dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1752
share rss forum feed

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
united state
kudos:2

What's So Bad?

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

I believe Centurylink is out of line asking its employees to to take political action.


Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

said by openbox9:

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

I believe Centurylink is out of line asking its employees to to take political action.

you and me both, Centurylink is way out of line on this one, kinda makes me rethink about Suddenlink (as far as these 2 company's go back) .....I dare them to try something like this in Texas..just sayin


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

Wait...you mean people complaining about it actually had to READ this bill?! Be careful posing that question you asked....it is liable to make certain peoples heads explode trying to come up with an aswer.

There is nothing wrong with this bill really. If a government run network is going to be erected, it should be done so with a level playing field to that of private business. It should also have the tax payers input since they are footing the bill so going to a vote is not a bad idea.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

said by swintec:

said by openbox9:

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

Wait...you mean people complaining about it actually had to READ this bill?! Be careful posing that question you asked....it is liable to make certain peoples heads explode trying to come up with an aswer.

There is nothing wrong with this bill really. If a government run network is going to be erected, it should be done so with a level playing field to that of private business. It should also have the tax payers input since they are footing the bill so going to a vote is not a bad idea.

Sorry you're obtuse on this issue. The reason why local government are building networks is because current ISPs REFUSE TO DO SO. So how is local government being "unfair" to business when no one wants to do business in an area? The ISPs want to keep local governments from building networks in these areas "just in case" maybe one day in 20 or 30 years they want to build there. That's not fair to the local people. If the local people decide they want their lcoal government to build a network then theat's their right. Quit siding with corporations. Are you for the people or big business? Are you for the CONSTITUTION and LIBERTY or corporate facism? DECIDE.

I'm sorry but if a local governent ask tTime warner "hey would you build in our area?" and TW says "Sorry you're not profitable enough. Maybe in 20 years" Then TW lost all rights to claim that area.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by 88615298:

Sorry you're obtuse on this issue. The reason why local government are building networks is because current ISPs REFUSE TO DO SO. So how is local government being "unfair" to business when no one wants to do business in an area?

That's fine if they want to build..have at it. However they need to face the same costs and issues that a private company has to face. There also has to be checks in place, and these all start by a vote to the public since it will be tax payer funds being used.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
united state
kudos:2
reply to swintec

I know, I asked the same question in Karl's last editorial when the law was passed. I never received a realistic response.


keenan424

join:2003-01-13
Santa Rosa, CA
reply to swintec

Why? TWC and Suddenlink are building for profit, a government project is building to provide service and ideally run self-sufficiently. Two different goals, why should the government sponsored project have to play on the same "field", especially when the private companies have taken a pass or are non-committal when they will expand/upgrade?

What sort of things would constitute this "playing field", in what ways will the government project have advantages?


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

I believe Centurylink is out of line asking its employees to to take political action.

Are you serious? Stopthecap has covered this extensively: »stopthecap.com/2011/02/17/anothe···arolina/

It doesn't anyone on "even footing". There is no way to be on even footing with an incumbent provider in an infrastructure industry, which tends towards a monopoly.

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

Whether you're a libertarian or conservative, allowing a corporation to control a government is beyond pathetic- it's against the "values" of a conservative.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to keenan424

gov't does NOT have to pay ROW fees. Gov't is non-profit there for does NOT pay taxes. Gov't project is tied to PUBLIC money. It's a money pit as it can NEVER turn a profit. It's subject to the $$$ it makes before it can even upgrade. A Gov't system may never have the $$$ to even upgrade the system when needed (BPON to GPON,etc), more bandwidth to the Internet, be able to pay the fees that content providers demand to access their channels, etc. It all costs money that they NEVER include over time. Also those trucks that install the service cost money- who do you think pays for those? The Citizens do- They also pay for the fuel those trucks use. More and more money always going down the drain. The cities should be focused on providing an updated emergency response crew (new fire trucks, EMSes, police cars, etc) and training that is ALWAYS on-going and changing. Those come FIRST when running a city. NOT after an FTTH network. If you don't have any people living in the city due to your first responders are NOT able to put out fires or respond people are going to move; then who is going to foot the bill for the network that nobody is signing up to use? TAX PAYERS that still live there. Also why should a 90year old Grandma have to pay to support a network that she'll probably NEVER use to start off with; nor care about?


