dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-01-26 16:18:51: User [user=treichhart] directs our attention to the fact that New Hanover County, North Carolina this week became the first county in the United States to deploy a "Super Wi-Fi" network. ..


25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Tree Removal

just to extend some wifi network? can we say WASTE of killing a tree?



Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4

White space is suppose to penetrate tree cover just like analog TV used to do. Removing trees is not needed



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

Oops!

Do those existing providers of Internet service (aka cableco & telco) have their lawsuits prepared to go against that scourge of humanity--municipal white space--yet? (I'm sure they're looking at it closely--can't let anything hurt those profit margins.)
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."



michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL

.

Sounds all like bullshit to me. Just my 2 cents.



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

Well, if that [planned] free or nearly free [ad-supported] white space Internet access--faster than Comcast's economy tier, slower than my [pre-FiOS] 3000/768 DSL--ever shows up in my area, I'll definitely be interested in using it.
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."


25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
reply to mod_wastrel

Re: Oops!

The MSOs and Telco's won't have to worry about the lawsuits once the new federal law is voted on, passed and signed by President Obama. It would create a level playing field designed for ALL providers. Meaning EPB can NOT take funds from their electric customers to put into the fiber network, and their services must be IN LINE with everyone else; and NOT undercut and thus put the burden of a failing network onto someone else by rate increases from water, power, etc. And the cities must go through the same paper work and regulations.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

That's not a level playing field, that's an incumbent protectionist racket.


25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

no that is level.

you don't see Comcast going out and raising power rates to fund their network do you? You don't see them raising property taxes to fund the build, you don't see AT&T raising water prices to find their network.

It is LEVEL when the Cities are NOT allowed to take from Peter to pay Paul and that's what they're doing. If the cities want to build out a network; they need to come up with private investors the way a private company would work. And go through the same red tape.

After all who are we going to depend on? Cities that decide to steal from one department to fund another? Or Google and their BS with KC and wanting to put people in harms way.



mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1
reply to 25139889

That "level" playing field is meaningless where the incumbents refuse to even play by not providing any service whatsoever. And we--the people--will decide just how level the field deserves to be, not the incumbents. They deserve nothing more than what we say they deserve, which, of course, varies with the community in question. A one-size-fits-all Federal law will fit no one in particular (which is, of course, the point with such a law).
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting."



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to 25139889

No, it's not level.

Tell you what. Have them forfeit all their existing infrastructure and networks. So that everyone has zero. NOW it's "level."

What you're saying is "You start at zero, we start already built out, you can't raise funds from the public. Now go succeed, while we bury you. Level!"

Not.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on.


25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
reply to mod_wastrel

well it will fit all. and the incumbents serving the areas is you meaning; "i want all you can eat at 100meg/100meg" and they tell you if you want it; you pay for it. The way it should be. It'd be like me going to Kroger's and telling them I want 2 gallons of milk but I'm only going to pay $1.37 for it. And that's all I want to pay. And if you don't give it to me, the city needs to go and build their own store and offer it for 50cents for 2 gallons.

If the cities don't like the new rules that are coming; then they don't need to worry about playing, and they can keep what they are offered.


Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Incentive Auctions Could Kill White Space

There's more than one way to kill competition. If the FCC, CTIA, AT&T, etc. have their way the white spaces will be auctioned to the highest bidder killing white space broadband also known as "Super Wi-Fi".



skuv

@rr.com
reply to KrK

Re: Oops!

Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.

Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?

If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.

The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.

How does that sound like a level playing field to you?



KA3SGM
- -... ...- -
Premium
join:2006-01-17
West Chester, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Cricket Broadband
·Verizon FiOS

DAMN, I Was Hoping It Was Wilmington, Delaware

Something local that I could try out, but Wilmington, North Carolina is practically a world away.

This Is Absolute $)%!!^#* !!!!


--
ROCK 'TIL SUNSET



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to skuv

Re: Oops!

The scenario is that a city builds the infrastructure and then private companies all have equal access to it and pay the same rates to provide services over that same network.

OR the people can choose via the ballot box to build and fund a municipal provider if they so wish, unless you want to argue that the will of the people should always come behind the want of a private corporation.

This Federal law is a lobbyist wet dream, designed to hamper, block and prevent cities and towns from building out their own networks even if the people wish it. In other words, it's just more of the Federal Government telling state and local governments how it's going to be, for the good of their campaign contributors. It's wrong, and it's especially wrong when the incumbent won't step up to the plate and deliver the services the people want, but WILL try and stop them from doing it themselves.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to skuv

The cable cos got and still maintain exclusivity from said cities. Telcos have it also. If a city sells bonds and people buy them, what is wrong?
--
BlooMe


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Thank you. All recent power company fiber projects have been funded with either gov't grant money (partially...and private companies got a TON of money from the gov't's broadband stimulus bill so they can't complain) or bonds...or a mix of both.

