dslreports logo
 story category
Windstream, AT&T Aim to Keep Georgia at 1.5 Mbps
Another Absurd Anti-Community Broadband Bill

A new bill is being proposed in Georgia that would ban towns and cities from deploying their own broadband -- if there's at least one person with a 1.5 Mbps downstream connection anywhere in a census block. House Bill 282, or the inversely-named "Municipal Broadband Investment Act," emerges after AT&T tried and failed to get a different community broadband bill passed last year.

AT&T and Windstream appear to be the ones lobbying for the bill, using regulatory capture to ensure nobody can offer anything faster than the fairly pathetic, uncompetitive DSL networks both companies refuse to seriously upgrade. As Christopher Mitchell notes, the bill's 1.5 Mbps standard is even below the FCC's paltry 4 Mbps broadband definition. The bill also acts to ban existing municipal deployments from moving forward if locals have 1.5 Mbps:

quote:
In a nutshell, HB 282 would require a city to get permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to provide broadband services only in areas the PSC deems as “unserved.” And unserved is defined as a census block where no broadband service is currently available. Also, while a city may continue to serve its existing customers, it may not expand the service beyond its existing customer base unless there is no other broadband service in the proposed new service area.
As is usually the case, the industry argues that it's simply unfair for them to have to compete with government, yet the reality is they're using government to ensure they never have to compete with towns -- or anybody else. If Windstream and AT&T were providing adequate service in Georgia, towns and cities in the state wouldn't be attempting the very difficult task of trying to wire themselves.

The bill is set to be debated today at 4:00 EST in the Telecom Subcommittee of the House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications committee. For those in Georgia who'd prefer something better than 1.5 Mbps DSL over the next decade, I'd urge you to contact committee members and remind them they work for you, not solely for AT&T and Windstream.
view:
topics flat nest 

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Sign up for Semi Fiber-Hood

If enough people speak up, they just might FORCE AT&T to bring them Uverse. Why do they have to be forced? Its ridiculous.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 edit

gaforces (banned)

Member

Re: Sign up for Semi Fiber-Hood

Uverse wont be much help since they wont necessarily get faster speeds with it.
They forcibly switched us to Uverse and do not offer faster speeds than 3Mb, down the street people can get 6Mb. The same as it was before Uverse.

The only thing new Uverse offers here is a buggy router/modem combo that hijacks your browser with no bridge mode unless you hack it.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state

Snakeoil to ITALIAN926

Premium Member

to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

If enough people speak up, they just might FORCE AT&T to bring them Uverse. Why do they have to be forced? Its ridiculous.

Because it's all about Returns need to be greater than cost.

Do you think AT&T or any other company would be willing to spend 10k to lay a run of cable/fiber 500 feet to just 1 to 10 customers?
I don't think they will, because I think they look short term, even though they know long term they can recover that 10k expenditure in about 10 years or less. Depending on what type of services the people would sign up for.

Investors don't like to see high expenditures for low returns. And that's what it's about. Keeping investors happy, and your pockets fat. Who cares if a few million people miss out on Broadband?*

*An interesting read is the post about the lady people want to see head the FCC. She makes a few decent points at how bad things are here in the US compared to elsewhere.
Why can you get a fast line in South Korea for 50 bucks a month, but that same line in the US will cost over a hundred bucks a month?
Is it because the business mode is so different between the two countries? Or something else? Or both?
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Sign up for Semi Fiber-Hood

No, it's because AT&T and it's investors think so short-term that they are killing AT&T's infrastructure by not allowing them to make the long-term investments that they need to make, i.e. FTTH.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

1 recommendation

NOVA_UAV_Guy

Premium Member

It's time for some community activism

This is kind-of intended for Karl, but also looking for some general comments and input from others here as well...

