Coty owned utilities better My city is offering me totally uncapped cable for $34.95 no restrictions. We also have att which is offering 1.5/128k with VPN, Servers and all other kinds of restrictions for $39.95 Now when i have a complaint about my service i don't get put on hold by an att operator i can drive 5 miles to the CMTS and have my complaint heard by a real person. It comes down the communities watching out for the citizens needs. I think it's time for the government to start regulating cable providers. If a small town can provide that kind of service to people then i think there is something wrong. I do believe att is trying to monopolize on broadband just like Microsoft does to windows. Why att does dialup, DSL, cable, phone, and wireless business and goes unnoticed by the government i may never know. | |
| |
Jmartz
join:2000-07-20
Tenafly, NJ
| Re: Coty owned utilities better Maybe it goes un-noticed because they are conducting themselves for the most part in a professional manner that doesn't attract as much attention.
If anything, Verizon should be dealt with first, but the Government seems to overlook them as well. I've read the Verizon DSL message board here on DSLReports, and it isn't a pretty site Oh, and Verizon / DSL Lines are regulated, and the government doesn't do anything about their monopolistic practices.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-07 23:33:54] | |
| | TACSPEED
Premium
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA
·Advanced Stream
| I agree! While we don't get uncapped cable Internet, the price for cable Internet through our municipal network is well below what ATT charges. We do have server restrictions, however VPN appears to be allowed. On the plus side we can get fiber to the home if we want; you just need money.
On the negative side, of all the municipal cable networks that I have seen so far, ours appears to be the most restrictive.:( | |
| 
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | I hope so .... I live in Geneva, IL. I read about this in the local paper a couple of months ago, but I thought the idea had gone by the wayside. Hmmm.... maybe I can get in on the bottom floor.
Bret | |
| | 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| A monopoly by any other name... The solution is competition, not governmentalization. Why topple one monopolist and install another??? In a small community near here, he local independent telco came in with a competing cable system - at the time, the monopoly provider was charging around 35 a month (quite a few years back, too), and insisted that fiber and additional premium services were cost prohibitive for the market. Service was terrible. Persistent, prolonged outages (including a controversial superbowl sunday catastrophe )... upgrades were out of the question, and the system could never survive as it was without a rate increase. So went the cableco's rhetoric.
Enter the cavalry, in the form of the local telco. They applied for and received a franchise from the council, and were granted a waiver by the FCC, after lots of legal wrangling, and a careful promise to not cross-subsidize the two entities (aside: now you see why even the "mighty Verizon" has to keep two separate entities - the FCC frowns really HARD on "cross-subsidizing" cable or internet from telephone revenues). There are now two cable providers available. The town of ~2500 has two 70 channel full service carriers. The average bill is under 30 dollars for both. Both provide state of the art fiber networks, and both are in a constant battle to out do the other... seniors even get discounts ... it works. Nobody's leaving town, either, for lack of revenues. In fact, that original provider suddenly "found" hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform those needed upgrades... even despite having to lower the rates that they originally claimed were already unprofitibly low...
Ironic, to me, that we have such a violent push for competition in phone service, which, arguably, is far more of a "natural monopoly" than entertainment and cable, yet we allow and encourage localized monopolies over an industry in which free competition is demonstrably better, here. Yet we cling tenaciously to a model that was designed to be a temporary accomodation, to induce businesses to establish the networks at a time when cable's future and public appeal were seriously in question, and the technology was significantly more costly.
Instead of transfering a private sector monopoly into the bureaucratic black hole of a public sector monopoly, why not entertain the idea of awarding multiple franchises as the norm, rather than the exception? It seems that every community that's franchised more than one cable provider has gotten better service, more customer satisfaction, and lower rates than any community that has retained the one franchise monopoly market model. Face it, the only people who benefit from the monopolies are the cablecos. The municipalities will realize better franchise fee revenues, if you ask me, because the lower rate and active competition will mean more market penetration. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.
--
A man who carries a cat by the tail is getting experience that will always be helpful. He isn't likely to grow dim or doubtful. Chances are, he isn't likely to carry the cat that way again, either. But if he wants to, I say, let him. --Mark Twain | |
| | esjatharvee
join:2000-08-03
Westford, MA
| Re: A monopoly by any other name... the problem with this approach is that it's almost impossible to have competition at last mile except an extremely high density areas such as urban centers. The reason for this is simple economics. Anytime you try to provide infrastructure level service to a fixed population in a given area, increasing numbers of competitors create increasing per subscriber cost.
