dslreports logo
 story category
Intel Backs McCain Broadband Bill
Muni fight is now big business versus big business
Chipmaker Intel, eager to see rural communities turn to Wimax as an alternative broadband solution, has thrown their weight behind the McCain/Lautenberg muni broadband bill (see Intel press release). As we previously discussed, the bill doesn't advocate municipal broadband, but it does act to prevent incumbents (SBC, Verizon, Comcast, Cox) from passing laws banning communities from being able to pursue the option.
view:
topics flat nest 

herr_cain
join:2003-08-29
Rolla, MO

herr_cain

Member

Great

And they should...

If this country wants to see better broadband penetration...then I feel that it's time our government steps in and says the big boys like SBC should't be allowed to control who gets broadband, if ever.

Our government is supposed to serve the people, and I applaud McCain for stepping up for what is the right thing to do. I knew he was the best candidate in 2000 .
joedish5
join:2001-06-11
Fayetteville, GA

1 recommendation

joedish5

Member

Re: Great - Not great.

If this country want better broadband penetration...then I feel is time that our government get the heck out of the way. I cannot believe how many folks want their local governments to take their tax money (you don't have option to not pay taxes or the government will hurt you) to do almost anything. So if our money is taken to pay for a crappy government ISP service, how can I afford to pay a private company that has to compete with a subsidized service. Why would a private company risk start up costs when they know the government can just regulate them out of business in preference to their own service.

I just cannot imagine where people get the idea that the government does anything efficiently or with a customer focus. Why do so many folks want to keep sending money down those same rat holes where there is no accountability.

Octopussy2
Premium Member
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL

1 edit

Octopussy2

Premium Member

Re: Great - Not great.

People might've gotten that idea in those communities who have municipally-run electric utilities. I know in our case in Batavia, Geneva and St. Charles, IL, we have had our local muni operating our electric and water utilities for over 100 years. Geneva is actually going to be generating their own power next year as well.

Our prices are well below those of Com Ed, and when we have power outages (rare) we do not have to wait for Com Ed crews who consider us the backwater of Chicago to show up and service us. Local men and women are on our own problems in an instant. Local service and accountability has served us well for over 100 years and we wouldn't have it any other way.

bent
and Inga
Premium Member
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO

bent

Premium Member

Re: Great - Not great.

Exactly. We need to start looking at broadband as a utility, not as a luxury service. As a utility, there is no reason that Municipalities shouldn't develop and offer broadband, wether its wireless, coax, fiber, bpl or whatever.

And if anyone wants to raise the "Won't someone please think of the taxes" BS argument, ask Octopussy2 See Profile how much more he pays in property tax for his municipal utilities. As I've said before, building infrastructure like this is paid for by bonds, ultimately private investors and paid back by the revenues of the service. How long does it take to pay off a $300k wireless system if you have 1000 customers at $40 a month?
bent

bent to joedish5

Premium Member

to joedish5
said by joedish5:

If this country want better broadband penetration...then I feel is time that our government get the heck out of the way. I cannot believe how many folks want their local governments to take their tax money (you don't have option to not pay taxes or the government will hurt you) to do almost anything. So if our money is taken to pay for a crappy government ISP service, how can I afford to pay a private company that has to compete with a subsidized service. Why would a private company risk start up costs when they know the government can just regulate them out of business in preference to their own service.

I just cannot imagine where people get the idea that the government does anything efficiently or with a customer focus. Why do so many folks want to keep sending money down those same rat holes where there is no accountability.
I hate big government as much as the next guy, but I think Muni Broadband is a good idea. One of the functions (and the only good one, imo) that government serves is to acomplish things for the public good that individuals working alone can not.

In this case, the thing that needs accomplished is Some Sort of broadband data service, which residents are more than willing to pay for.

In every instannce that I have read about this, it's not a matter of big government competing with big business, it's a matter of of local citizens requesting small government (hence "municipal") to provide a utility that big business will not.

herr_cain
join:2003-08-29
Rolla, MO

herr_cain to joedish5

Member

to joedish5
said by joedish5:

Why would a private company risk start up costs when they know the government can just regulate them out of business in preference to their own service.

