6 ms·

> The FCC should act to ban anti-competition municipal measures like build-out requirements. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for the FCC to ban buildout r

> The FCC should act to ban anti-competition municipal measures like build-out requirements. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for the FCC to ban buildout requirements across the board. That seems really heavy-handed. Buildout requirements can be bad, in that they hold back an entire region to the least common denominator, but they can also be used as a bargaining chip to force service to regions that otherwise would never receive service at all. Remember that local politicians are much more beholden to the needs of their constituents than the FCC is[0], so if an entire neighborhood is being technologically blighted, it may make sense for the city council or town to use build-out requirements to ensure that those neighbourhoods don't get remain stuck in the 20th century. I think it makes far more sense to let cities and states negotiate these requirements than to disallow them across the board. Over time, it'll be clear that cities that don't impose all-or-nothing build requirements get much better service in wealthier and denser neighbourhoods (like Google Fiber), and other cities will either follow suit or not. [0] and this is a good thing; they should be attuned to what their constituents need

rayiner 12y ago
> so if an entire neighborhood is being technologically blighted, it may make sense for the city council or town to use build-out requirements to ensure that those neighbourhoods don't get remain stuck in the 20th century. But that's not what happens. In all but the wealthiest cities, this just becomes a focus point for class warfare, where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city. But that's an issue for the city government to address internally, perhaps by means of negotiating a deal involving some other issue that those representatives also care about. That's how city government works. This isn't exactly the only case in which neighbourhoods within a city or town have conflicting interests in local government[0]. I don't see yet why this one in particular should be special-cased (by allowing the FCC to bypass city/town governance). [0] Arguably, that describes all of local government.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    What deal could representatives make that fixes the problem? Someone has to pay to service those poor neighborhoods, and it'll be the ISP's shareholders only if they can make outrageous amounts of money on the remaining subscribers. Otherwise, the options are public money, or no fiber. Most cities are broke, so the former option is off the table, so in practice the result is no fiber for anyone.
    - extra88 12y ago
      Now that there's Title II categorization, maybe it'll be addressed the way telephone roll-out was, was a "universal access" tax added to broadband bills to fund extending the infrastructure to less profitable areas.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      If Internet access is an essential utility, and the city can't reach an agreement with ISPs, then the city itself should pay. This is what many cities are already doing, and the state laws prohibiting municipal networks are the issue addressed by the FCC.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        How are they supposed to pay for Internet buildout when they're running 8-9 figure deficits servicing 9-10 figure debt loads, watching their municipal bonds downgraded, and scrambling to figure out how to pay down defined-benefit pension plans to firefighters, police officers, and teachers?
        nitrogen 12y ago
        Not all cities are in such a position. Fixing crushing debt is not an Internet problem, it's a governance problem.
woah 12y ago
It's an extremely clumsy, circuitous political solution to a technical problem.
emmab 12y ago
Why not just subsidize internet service to areas which are not receiving service?
- tptacek 12y ago
  Because: expensive, no money to spend on it, and a suboptimal use of funds. It might be hard for high-income message board nerds like us to see this, but cities are straining to provide basic city services: making sure roads are drivable, clearing alleys and policing vacant lots and condemned apartment buildings, getting kids to school safely, keeping the heat on at those schools. There is probably not in fact a huge demand for fiber Internet in North Lawndale or Fountain Park or Joyland. That's actually part of Rayiner's argument. Build-out requirements are seized on by activists and politicians as chits, not because residents want fiber Internet (they won't get it regardless!), but as a political weapon to wield against rich neighborhoods whose residents want to pay premium rates for fiber Internet.

rayiner 12y ago

> so if an entire neighborhood is being technologically blighted, it may make sense for the city council or town to use build-out requirements to ensure that those neighbourhoods don't get remain stuck in the 20th century. But that's not what happens. In all but the wealthiest cities, this just becomes a focus point for class warfare, where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> where municipal representatives for poor neighborhoods torpedo fiber build-out across the whole city. But that's an issue for the city government to address internally, perhaps by means of negotiating a deal involving some other issue that those representatives also care about. That's how city government works. This isn't exactly the only case in which neighbourhoods within a city or town have conflicting interests in local government[0]. I don't see yet why this one in particular should be special-cased (by allowing the FCC to bypass city/town governance). [0] Arguably, that describes all of local government.
- rayiner 12y ago
  What deal could representatives make that fixes the problem? Someone has to pay to service those poor neighborhoods, and it'll be the ISP's shareholders only if they can make outrageous amounts of money on the remaining subscribers. Otherwise, the options are public money, or no fiber. Most cities are broke, so the former option is off the table, so in practice the result is no fiber for anyone.
  - extra88 12y ago
    Now that there's Title II categorization, maybe it'll be addressed the way telephone roll-out was, was a "universal access" tax added to broadband bills to fund extending the infrastructure to less profitable areas.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    If Internet access is an essential utility, and the city can't reach an agreement with ISPs, then the city itself should pay. This is what many cities are already doing, and the state laws prohibiting municipal networks are the issue addressed by the FCC.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      How are they supposed to pay for Internet buildout when they're running 8-9 figure deficits servicing 9-10 figure debt loads, watching their municipal bonds downgraded, and scrambling to figure out how to pay down defined-benefit pension plans to firefighters, police officers, and teachers?
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        Not all cities are in such a position. Fixing crushing debt is not an Internet problem, it's a governance problem.

woah 12y ago

It's an extremely clumsy, circuitous political solution to a technical problem.

emmab 12y ago

Why not just subsidize internet service to areas which are not receiving service?

tptacek 12y ago
Because: expensive, no money to spend on it, and a suboptimal use of funds. It might be hard for high-income message board nerds like us to see this, but cities are straining to provide basic city services: making sure roads are drivable, clearing alleys and policing vacant lots and condemned apartment buildings, getting kids to school safely, keeping the heat on at those schools. There is probably not in fact a huge demand for fiber Internet in North Lawndale or Fountain Park or Joyland. That's actually part of Rayiner's argument. Build-out requirements are seized on by activists and politicians as chits, not because residents want fiber Internet (they won't get it regardless!), but as a political weapon to wield against rich neighborhoods whose residents want to pay premium rates for fiber Internet.