It occurs to me that one way DSLR could help people in this country get better broadband speeds is through the development of a community broadband activism toolkit. In addition to being a voice of reason on key issues like creation of municipal broadband, we could develop something - links, online tools, additional forums, and other things - that could be used by people to begin discussing topics like creating municipal broadband with the public and our elected officials.

I'm certain that I'm not the only one out here who sees the value in something like this.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: It's time for some community activism

I'll take it a step further. Why not seek to organize a grass-roots group to promote better broadband service in the United States? Call it something like Citizens for Our Broadband Future, and set up a forum so people can get organized, first, on a national level and then within states and communities. All the work can't be done online--there will eventually need to be face-to-face meetings on the local level, but an online forum is a great place to start.
ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC

ke4pym

Premium Member

Re: It's time for some community activism

Wee need to form Consumer Broadband Modernization PAC (dawt cawm)!

Eddy120876
join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY

Eddy120876

Member

Re: It's time for some community activism

Im on board with that idea if it becomes a reality

jfleni
@bhn.net

jfleni to ke4pym

Anon

to ke4pym
Next we will hear that the Georgia House will prohibit complaints against supermarkets that don't stock the brands of bread, cereal, or whatever the customers want, so that the supermarket plutocrats can do business their way, and no other as long as they offer one kind of bread, two kinds of cerial that they select, and so on, while yelling all the time "Free enterprise, bubba, Love it or leave it!

This is much like the way communist countries operated at one time; just imagine, the "Bolshevik Georgia Legislature".

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

AT&T and Monsanto

Two worst corporations on American soil.

Lark3po
Premium Member
join:2003-08-05
Madison, AL

Lark3po

Premium Member

Re: AT&T and Monsanto

said by DataRiker:

Two worst corporations on American soil.

One of those is the worst and the other is definitely in the top 5 imo.

Silver_2000
Premium Member
join:2005-12-12
Carrollton, TX

1 edit

Silver_2000

Premium Member

Re: AT&T and Monsanto

IN my Experience Windstream is nearing the top of that list of companies that suck, as well. The increasing frequency of outages, the increasing delays in getting to Support or getting support to do even basic tasks, makes me think that they are swirling the drain. I recently waited 60 days for an appt with support to make a change to our network config. 5 min into the conference call they realized that due to instability in their infrastructure all changes to the VPN concentrators were being denied by corporate. If the VPN concentrators have been locked from changes, why didn't they know that and reschedule ?

so its no surprise that Windstream has turned to Politics to attempt to retain market share since quality connections and customer service are beyond their reach

pende_tim
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Selbyville, DE

pende_tim

Premium Member

Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

Why does AT&T feel it is not fair for the Government to help the locals when they have received Billions in Federal aid dollars over the years? A lot of this aid was to provide service to rural under-served areas.

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

No, because they can get to that money. They don't want muni broadband because ultimately its competition for subscribers. Either current subscribers, potential subscribers, or future subscribers (if they ever decide to bring broadband to that location).
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to pende_tim

Premium Member

to pende_tim
said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

Not if private industry is doing it. Legislation like this is introduced to prevent the public from competing with private industry. Other legislation is introduced to ensure public offerings are done in a fair and equitable manner for competition with the private sector.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

said by openbox9:

said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

Not if private industry is doing it. Legislation like this is introduced to prevent the public from competing with private industry. Other legislation is introduced to ensure public offerings are done in a fair and equitable manner for competition with the private sector.

Large corporations by extension of lobbying are no longer "private" entities.

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

said by DataRiker:

Large corporations by extension of lobbying are no longer "private" entities.

What are they?
said by DataRiker:

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.

Yes, that is the only reason

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

said by openbox9:

What are they?

Corporatism creates these stagnant top heavy monsters, capitalism creates nimble, thrifty ( and almost always smaller ) companies.