I just cannot imagine where people get the idea that the government does anything efficiently or with a customer focus.
First, I did not claim that I wanted to see the government begin PROVIDING internet access to citizens. What I'd like to see is that the government regulate some of this monopoly BS, which is hurting the end user-->you and I. As it is, the large telco's are blocking small town USA's from trying to run their own broadband network. How can a private company have that power? Hence, my point for the government to cut these guys down a size or two in ego/power.
Scilicet (banned)
Spaced Out
join:2005-04-11
Aurora, CO

Scilicet (banned)

Member

Re: Great - Not great.

I would really like to see what comes of this WiMax deal. However, once the government begins to get involved things have a propensity to turn to stuff. Now that McCain is involved it's practically guaranteed.

Unregistered user
@tsclos01.al.comcast.

1 recommendation

Unregistered user to joedish5

Anon

to joedish5
Government provides what we want it to provide. There are many services that we look to government to provide that compete with private industry. Some examples:

Government service| Competes with
====================================
City water | Bottled water
Public transit | Taxicabs, private cars, private buses
Sanitation depts. | Private trash haulers
Public schools | Private and parochial schools
Public universities | Private universities
PBS, NPR | Commercial broadcasting
USPS | UPS, FedEx, DHL, Airborne Express
National Weather Svc. |AccuWeather
Public hospitals | Private hospitals
Public libraries | Bookstores
TVA | Entergy, Southern Company, ConEd

I'll add one more: the Universal Service Fund, which is meant to subsidize phone service in rural areas. Yes, if you live in many parts of the country, you're paying into a fund to ensure that some farmer in Idaho can pay roughly the same price as you for a phone line. Think that's unfair, and that this farmer should pay the "real" price for that line, even if it's $100 a month? Hey, it's his choice to live there. Well, be glad he lives there, or your plentiful supply of cheap food may not be so plentiful or cheap.

And why does sending a letter from Fairbanks, AK to Rolling Fork, MS cost exactly the same thing as it does to send it from Brooklyn to Queens? Well, in real terms, the cost is very different, but that New Yorker is paying a little to help that Alaskan send his letter. But we could just charge a metered rate based on how much it costs to move that particular piece of mail. Sucks for the guy in Alaska, but, hey, he chose to live there, right? Or maybe, just maybe, there is some social good in making sure all parts of the country have cheap access to the postal service. Same for the farmer in Idaho who gets subsidized phone service. As a society, we decided somewhere along the way that people shouldn't be penalized for living in these areas, even if it costs more for services to reach them.

You can argue about the relative value of any of these, but my point is that there are many services provided by government that could compete with private industry. It's a decision we make as a society as to what we do and don't want government to do. Don't pretend that muni broadband is any different than any of the above because it isn't.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT

Member

Re: Great - Not great.

said by Unregistered user:

You can argue about the relative value of any of these, but my point is that there are many services provided by government that could compete with private industry. It's a decision we make as a society as to what we do and don't want government to do. Don't pretend that muni broadband is any different than any of the above because it isn't.
Well said.
I just cannot imagine where people get the idea that the government does anything efficiently or with a customer focus.
Uh, maybe from the many examples of efficient and customer-focussed government services.

My favorite example is GPS, used for many things besides just geolocation, from timing synchronization for cellphone towers sites, to helping farmers efficiently apply fertilizer. There's simply no way GPS would have been deployed as a private system: the payoff was too long-term, and too speculative.

First-class mail is another. As the previous poster stated, if it was up to private industry, it would cost $4.95 to mail a letter to some locations, and mail delivery would not be available at all in some locations; just like the situation with broadband today. If some community has asked the providers to sell them broadband, and the providers have told them to go pound sand, why shouldn't the community be allowed to do it themselves?