Also, is cross-subsidy wrong? If so, then why do cablecos (TWC being a big offender) subsidize competitive markets with revenues from non-competitive ones. That's worse than subsidizing fiber connectivity with local power bills (which doesn't happen anyway), wouldn't you think?


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to 25139889

If you're so adamant about that, stay in Toledo...how do you like Buckeye Express internet tere? Or are you an employee of theirs?


ncbill
Premium
join:2007-01-23
Winston Salem, NC
reply to 25139889

It's already state law that municipalities can't do that for pay networks.

Which is why they're currently offering access to this one for free (then they can fund it from general taxes)


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to skuv

said by skuv :

Huh?! The cable companies didn't magic their networks into existence. They build them with money from private investors.

Why would municipalities not have to do it the same way? Just because someone else is already there?! How do you believe that you are making sense?

If cities are increasing taxes or public utility rates JUST to compete with other network providers, that is EXTREMELY wrong.

The other networks can't force anyone to give them money to improve their networks. Yet the municipalities can use the force of tax liens, turning off utilities, or even jail time to help pay for their networks. People can't choose not to pay their taxes and get away with it.

How does that sound like a level playing field to you?

The cable networks laid their lines when there was no one to compete with. The purpose was to sell CABLE TV, not internet. The ability to sell internet services over those same lines was a fortuitous development for Cable companies.

Competing with an entrenched incumbent in an infrastructure heavy market is nearly impossible due to the massive advantage of scale and cost an incumbent that has already paid off its network has.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to 25139889

said by 25139889:

Comcast started out that way. TWC started out that way. The cities can find their own funding and if they can't; well then the network wasn't worth the paper it was planned on.

You're lying again.

TWC and Comcast laid cable lines to sell cable TV where no one else was competing. Provision of internet access was a fortuitous turn of events with the emergence of DOCSIS. The cable companies used profits from their cable franchises to finance the buildout of DOCSIS infrastructure.

Competing with an entrenched incumbent whose already paid off their infrastructure is nearly impossible. They have massive price and scale advantages, and can easily bankrupt you with predatory pricing unless you have a bottomless pit of money.

I think you know this, but you just don't care. You worship corporations so dearly for some twisted reason, the idea of people providing service for themselves at the expense of some millionare executives keeps you awake at night with an ache in your heart.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to 25139889

said by 25139889:

well it will fit all. and the incumbents serving the areas is you meaning; "i want all you can eat at 100meg/100meg" and they tell you if you want it; you pay for it. The way it should be. It'd be like me going to Kroger's and telling them I want 2 gallons of milk but I'm only going to pay $1.37 for it. And that's all I want to pay. And if you don't give it to me, the city needs to go and build their own store and offer it for 50cents for 2 gallons.

If the cities don't like the new rules that are coming; then they don't need to worry about playing, and they can keep what they are offered.

You seem to not care how many lies you attempt to spread. The cities are perfectly willing to build their own network and sell service to themselves. Federal and state interference only serves to make this process more difficult.

You act like corporations built their internet services from scratch, which is a complete lie. They used their profits from their cable franchises to provision DOCSIS. They laid their original cable lines with the benefit of large financial incentives and tax breaks (thus the municipal cable franchises) that guaranteed them the ability to recoup their money.

Your desire for a "level playing field" is a disingenuous attempt to twist the meaning of "level" to benefit incumbent corporations. I don't know why you care so much about these private companies that benefit you not at all.


hehatemeidoo

@rogers.com
reply to ncbill

said by ncbill:

It's already state law that municipalities can't do that for pay networks.

Which is why they're currently offering access to this one for free (then they can fund it from general taxes)

Did you help pass that one?


woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to iansltx

But there are people in this forum and I am sure you know who (m)they are , that anything done by a muni is evil, will always fail, and screws the telcos and cablecos that screw us.
--
BlooMe


w4ncr

join:2000-10-27
reply to KA3SGM

Re: DAMN, I Was Hoping It Was Wilmington, Delaware

December Time Warner upgraded the Wilmington NC market for wideband AT&T only has u verse it's around the hospital New Hanover Glen meade they have slowed down the regular ADSL customers ! It's amazing can only pick up the wifi around the ballpark once you leave that place no more Internet at the park. It's pretty useless .