If you had a truly competitive capitalistic environment you would never see layers of multi million dollar salaries for stagnant top heavy executives with armies of essentially bribery agents. (lobbyists)
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

That doesn't answer why you believe large corporations aren't private entities. Corporations are owned by private citizens and management companies that run money for private citizens. Perhaps you're suggesting that corporations are extensions of governments? If so, I disagree.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

DataRiker to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by DataRiker:

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.

Yes, that is the only reason

They only real beneficiaries are insiders with huge amounts of a particular stock. Huge and Particular being the key words here.

Huge and Particular are not the domain of the lay person when it comes to stock. When you consider mutual funds often invest in multiple companies of a particular sector then it all becomes a wash. One companies gain is another's loss in saturated markets.

Further more, suppose a lay person does have a particular stock, it is highly unlikely that this person owns enough stock that a 1/2 percent dividend increase will make much a difference.

For exec's and wealthy with huge amounts of stock this is extremely significant.

Thus the elite's rat race to push a particular stock ensues.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

said by DataRiker:

They only real beneficiaries are insiders with huge amounts of a particular stock. Huge and Particular being the key words here.

Huge and Particular are not the domain of the lay person when it comes to stock. When you consider mutual funds often invest in multiple companies of a particular sector then it all becomes a wash. One companies gain is another's loss in saturated markets.

I would suggest the biggest, not only, beneficiaries are those with resources and access to restricted equity/debt vehicles. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The mantra, it takes money to make money, holds true. The layperson can overcome the limitations of mutual/index funds by educating themselves and managing their own money. The layperson has relatively easy opportunity to not be a layperson when investing in equity/debt markets.
said by DataRiker:

Further more, suppose a lay person does have a particular stock, it is highly unlikely that this person owns enough stock that a 1/2 percent dividend increase will make much a difference.

For exec's and wealthy with huge amounts of stock this is extremely significant.

I disagree about seemingly small increases in a company's payout of capital to shareholders. As an example, let's consider AT&T. T currently distributes $1.80/yr. With a closing price of $35.00 on 2 Jan 2013, that equated to a yield of 5.1%. T's 2013 dividend increase of 2.3% is the newest one on top of 29 years of consecutively growing the dividend. Now, lets consider a fairly small investment of 200 shrs in T at the close on 2 Jan 13. That equates to an investment of $7000 with a annual dividend payout of $360. If the stock goes sideways the whole year, that's still a 5.1% return on capital, far better than any savings vehicle available today. Now assume that T continues growing it's dividend at 2.3% for the next ten years, or to $2.26/yr. That's a 25.6% increase and even without reinvesting dividends, takes your $360/yr payout to $452. Assuming a sideways stock and no reinvestment of dividends for a decade, you will have received $4448 in cash, for a 63.5% return on capital. So, those seemingly small increases in dividends do pay over the longterm. As many people are fond of complaining doesn't happen in our markets anymore, this is why people invest for the long term in certain equities. Dollar-wise, will a person with millions to invest make more money than one with thousands? Of course, but the percentages don't change.

whiteshp
join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

whiteshp to pende_tim

Member

to pende_tim
It's not that they truly "believe" it's unfair. It's the reality that they can spend enough money to pick and chose who gets elected. That their CEOs get elected to the state and federal government, making as much money for their corporations as possible, and returning to their companies to pick up a big fat checks for a job well milked. They write the laws now and own the news to frame it however they want. Anyone who disagrees with their practice is just framed in the media to the public as PURE EVIL.
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL

dfxmatt

Member

welp

where are all the people stating that "there's clearly competition here"?
Elray?
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy

Premium Member

Re: welp

Well, there *is* competition out there already if one is in the market for absurdly crappy Internet service...

Personally, I tend to be a very big supporter of the free market and competition. I don't see anything wrong with municipal broadband as a player in the ISP space, as long as it does not receive any special favors which could hamper the competitive landscape. If this is the case, municipal broadband could actually improve competition by providing an additional choice - which is always good for consumers.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco

Premium Member

Muni

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money. After all, bandwidth prices are falling and deploying fiber is supposedly much cheaper these days. Or at least there are countless people here who live and breath by that mentality when it comes to why the telcos should deploy fiber.