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to sonicmerlin

Gov't's have already ENOUGH to worry about paying for let alone creating an FTTH network for public use. They need to worry about keeping their citizens safe with the most modern equipment they can afford before spending money on this. You do realize how much a fire truck costs right? Instead of taking out a bond to pay for this network they should be taking out a bond to pay for that fire truck and maybe add a new EMS and a few new police cars to that. And a few new educational classes for the crews? A few new bullet proof vests for the police officers? I can think a MILLION things that they should be taking the bonds out on and paying for out of the tax money then spending it on Fiber.


Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Firetrucks are a huge scam--responding to car accidents in Lamborghinis would be faster and cheaper. The country has at least 50% too many police because of the government's meddling in the narcotics business. And maybe if cops weren't being bribed into buying overpriced cattle prods off Taser International, they could afford vests...oh, wait, even police in towns where the government has taken away most of the guns have vests, also bought at 3x market rate. FTTH would pretty much be the only useful thing the government would have provided in the last 50 years, which is why they object because a devotion to corruption requires absolute uselessness.



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc

said by hottboiinnc:

... Govt ...

Lets go back to 1900. Why would 90 year old granny need pressurized water from a pipe under the street? She can just lever on that hand pump and keep those buckets full and be just fine. Why would old granny need that drain pipe under the street, hell she has an outhouse and lil' sonny comes over and digs a new hole sometimes. She doesn't need those damn trash cans either, sonny dug another big hole in the back yard and she just dumps all the trash into that and can even throw a match in it sometimes when it's dry to make more room.

Now of course if BobCo was providing the water and sewer and trash she should line up to hand over the cash because it's always better when it's private. . .

In fact, one has to wonder why specific services providing a specific singular service (in general) are usually always government provided. But then you have that one in the same internet thing and oh my god we can't have the government touch that.
--
Say no to JAMS!


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

Are you serious? Stopthecap has covered this extensively: »stopthecap.com/2011/02/17/anothe···arolina/

It doesn't anyone on "even footing". There is no way to be on even footing with an incumbent provider in an infrastructure industry, which tends towards a monopoly.

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

Whether you're a libertarian or conservative, allowing a corporation to control a government is beyond pathetic- it's against the "values" of a conservative.

Dont try and drag Stop The Cap into a disagreement. There warped one sided "stories" they write are good for nothing but comic value.

You are looking at it the wrong way to. A corporation does not control the government...the government allows itself to be controlled and THAT is the problem here.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
reply to firephoto

The atlantic coast has so much fiber runing from north to south, there should be room for more than 2 companies if there is no real competition. Let's not forget where the goal posts should be by now: 25 megabits entry level, 50 megabits 2nd tier, and 100 megabits 3rd tier. Prices capped at $35, $65, and $140 stand-alone. Yet, if you can't even get DSL or cable above 25 megabits you are being screwed and that gives a 3rd carrier (goverment owned & operated or not) the right to correct this abuse & neglect. Broadband was considered an important item to obtain way back in the mid 1990s. SOme 25 years later these goals fall far short despite how close some of this unlit fiber physically is to your home. As more consumers demand broadband access, the service does end up becoming a national interest which puts it in the category of a utility. Once this happens the public interest must be served and corporations either go with the flow or get out of the way. For at least city adopted by google, that's the reality. Verizon is re-examining certain municipalities in (rual) upstate NY for deployment-- once they decided to go municipal. If companies such as AT&T can't be pushed to deploy, then they're gonna see some 2nd & 3rd carriers push into their footprint in the next 5-15 years. Also, if some of these carriers are muni's that have an unfair advantage.. so be it! Milking DSL/copper pair and docsis 2.0 (or not providing service at all) is not going to be well recieved by consumers anymore into 2012 & beyond.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to firephoto

unsafe drinking water as it's not treated to take out any chemicals that may have leaked into the water- and states are changing that law allowing people to dig wells again. Sorry. You can also have your water hauled in and use a sisterin. Burning trash creates pollution and causes people to get sick. We have enough floating around in the air than having someone out burning their trash. An out house? LMAO! Back to the water issue. You do realize that untreated human waste will make you sick if it leaks into the water you are drinking?

