6 ms·

Broadband as a public utility: City provides 100mbps fiber, now fighting ISPs' lobbyists

40 points by kirse 18y ago

stuff4ben 18y ago
This is an excellent article succinctly describing all of the issues around municipal broadband. I hope they succeed so it spreads to other communities and dissolves the federal government sponsored monopolies we have now with Time Warner, Comcast, and others. Go Wilson, NC!
- tdavis 18y ago
  Normally I'd make some argument about how Big Government has no real motivation (i.e. money) to supply a better product and private enterprise is better qualified, but the current state of the telco companies make that argument impossible. 10mbit fiber for $35/mo, no caps, and no packet sniffing? Where do I sign?
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    this is great now, but what about in 10 years when you're still stuck with a 10mbit connection because the city has a monopoly and competing telcos are offering 100mbit lines?
    - Xichekolas 18y ago
      AFAIK, there is nothing exclusive about City of Wilson's network. Why would you be stuck on the city's network? Consumers could freely switch to the telco's network whenever they wanted. If the telcos want to upgrade and beat the city on speed, that's fine. Either way the consumer wins.
      - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
        if it truly is a case where the city isn't regulating but instead simply competing with the telcos and beating them that's great. I'm just paranoid because the government has the legal right to enforce whatever they can get away with.
        sachinag 18y ago
        This is why Democratic orthodoxy on healthcare policy is to allow citizens to "buy into" Medicare. Premiums at every private firm would plummet and coverage would expand.
        nazgulnarsil 18y ago
        if this is true it is something i can support. free competition is the defining feature that has created the standard of living we enjoy. it is also the only thing that will bring that standard of living to the 3rd world. never ending aid doesn't fundamentally improve conditions.
    - tdavis 18y ago
      Well, first off, they already offer 100mbit lines. Which as far as I know, no current telco does. Secondly, the answer to your question should be obvious: if the private business is doing it better, switch back to them. There is no exclusivity here; the local government has just shamed the shit out of the telcos (for now) by offering a far better product. I guess you could masochistically choose the worse provider...
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
jmtame 18y ago
City of Monticello tried before and got sued. Hopefully this works out, monopolies have a stranglehold on the telecom industry in the US. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/telco-to-town-were-suing-you-because-we-care.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/telco-to-town-wer...
- tjic 18y ago
  > monopolies have a stranglehold on the telecom industry in the US. Name one telecom monopoly that wasn't created by the government. Federal government created the telephone monopoly. Local governments create cable TV and cable modem monopolies. On purpose. They do it through legislation. The stated intent is to "avoid wasteful competition". IMO, the actual intent is to get a single company under the thumb of government regulators, which then gives more power to the government officials. Those who can, create. Those who can't create regulate.
  - stcredzero 18y ago
    Ever notice that government monopolies and government sponsored corporate monopolies and corporate monopolies are all very similar? They all tend to suck in the same way. When one removes the motivation of having to please the customer, one also removes many of the drivers of excellence. Local governments are sometimes a lesser evil, because sucking at that level can't be done as anonymously.
    - Xichekolas 18y ago
      Exactly. City councils are definitely going to be more responsive to their own neighbors than AT&T is going to be to some complaints from a podunk town.
  - jmtame 18y ago
    I would argue with you, but I've already written a 20 page research paper on this at the same University and under the same professors who created Freepress and SaveTheInternet.com. I've cited everything if you'd like to refute any part of it. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but your story is pretty far from the truth. The government did not create the telecom monopoly that we have now, they only failed to prevent it (can you blame them? The Big 3 all lobby Congress). It was the government who started all of this back with ARPA, so I wouldn't point the finger at government because they supported the research efforts to create the Internet. Point the finger at the corporations who are refusing to build a better, faster network (even though their revenues support it) and practice redlining. The faster your speeds, the worse off their old business models are. I assure you that local municipalities have the interest of the people at hand when they build these networks out, after all, the people collectively decide to build something like this before it gets approval. And they would most likely not have access to it any other way. http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-word97/ http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-w...
kirse 18y ago
I posted this article because I was interested to see what HN thinks on the issue of having broadband as a public utility. Sure, you get faster internet because you're handing over control and subsidization to government, but then you're taking something that really should be in the hands of every private individual and allowing the government to get its hands into something that has traditionally been defined by open access and freedom. Personally I'm very happy with my private fiber service and would much rather have a private company with consumer interests (supposedly) at stake instead of simply plugging into Big-Brother Net. It would be naive to think the government isn't already monitoring, scraping, and sniffing every corner of the net that they can. However, it has to be a much easier pathway to abuse once Internet service leaves the hands of private enterprise.
- martythemaniak 18y ago
  Your first point is simply the tired old ideology of "government bad, private enterprise good". Municipal governments already run a number of public utilities which are far more important and critical than broadband, so there's no reason to think they would not do a good job with internet. Your second point is just plain stupid. If a government makes it lawful to snoop, it won't make any kind of difference who controls the servers - ISPs are not going to start breaking the law of the land on behalf of their customers.
  - kirse 18y ago
    Your second point is just plain stupid. For sake of argument, let's say that everyone's abiding by the rules and the government's ultimate goal is to have as much access to private data as possible. Which method do you think is easier? "We're doing you a favor!" - own the network by marketing ridiculously cheap subsidized internet with extremely high-speeds. "We're taking away your freedom" - change the rules by forcing privacy-violating legislation past the house and senate
    - wmf 18y ago
      Sending National Security Letters to private ISPs is probably easier than either of those.