Problem here is, people want something for nothing. They want their local government to foot the bill. I have to agree that private sector companies shouldn't have to compete with the government. If there is truly need enough, people can start their own ISP or start a cooperative or something of the sort. They can create competition if that's what they want. Nothing is stopping them.

toby
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

toby

Member

Re: Muni

said by silbaco:

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money. After all, bandwidth prices are falling and deploying fiber is supposedly much cheaper these days. Or at least there are countless people here who live and breath by that mentality when it comes to why the telcos should deploy fiber.

Problem here is, people want something for nothing. They want their local government to foot the bill. I have to agree that private sector companies shouldn't have to compete with the government. If there is truly need enough, people can start their own ISP or start a cooperative or something of the sort. They can create competition if that's what they want. Nothing is stopping them.

The government is their own money.

People are willing to pay.

Saying people should start their own isp is like saying people should build their own power station if they want cheaper power . . .. most people don't know how to do this.

Is there a data line to feed this isp?

Do you consider satellite high speed internet too? 56k X2 modem dialup?

Another case of the, "I got mine, we don't need any help for others"
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Muni

Not knowing how to to something is not an excuse. If you want it, you learn.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: Muni

Most network engineers and technicians (well, the screwed over ones) would be glad to help.

Heck, I'd be glad to lay the fiber or wire the data center. Just bring in good food and beverages and I'm cool.

Brian_M
join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA

Brian_M to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

They want their local government to foot the bill.

Umm... where, exactly, do you think that money comes from? Thin air? Might be time to learn about how a government is funded, especially your local government.

I was part of a 5.9mil county project (IT dept for a library renovation) in Wyoming from 2007~2009. Every last cent came from a $0.01 sales tax increase. *I* would gladly add a one or two cent added tax to have a municipal ISP option.

Mostly, I feel like having the OPTION is what's important though. Why install a law stopping someone from doing something that would benefit a community?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

2 edits

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Muni

The idea behind a lot of these projects it that they will turn a profit and pay themselves off. That may or may not happen. Either way, people are not willing to take the risk of the liability, hence is why they want to start a muni. They also want the bill to get footed by the people who have no intention on ever subscribing, such as older couple who are quite happy without the internet should the muni lose money, which it probably will.
jcondon
join:2000-05-27
Fishkill, NY

2 edits

jcondon

Member

Re: Muni

said by silbaco:

The idea behind a lot of these projects it that they will turn a profit and pay themselves off. That may or may not happen. Either way, people are not willing to take the risk of the liability, hence is why they want to start a muni. They also want the bill to get footed by the people who have no intention on ever subscribing, such as older couple who are quite happy without the internet should the muni lose money, which it probably will.

What is wrong with letting the towns and cities decide if they want to provide Internet services or not? We aren't talking about requiring them to do so. We are just asking that AT&T, Comcast and the rest not be allowed to block them from doing so. Lots of these areas that they are fighting over are under served. They aren't densely populated so the cable companies and Telcos aren't interested in spending the money to either bring them broadband or upgrade 10+ year old systems.

Yes some muni networks fail hard. But many thrive. Some attract new companies (read jobs and taxes) to come to their towns / cities.

They have an interesting 30 min weekly podcast about Muni based networks. How some of them saved millions by running their own fiber. Others break even but bring modern broadband to those who either otherwise couldn't afford it or couldn't get it even if they could. We aren't talking downtown NYC. We are talking rural areas of the country.

Anyway some here might not know they have a weekly podcast and might find it interesting.

»muninetworks.org/broadbandbits
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

1 recommendation

NOVA_UAV_Guy to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

If people want faster broadband, let them start up an ISP. With their own money.

Precisely.

