5 ms·

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.c

by 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...
lutorm 18y ago
Can someone tell me how a corporation can argue that a group of people in a city are not allowed to get together and decide to offer whatever they think it's in their own best interests to?
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  You know, this is probably the most insightful comment I have ever seen on this topic, and I wish I could give you 100 karma for it alone. I'm even in favor of municipal broadband, because I'm sick of having the same speed of DSL that I had seven years ago, but I had never considered the absurdity of the idea (that companies can constrain a city's actions) itself. An altogether startling wakeup call.
  - DTrejo 18y ago
    Maybe the city needs to have it's own puppet corporation that would be more resistant? I wonder if that would work at all.
- wmf 18y ago
  The arguments against municipal networks are not that trivial. If a muni network is funded with tax money, ISPs can legitimately claim that they have no power to tax. If a city both runs its own network and regulates networks, there is a possible conflict of interest. There is also an argument that municipal bonds have a lower cost of capital, but I don't understand the details.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  A group of people are certainly free to organize a non-profit and do this whenever they want. When "the government" (state, local, etc) does it, its quite a different animal. Lets say it actually costs $40 to provide this service. TWarner currently provides it for $45 and makes $5 a month per subscriber. The local government provides it for $35. They make -$5 per subscriber. The deficit is covered by taxes (probably a $10-$20 tax increase as government is rarely very efficient). It is now impossible for any carrier to provide the service and make money. Its actually costing the consumers more. People who don't even use it are paying for it. The market has been defacto-socialized, perhaps without even a proper vote. The cable companies suck monkey balls but this is not automatically the right thing either. It might very well be. Local governments usually do a pretty good job with water. Still, it should not be undertaken lightly no matter how mad at comcast you might be.

by jmtame 18y ago

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...

lutorm 18y ago

Can someone tell me how a corporation can argue that a group of people in a city are not allowed to get together and decide to offer whatever they think it's in their own best interests to?

Xichekolas 18y ago
You know, this is probably the most insightful comment I have ever seen on this topic, and I wish I could give you 100 karma for it alone. I'm even in favor of municipal broadband, because I'm sick of having the same speed of DSL that I had seven years ago, but I had never considered the absurdity of the idea (that companies can constrain a city's actions) itself. An altogether startling wakeup call.
- DTrejo 18y ago
  Maybe the city needs to have it's own puppet corporation that would be more resistant? I wonder if that would work at all.
wmf 18y ago
The arguments against municipal networks are not that trivial. If a muni network is funded with tax money, ISPs can legitimately claim that they have no power to tax. If a city both runs its own network and regulates networks, there is a possible conflict of interest. There is also an argument that municipal bonds have a lower cost of capital, but I don't understand the details.
noonespecial 18y ago
A group of people are certainly free to organize a non-profit and do this whenever they want. When "the government" (state, local, etc) does it, its quite a different animal. Lets say it actually costs $40 to provide this service. TWarner currently provides it for $45 and makes $5 a month per subscriber. The local government provides it for $35. They make -$5 per subscriber. The deficit is covered by taxes (probably a $10-$20 tax increase as government is rarely very efficient). It is now impossible for any carrier to provide the service and make money. Its actually costing the consumers more. People who don't even use it are paying for it. The market has been defacto-socialized, perhaps without even a proper vote. The cable companies suck monkey balls but this is not automatically the right thing either. It might very well be. Local governments usually do a pretty good job with water. Still, it should not be undertaken lightly no matter how mad at comcast you might be.