3 ms·

Don't most of those points apply to Comcast and T-W right now?

tptacek 12y ago
Comcast is god-awful. Just abysmal. Priced terribly. Performs terribly. Wildly uneven customer service, including overt dishonesty. But having just had the experience of getting an account up with them at my new office: Having AT&T available as an option solved virtually every one of my problems, from pricing to installation dates. "AT&T says they can do XXX". "Comcast says they can do YYY". Worked great. I do not in reality have that option with regulated utilities.
- m3rc 12y ago
  So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Non sequitur. Google Fiber is also not a Title II service.
    - m3rc 12y ago
      What? I'm not saying that broadband access has to be a Title II service, I was just refuting you saying that the current privatized system is better than a utility/munincipal solution because you had a choice between two providers.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        I can't understand the argument you're making here. The problem with Title II isn't that Title II is intrinsically evil. It's that Title II is a regulatory regime similar to that of a public utility. Like most utility regimes, it gives regulatory agencies influence over pricing, product packaging and availability, implementation/delivery, and dispute resolution. I don't understand the logic of a rebuttal that says "OK, skip title II, and just treat ISPs like utilities".
        m3rc 12y ago
        I didn't mean to imply we should skip Title II, I was more saying that regardless of the method, Title II utility classification or munincipal run entity or another opiton, just anything other than the current privatized system
        tptacek 12y ago
        This comment isn't responsive to mine.
        m3rc 12y ago
        This comment isn't responsive to mine.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Google's arrangement with Fiber cities is the exact opposite of a municipal partnership. With a typical municipal utility, there is a public agency with strong oversight over the utility, as well as rate-setting powers, etc. Even when with the private cable companies, municipalities routinely impose terms like build-out requirements, fees to fund public access TV, obligations to build municipal communications infrastructure for free, etc. Google won't agree to anything like that: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/google_fibers_portland_deal_wo.html http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g....

Comcast is god-awful. Just abysmal. Priced terribly. Performs terribly. Wildly uneven customer service, including overt dishonesty. But having just had the experience of getting an account up with them at my new office: Having AT&T available as an option solved virtually every one of my problems, from pricing to installation dates. "AT&T says they can do XXX". "Comcast says they can do YYY". Worked great. I do not in reality have that option with regulated utilities.

m3rc 12y ago
So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?
- tptacek 12y ago
  Non sequitur. Google Fiber is also not a Title II service.
  - m3rc 12y ago
    What? I'm not saying that broadband access has to be a Title II service, I was just refuting you saying that the current privatized system is better than a utility/munincipal solution because you had a choice between two providers.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I can't understand the argument you're making here. The problem with Title II isn't that Title II is intrinsically evil. It's that Title II is a regulatory regime similar to that of a public utility. Like most utility regimes, it gives regulatory agencies influence over pricing, product packaging and availability, implementation/delivery, and dispute resolution. I don't understand the logic of a rebuttal that says "OK, skip title II, and just treat ISPs like utilities".
      - m3rc 12y ago
        I didn't mean to imply we should skip Title II, I was more saying that regardless of the method, Title II utility classification or munincipal run entity or another opiton, just anything other than the current privatized system
        tptacek 12y ago
        This comment isn't responsive to mine.
        m3rc 12y ago
        This comment isn't responsive to mine.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Google's arrangement with Fiber cities is the exact opposite of a municipal partnership. With a typical municipal utility, there is a public agency with strong oversight over the utility, as well as rate-setting powers, etc. Even when with the private cable companies, municipalities routinely impose terms like build-out requirements, fees to fund public access TV, obligations to build municipal communications infrastructure for free, etc. Google won't agree to anything like that: http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/google_fibers_portland_deal_wo.html http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g....