People = community
Their own money = taxpayer funds, which is technically the community's money

I don't necessarily think that a municipal ISP has to run in a manner that provides Internet service to all residents in a community as part of their tax bill. They could do this as a start-up using taxpayer funds as a long-term loan to be paid back, and charge the equivalent of user fees for each person who receives access. Access could be priced at a break-even point, as governments have no need to run with a profit-centered orientation. At the end of the day, the net cost to the taxpayer base as a whole would be zero.

It's clear in many circumstances that for-profit companies won't bring high speed to certain areas. They clearly don't feel that it's profitable (or is profitable enough to meet their target margins), and in many of those cases they're probably right. I see no problem with local governments and possibly others stepping in to provide service where these for-profit companies won't, and also see no issue with them stepping in to provide a competitive alternative to Comcast and the like in areas that are presently being served. This can only increase competition, which ultimately benefits consumers.

whiteshp
join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

whiteshp to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
This was already tried. Incumbents own all the major backbone feeds and peering points. As soon as someone competes with them in a single market they raise the backhaul rates until they can bankrupt them. Most of the start ups in the 90s found this out the hard way.

No private company CAN compete with a monopoly. They have regulatory capture and they can use their extensive investments to destroy any private company in a single market. Nothing stopping them....
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Muni

True enough. But muni's are not any more immune to this problem than anyone else.
johan_hammy
join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL

johan_hammy to whiteshp

Member

to whiteshp
There are literally thousands of independent ISPs in the USA. It's not that difficult. The incumbents have a shrinking amount of relevance when it comes to the Internet too.
robgmartin
join:2013-01-03
Dahlonega, GA

robgmartin to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
The thing is that companies like Windstream can't even provide their advertised speeds. During the afternoons and evenings where I live in Northeast Georgia I am EXTREMELY lucky to get above 1 MBps let alone the 1.5 that this bad bill states is "broadband". On top of that Windstream has absolutely NO competition in my county. According to Comcast they tried to extend service into Lumpkin but were denied by the Georgia Public Service Commission. Although I haven't been able to find the information about it I have heard from others that when Windstream took over from TDS back in 2004 they signed some type of contract that allows them to be the only ISP in Lumpkin. That sucks for us as consumers. So.... Maybe these companies need some type of competition to improve their service. Allowing communities create the option AND competition is what is needed if the Georgia PSC is going to block other types of competition. Instead we have Bills such as this from the Republicans in the Georgia House (and probably created by Windstream and AT&T) preventing any type of competition and hurting us as consumers. We should have choice not monopolies.
johan_hammy
join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL

johan_hammy to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
HEAR HEAR!
mocycler
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22

2 edits

1 recommendation

mocycler to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
It's a tired old argument. People move to an area where something isn't available then piss and whine for the taxpayers to give it to them.

If broadband is such an awesome "investment", then the town elders should have no problem attracting private investors who will gladly front the money to get things going.

The fact that no ISP wants to service the area should tell you something. The government ---which has zero incentive to do anything efficiently or under budget--- always thinks they have it figured out. Dozens of these muni projects have been tried. Almost none of them ever paid off all their bills and became truly "revenue neutral" much less profitable.

I get a kick out of those who think the government exists to address every possible want and need; that everything is worth doing as long as someone else pays the tab, and/or "it's good for the community".

Everyone who thinks muni broadband is such a great idea should stop flapping their jaws and open their checkbooks.
jcondon
join:2000-05-27
Fishkill, NY

jcondon

Member

Re: Muni

said by mocycler:

It's a tired old argument. People move to an area where something isn't available then piss and whine for the taxpayers to give it to them.

If broadband is such an awesome "investment", then the town elders should have no problem attracting private investors who will gladly front the money to get things going.

Many people lived in these areas before the Internet. Check out the podcast I linked to. Many muni networks pay for themselves. Some save the towns millions.

