5 ms·
> despite billions in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies, companies like AT&T have long refused to upgrade low-income and minority Cleveland neighborh
by thelastgallon 3y ago
> despite billions in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies, companies like AT&T have long refused to upgrade low-income and minority Cleveland neighborhoods to fiber.
There is a very easy solution to this. Electric utilities should be required to lay fiber along with electric. They can choose to offer internet (better) or offer fiber with a choice of carriers.
EPB in Chattanooga has been providing fiber to homes for decades.
- bombcar 3y agoIt's the obvious solution, so of course it won't be done. I now have four separate companies' fiber running through my property, of which I am connected to only one, but I could switch to two others anytime I wanted to, and then they'd run the "last connection" to my house. It's kinda silly. (The fourth is a business line, which I could connect to but that involves more work as it is older.)
- Spivak 3y agoI'm not saying it's right but I'm predicting the argument against will be that it will increase the cost of running electric which you think would be "who cares" but homeowners end up footing that bill and are more let's say more price-sensitive than governments. It's crazy we still haven't won the fight of "if you build a house the literally state controlled electric company has to hook you up" but here we are.
- tw04 3y agoElectric companies already run fiber with every new power line in most places. They simply use it as dark fiber for internal purposes. The cost to string a couple more strands for public use would be a rounding error for them.
- zrail 3y agoIf the municipality owns the poles and the power company this is comparatively easier. In places that own both, like Traverse City in Michigan, Chattanooga TN, or Longmont CO, this model can be incredibly effective. The problem, at least in my part of the world (Michigan) is that most municipalities do not own the poles or the power company. The power company is instead a large publicly traded corporation, albeit with strong regulation. Adding regulation to force power companies to run dark fiber on new runs only addresses part of the problem. You still have to deal with the millions of miles/kms of installed grid that sees proactive maintenance _maybe_ once a decade. Not to mention the state laws in dozens of states that place onerous rules on municipalities installing their own broadband service, or even outright forbid the practice entirely. These laws are often the result of ILECs lobbying state governments or using their lobbying groups to directly write "model legislation" that state governments subsequently adopt.
- arrosenberg 3y agoRarely does a situation so desperately cry out for the use of eminent domain.
- chasd00 3y agoisn't "pole ownership" and access to those poles what doomed google fiber? In some cases it's easy to run fiber yourself in other cases it's completely impossible.
- mfer 3y agoI would suspect access more than ownership. Lots of places legally limit access and Internet companies are excluded.
- gs17 3y agoIn some places they seem to be working around it. Here in Nashville they cut into every street/alley to run fiber (it isn't available at my apartment, but they did run it down our street, which is not a main street at all).
- mfer 3y agoIn Michigan only telecommunications companies, power companies, cable companies, and municipalities can be on the poles. So, an Internet only company is excluded. Michigan also has one of the most unique laws here. A municipality needs to put out an RFP to build the broadband network. If it gets three or more qualified bids it cannot proceed.
- nerdponx 3y agoImagine that: company gets free money from the government to do such-and-such thing but isn't strictly required to do it, then they take the free money and don't do the thing. It's almost like corporations are self-interested and un-altruistic.
- parineum 3y agoI don't know why you'd be railing against the company here for acting in it's best interest (exactly as you'd expect) rather than the state for giving away money with no strings attached. A private business sure as hell wouldn't be so foolish as to sign such a contract.
- dd36 3y agoIt is in a company’s best interest to make sure corruption is legal?
- dvdkon 3y agoI think you misread the parent comment, I'd say they are blaming the government for not covering their "investments" legally, same as you.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoOne can blame both parties. It was foolish (or corrupt, take your pick I guess) for the government to give out money without formal strings attached. It is unethical for the companies to take that money knowing it's intended for $thing, without ever intending to do $thing. Neither is good.
- parineum 3y agoThis is a classic example of the scorpion and the frog though. The government is ostensibly giving them money and saying, "We hope you choose to do the thing we want with this money but you don't have to, no pressure." Exactly what you'd expect happened, they took the money and did nothing. I honestly have a hard time finding that nearly as unethical as the government being incredibly irresponsible with our money, either through naivety or corruption.
- ourmandave 3y agoGiven the way things go, there'll be a line item charge on every bill: Connection to AT&T backbone surcharge..............................$39.99
- selimthegrim 3y agoCPP is city owned, doesn’t sound like anyone is stopping them.