40 points by kirse 18y ago

This is an excellent article succinctly describing all of the issues around municipal broadband. I hope they succeed so it spreads to other communities and dissolves the federal government sponsored monopolies we have now with Time Warner, Comcast, and others. Go Wilson, NC!

tdavis 18y ago
Normally I'd make some argument about how Big Government has no real motivation (i.e. money) to supply a better product and private enterprise is better qualified, but the current state of the telco companies make that argument impossible. 10mbit fiber for $35/mo, no caps, and no packet sniffing? Where do I sign?
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  this is great now, but what about in 10 years when you're still stuck with a 10mbit connection because the city has a monopoly and competing telcos are offering 100mbit lines?
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    AFAIK, there is nothing exclusive about City of Wilson's network. Why would you be stuck on the city's network? Consumers could freely switch to the telco's network whenever they wanted. If the telcos want to upgrade and beat the city on speed, that's fine. Either way the consumer wins.
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      if it truly is a case where the city isn't regulating but instead simply competing with the telcos and beating them that's great. I'm just paranoid because the government has the legal right to enforce whatever they can get away with.
      - sachinag 18y ago
        This is why Democratic orthodoxy on healthcare policy is to allow citizens to "buy into" Medicare. Premiums at every private firm would plummet and coverage would expand.
        nazgulnarsil 18y ago
        if this is true it is something i can support. free competition is the defining feature that has created the standard of living we enjoy. it is also the only thing that will bring that standard of living to the 3rd world. never ending aid doesn't fundamentally improve conditions.
  - tdavis 18y ago
    Well, first off, they already offer 100mbit lines. Which as far as I know, no current telco does. Secondly, the answer to your question should be obvious: if the private business is doing it better, switch back to them. There is no exclusivity here; the local government has just shamed the shit out of the telcos (for now) by offering a far better product. I guess you could masochistically choose the worse provider...
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

jmtame 18y ago

City of Monticello tried before and got sued. Hopefully this works out, monopolies have a stranglehold on the telecom industry in the US. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/telco-to-town-were-suing-you-because-we-care.ars http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/09/telco-to-town-wer...

tjic 18y ago
> monopolies have a stranglehold on the telecom industry in the US. Name one telecom monopoly that wasn't created by the government. Federal government created the telephone monopoly. Local governments create cable TV and cable modem monopolies. On purpose. They do it through legislation. The stated intent is to "avoid wasteful competition". IMO, the actual intent is to get a single company under the thumb of government regulators, which then gives more power to the government officials. Those who can, create. Those who can't create regulate.
- stcredzero 18y ago
  Ever notice that government monopolies and government sponsored corporate monopolies and corporate monopolies are all very similar? They all tend to suck in the same way. When one removes the motivation of having to please the customer, one also removes many of the drivers of excellence. Local governments are sometimes a lesser evil, because sucking at that level can't be done as anonymously.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    Exactly. City councils are definitely going to be more responsive to their own neighbors than AT&T is going to be to some complaints from a podunk town.
- jmtame 18y ago
  I would argue with you, but I've already written a 20 page research paper on this at the same University and under the same professors who created Freepress and SaveTheInternet.com. I've cited everything if you'd like to refute any part of it. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but your story is pretty far from the truth. The government did not create the telecom monopoly that we have now, they only failed to prevent it (can you blame them? The Big 3 all lobby Congress). It was the government who started all of this back with ARPA, so I wouldn't point the finger at government because they supported the research efforts to create the Internet. Point the finger at the corporations who are refusing to build a better, faster network (even though their revenues support it) and practice redlining. The faster your speeds, the worse off their old business models are. I assure you that local municipalities have the interest of the people at hand when they build these networks out, after all, the people collectively decide to build something like this before it gets approval. And they would most likely not have access to it any other way. http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-word97/ http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/network-neutrality-w...

kirse 18y ago

I posted this article because I was interested to see what HN thinks on the issue of having broadband as a public utility. Sure, you get faster internet because you're handing over control and subsidization to government, but then you're taking something that really should be in the hands of every private individual and allowing the government to get its hands into something that has traditionally been defined by open access and freedom. Personally I'm very happy with my private fiber service and would much rather have a private company with consumer interests (supposedly) at stake instead of simply plugging into Big-Brother Net. It would be naive to think the government isn't already monitoring, scraping, and sniffing every corner of the net that they can. However, it has to be a much easier pathway to abuse once Internet service leaves the hands of private enterprise.

martythemaniak 18y ago
Your first point is simply the tired old ideology of "government bad, private enterprise good". Municipal governments already run a number of public utilities which are far more important and critical than broadband, so there's no reason to think they would not do a good job with internet. Your second point is just plain stupid. If a government makes it lawful to snoop, it won't make any kind of difference who controls the servers - ISPs are not going to start breaking the law of the land on behalf of their customers.
- kirse 18y ago
  Your second point is just plain stupid. For sake of argument, let's say that everyone's abiding by the rules and the government's ultimate goal is to have as much access to private data as possible. Which method do you think is easier? "We're doing you a favor!" - own the network by marketing ridiculously cheap subsidized internet with extremely high-speeds. "We're taking away your freedom" - change the rules by forcing privacy-violating legislation past the house and senate
  - wmf 18y ago
    Sending National Security Letters to private ISPs is probably easier than either of those.