I am not pissing and whining for muni networks were I live. It would be nice yes but I can get FiOS (as of 3 months ago) and DOCIS 3 cablemodem. What I don't like is the telcos and cable companies blocking those towns, counties and cities who WANT to start their own network from doing so especially in areas where the Internet options suck. Either provide decent service at a reasonable rate or let the towns do so. The local government and schools use the Internet and networking between buildings. Some of these muni networks were started because they were being charged crazy money for connecting buildings together. It was cheaper for them to run fiber between all the buildings then pay Comcast to provide the connection between these buildings.

Other muninetworks provide the fiber to the home / business. But allow many different providers to sell services (TV and Internet and phone) over that fiber. Seems a smarter way to go then having many companies running their own lines.
johan_hammy
join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL

johan_hammy

Member

Re: Muni

So then they need to start their own ISP providing those services. If they can't swing it, then the demand obviously isn't there for what they think they need.

Brian_M
join:2004-06-19
Manchester, GA

1 recommendation

Brian_M

Member

@#$@#%#@!@^%ing worthless companies

Just called my rep... voice mail only though. Plus an email and I'll draft a fax here shortly as well.

I can't believe AT&T/Windstream. Hell, Windstream CAN'T offer over even 1Mbps in my community because it was so oversold (I'd often see 0.01Mbps from 3pm~way after I was in bed), but they Claim it was 6Mbps.

Sickens me.

••••

Bodybagger
Premium Member
join:2010-03-30
Saint Matthews, SC

Bodybagger

Premium Member

Leave it to Slowstream

I don't know about AT&T but Windstream?! Yeah... just take a look in the forums and see what Windstream customers have to suffer through. They know you don't have a choice and if you did, their customer base would be zero in areas like this.
ConstantineM
join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

ConstantineM

Member

An actual broadband map?

Speaking of which.

How about »bmap.su ? Pretty raw, but some nice numbers. :-)

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Would never pass in Massachusetts

The state of Massachusetts is actually getting involved in broadband deployment by helping deploy broadband in areas that Comcast/Verizon won't touch. While Massachusetts has excellent broadband availability (Verizon FiOS in the eastern part of the state and Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 in Western Mass) there are still unserved areas, particularly in rural Western Mass outside the Pioneer Valley (Springfield/Holyoke/Northampton/Amherst). Many of the communities in Franklin, Berkshire, and parts of Hampshire county lack broadband or have limited connectivity. I think there are 17 cities and towns in Western Mass that do not have broadband at all and the state is stepping in to make it easier to build the networks. Even if a town has a cable TV plant, they cannot deploy broadband if their is no backhaul between the headend and the rest of the Internet. That is why Verizon is probably hesitant to deploy FiOS in the Pioneer Valley is they would have to build backhaul between the existing FiOS plants and Western Mass. There is a big rural area between Worcester and Springfield. I personally think Verizon should sell its Western Mass Wireline assets to AT&T as Enfield, CT is a short distance away and they have U-Verse, which would be easier to expand into the Pioneer Valley than FiOS as they could build it out without the huge gap between the deployment clusters.
08034016 (banned)
Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA

08034016 (banned)

Member

Georgia

I live in Georgia i have one Monopoly in this area Cable COX Communications, Slow service 45/10

Wind-stream is in my area price-lock 12mb,

internet in the USA is getting to be very expensive, in Germany the Internet for 100MB dowload is $38USD.

I have to go back to Germany for 2 weeks to have 1GIG Fiber line ran to the house. $60 Per month NO CAPS.