The quip that "goverment never does anything right, industry is always better" may be a popular Fox News-esque ideological catchphrase, but has no basis in fact, nor in economic theory. "Market Failure" in microeconomic theory occurs in the real world, where the "invisible hand of the market" just doesn't get it done in all cases. In those few cases, why shouldn't the residents of that community, through their goverment and by majority agreement, be permitted to jump in an fill the gap?

lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU

1 edit

lazarus_

Member

Smart move

Actually, that's pretty smart.. Get Intel's deep pockets on your side to fight the Cable and Telcos.. So long as muni's don't have some obligation to use WIMAX, they are set!

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

powerline

Let powerline in everyone has to have power there is one way to go. Intel has some deep pockets why not invest in it then.

just my idea tho to this..

DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium Member
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA

DaDogs

Premium Member

By God I WAS WRONG.

There is a whale of a lot of reason to decide that WiMax can do something for us.

It may not deliver in the signal department until it is delivered on 900 MHz silicon, but between now and then, it seems to have a certain value we should not ignore.
Private Iron
join:2004-10-11
Norman, OK

Private Iron

Member

Quick Rant

"act to prevent incumbents (SBC, Verizon, Comcast, Cox) from passing laws banning communities from being able to pursue the option."
Just the fact that this statement is actually true pisses me off. How in the hell can a friggin COMPANY pass a law? And yet it happens all the time. And why is it that the incumbents can decide what a town does or does not do. I know its been discussed ad nauseum, but man that makes me mad, that a damn corporation has that much power. Ah well, /Rant Off.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72

Premium Member

Re: Quick Rant

Welcome to America, buddy.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Quick Rant

AMERICA.. yes the place where they tell you to take a number and have a seat..lol

USC Scholar
@adelphia.net

USC Scholar

Anon

This part of the bill is typical corruption

The part of the McCain-Lautenberg bill preferred by this board's owner violates the Constitution, not that either of those 2 corrupt jackasses gives a damn.

The Feds have precisely zero authority to tell states what laws they may pass unless there is express permission in the Constitution, and there is none for this.

And of course it's a foolish idea, which will no matter what greedy lusters after others' property wish, will harm the country and people who wish to have broadband.

And FYI, municipal power is federally and state subsidized. Governments don't pay taxes and are often exempted from regs. Nice if you're a creep, but honorable people don't accept stolen property.

FightingBlue
@direcpc.com

FightingBlue

Anon

Re: This part of the bill is typical corruption

I don't expect a raving, far-right wingnut like you to get this, but it's perfectly legal. I take it you've never heard of Equal Protection? The very short version is that it bans the states from abridging peoples' rights, which includes their right to local government, and their right to petition their local government for a redress of grievances, both of which statewide anti-muni bills restrict. It's you who are on the wrong side of the 14th Amendment.

By the way, get off the internet this second! Much of the core system is owned by the government, and therefore evil. Don't watch TV either--the airwaves are publicly owned. Socialism! The roads are government owned too, and so is the postal system, so don't drive anywhere, and don't send or receive any letters. Remember, if you accept the government services that are convenient for you, you're a hypocrite.

Steve Lake
@dsl.lsan03.pacbell.n

Steve Lake

Anon

Ensign vs. Lautenberg, Wireless Phila., videocon

7-28-05: Nevada Senator Ensign proposes telecom reform plan including provisions that would negate the "Community Broadband Act of 2005" proposed by Senators Lautenberg and McCain (American Politics Today #38)

»www.etopiamedia.net/empn ··· 212.html

8-1-05: Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's CIO, updates the Wireless Philadelphia story (Broadband Wireless Access World #48)

»www.etopiamedia.net/emtn ··· 212.html

7-30-05: Lee Tsao at Pronto Networks talks about Pronto-Pervasive-Wireless Philadelphia integrated community content Wi-Fi platform, "The Cloud at Wireless Philadelphia," deployed for LIVE 8 concert in Love Park (Broadband Wireless Access World #47)

»www.etopiamedia.net/emtn ··· 212.html

7-30-05: Scott Lomond, EVP at SightSpeed, talks about the latest developments regarding his company's family- and personal-oriented videoconferencing solution (Entertainment Technology World #30)

»www.etopiamedia.net/emtn ··· 212.html