6 ms·

So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?

by m3rc 12y ago

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....

So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?

by 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....