If it costs X million dollars to wire a town to service Y customers, adding one competitor means it costs 2X to service the same number of customers. Adding a third competitor means it costs 3X and so on. Whenever you have a situation where increasing competition increases the per subscriber cost, you have a natural monopoly.
unless your costs of infrastructure are extremely low in relation to the population served, having more than 1 service provider in a natural monopoly market means that either no one will make money or the cost of service will increase. I suspect that your situation is one where the companies are either subsidizing the service from out-of-town markets or they are burning buckets of cash waiting for the other company to fail. | |
| | |
Rob Froelich
join:2000-03-26
Saint Charles, IL
clubs: | Re: A monopoly by any other name... I couldn't have said it better myself esjatharvee
--
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!! | |
| | | NekoShi
join:2002-02-08
Chandler, AZ
| The math is right. Its the logic thats flawed said by esjatharvee:
If it costs X million dollars to wire a town to service Y customers, adding one competitor means it costs 2X to service the same number of customers. Adding a third competitor means it costs 3X and so on. Whenever you have a situation where increasing competition increases the per subscriber cost, you have a natural monopoly.
That assumes that all the providers will use the methods and technologies to do the job. Even if they did one may be able to get a better deal then another on the job.
While more providers may mean higher over head it doesn't not have to mean a higher cost to the consumer. With competition there is more incentive to do things cheaper and better. With out it complacency is much more likely to set in.
Would you like to go back to the days of Ma bell? .30 $ to .50$ per min of long distance and having to rent telephones?
--
My hart is the darkness. | |
| | 
NoAccessIllinois
@il.us
| In the case of the Illinois towns, they would give any company a franchise in a second...the reality is that there are no private enterprises that want to overbuild. Ameritech just sold their fledgling Cable TV service, so so much for the local telco's providing competition. Competition is a great thing when it works. When it doesn't work it is a market failure, and the only way to deal with market failures is government intervention. It is a fact of living in a market society and I wouldn't prefer it any other way. Local government should not be compared to State and Federal government, and really shouldn't even be compared to County government. Local government can be as efficient as the people living in the area want to make it. I will except local government that is effectively as large as County and State governments. The beauty of local government is that the self-determination of the people can prevail right where they live. None of these initiatives would succeed if the people living there didn't support it - and support it for a reason. | |
| 
macyh
Ex-Isp
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-24
Medina, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Great idea, politically tough to do This is a great idea. However it's very tough to get any municipality that does not operate the own utility service now to even consider the idea. They just don't want to take on the expense and effort unless it has very broad taxpayer support. That's very difficult to get through any city council right now.
What has worked is the addition of cable and internet services where the municipality already has an operating electric utility... and the city is ticked off at the cable provider. Since the city already owns the poles and right of way, adding the necessary cable and head end equipment is a much easier to put into place...and far less expensive.
That's exactly what's happened in a nearby city, Wadsworth, Ohio, an suburb of Akron. They have Time-Warner, they were treated badly by TW and finally decided to so something about it. They've got a competing cable and internet system that really is doing a pretty good job on a very limited budget. They don't have much of a web page that describes their system, link is here
I've tried to get other area cities interested, but it's been damn near impossible to get support from the politicians. FYI, I sit on the "fiber optic access subcommittee" of the Medina Area Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Committee, and we've tried very hard to get a Port Authority setup for a county owned fiber optic CLEC, and it's been very tough going. The County Commissioners just don't see a need or public demand. They feel that the four telephone and three cable companies service this county should do the job.
--
Macy Hallock APK Net, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio | |
| 
SeminoleRob
join:2001-12-19
Panama City, FL
| Cash pit Going to use an example here where I live. In Springfield, they have Comcast and Springfield cable. For the longest time, Comcast was losing their butt in the area because the cable was cheaper (lot less channels, but cheaper) and people liked the idea that your water and cable were on one bill..
Then the fiber upgrade came along. Comcast upgraded all the coax to fiber. Springfield, with other problems, couldn't afford to. The Comcast picture was a lot better and now when it rains, it doesn't go out. I know this from experience. Now Springfield cable is about dead. Knology looked into buying them (they have the rest of the city) and said no because of too much debt/upgrading costs.
Why I bring this up is the initial time its going to be great. I do like my Comcast but would love to tell Bellsouth to stick their phone somewhere unpleasant. When it comes time for a major upgrade, are they going to afford to do it? All it takes is one administration to screw it up. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
Re: Sounds great!
·
Don't know about this...
a petition?