••••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

k*** the apathy.. and anything is possible

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· AAEaxckQ
johan_hammy
join:2003-08-08
Dekalb, IL

johan_hammy

Member

Broadband

How many areas don't have that kind of broadband available already? Any WISPs nearby?
Slipen
join:2010-04-18
Cairo, GA

Slipen

Member

what a joke

Windstream already screws its Georgia customers by lying about fixes that never happen, the people that are not getting upgrades are the ones where Windstream has nobody competing against them. If someone were able to bring in something better than 1.5 Windstream would be forced to actually spend the money they got from the government to upgrade the "rural customers" on those customers instead of spending it on people who already have access to 12mbps or higher from other companies. Windstream is been providing people with less than 20-30% of advertised speed for years. Some of us have been suffering with this for going on three years with "over utilization" and "oversubscribed dslams" problems. Windstream continues to sell service on DSLams they themselves tell you are at capacity.
Slipen

Slipen

Member

Re: what a joke




This is 3 years later on my 3M connection, that Windstream has promised would be fixed in 6 months (3 years ago). It is not even peak time, it is 8:45AM on a Sat. If they let this bill go through I can see many more months of this while they upgrade customers who can already get 12M to 24M. They are doing this to people who have no other option besides sat internet.

tigerpaw509
join:2011-01-19

tigerpaw509

Member

Got 1 Billion ???

If you do the company's for sale

asdjf
join:2005-01-01

asdjf

Member

Stop them

Here's hoping you georgia folks do not let them get away with this!

CableConvert
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

CableConvert

Premium Member

The Bills Sponsers

»legiscan.com/GA/sponsors/HB282
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman

Premium Member

HB282 in GA.

I e-mailed my representative in the Georgia House. I will do the same for my Georgia State Legislature Senator when the Senate version of the bill is introduced.

e-mail to Georgia State representative:

Representative Talton,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the current form of HB282 Municipal Broadband Investment Act. The use of 1.5Mbps download speed as an acceptable benchmark is unacceptable. The FCC determined that 4Mbps second download was the absolute minimum speed that was to be used to define High Speed Internet(HSI) or broadband. For the bill to declare that municipalities cannot build their own internet access networks because one house within a census block can get 1.5Mbps download service is illogical. In the case of DSL service many of the people within that census block may not be able to get even 1.5Mbps due to signal attenuation based on how long their twisted pair copper telephone line is from the central office or Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer(DSLAM).

I can understand not wanting public utilities to unfairly compete with private sector Internet Service Providers, but HB 282 sets the bar way too low for preventing municipalities from constructing their own internet service network that could serve residential customers. The requirements of HB 282 should be changed to require that any DSL provider who challenges a city's decision to build their own internet access network must prove that ALL residences within ALL of a city's census blocks can reliably and consistently get a DSL service of 4Mbps download and 0.5Mbps upload. That is the minimum definition of broadband or HSI, taking into account the use of video downloads and uploads common to the use of the World Wide Web and internet today. Cable companies challenging a city's decision to build their own internet access network need to prove they have upgraded ALL geographic areas they serve in the municipal area to the DOCSIS 3.0 standard, are providing 8 downstream channel bonding and 4 upstream channel bonding to ALL areas, and that each downstream bonded channel is delivering at least 19Mbps and that each upstream bonded channel is delivering at least 13.5Mbps. These requirements would be only 50% of the actual performance capability of present day DOCSIS 3.0 equipment, so the requirements would be nowhere near a maximum effort.

If private ISPs do not want to have cities or public utilities compete against them, then they need to upgrade their networks to provide service to ALL those in Georgia who do not have wire-line broadband service choices. I know for a fact that AT&T does NOT provide HSI DSL to people on Maynard's Mill Road in Monroe County. The National Broadband Map referenced in HB282 may say they do, but the people I know who live on that road will tell you when they call for DSL service they are told AT&T cannot provide service in that area. There are no cable providers in that area. There are many areas of Houston county that cannot get even the 1.5Mbps DSL service stated in the present HB282, even though the National Broadband Map says that it is available to them.

HB282 needs to be changed significantly to reflect the reality of an inaccurate National Broadband Map, how video is used by internet service subscribers and content providers, and the effects of signal attenuation, due to copper wire-line distance, results in lower than advertised DSL speeds.

Thanks for your time.