Gov't's right is NOT to be in business. It's to PROTECT and Serve their citizens with the PROTECTION they need. You do NOT need the Internet. It does NOT keep you safe, healthy or anything else you get from city taxes (Fire protection, ems services, police, etc).


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

reply to Wilsdom

fire trucks scam LMAO! I'm gonna leave your post alone because you are totally clueless on emergency safety and response. Go work in the actual field for a few years and you'll see that they're in need of the money MORE than a FTTH network that is totally not needed when the city has choices and just refuses to use them because the other company is not rock bottom free.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to tmc8080

The fiber that is in the ground already and is NOT used is NOT the same fiber that is being talked about. That is dark-fiber and backbone fiber. They're not going to turn that into FTTH. The FTTH network has to be linked to that at some point at the CO.

The talk is about spending money that is NOT needed on building out the CO and the last mile of the FTTH network to areas that have services. l and Internet will NEVER be a utility. Talking about Google? LMAO! You know that network is only used for ONE reason. To spy on those users and will be closed down after a while. Google's stock holders will NOT be a competing ISP service with any carrier. VZ with FiOS? That's another laugh. Their numbers are not matching protections and that is a HUGE problem of theirs and they know it. Shareholders will NOT put up with that problem. They have LTE to cover those areas that will NEVER have FiOS in their actual footprint and in areas that they decided to sell off (smart move on VZ's part on getting rid of a landline based service- reduced cost by having it wireless).

And customers/consumers will take what ever the companies give them. Why? because the only thing that they'll do is complain on message boards or threaten to cancel and NEVER do. So yes; you will get what they give you; take it and move on. The same as what consumers do with gas for your cars.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to swintec

Totally true. But Stop the Cap is the next best thing.



asdfdfdfdfdf

@myvzw.com
reply to hottboiinnc

I've always been confused by how people who have a fundamental belief in the corruption, incompetence and even malignant intent of government can be so willing to allow such a government to define and deliver the protection they need. How can a government that can't be trusted to spend tax money be trusted to decide war and peace, life and death, and to coerce us into giving our lives in war? Surely any sane human being would give government control over their money before they would give government control over their survival and physical safety?


WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

1 edit
reply to hottboiinnc

Corporate troll.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
united state
kudos:2
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

So how am I incredibly hypocritical? And you're correct, this law doesn't ban municipal communications projects at all. That's why I don't understand the great consternation over this legislation.

Since you're response was to regurgitate an article from three months ago that was written prior to several adopted changes by both the House and Senate, I'll assume you haven't read the law either. So, I'll respond to Phillip Dampier's main points in his oped and ask again, "what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?"

said by Phillip Dampier :

First, Avila's demand for an open accounting of community broadband projects provides a treasure trove of business intelligence for any competitor.

I don't see this explicitly in the legislation. At least any more than any other government accounting should be open to the public.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Second, if banning mandatory service for renters and condo owners is such a great idea, why does Avila only limit it to community-owned networks?

I didn't read any such stipulation in the legislation.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Third, Avila bends over backwards for her cable and phone friends by tying the hands of municipal providers who want their networks to be commercially successful. Time Warner has no problem injecting endless promotions for its own services not just on a handful of channels, but on virtually every channel on the lineup, often during nearly every commercial break. Can municipal networks ban advertising from AT&T and Time Warner? Of course not.

The only stipulation regarding advertising in this legislation is that cities may not advertise on public, educational, or government access channels if the channels are required to be carried by other communications service providers.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila's ban on setting pricing below cost is another giveaway to Time Warner and AT&T, who routinely deliver retention and new customer promotions that could be temporarily priced below cost to secure or maintain a customer relationship for a limited period of time.

Temporary pricing. The legislation does not prevent a municipality from offering similar incentives. Do you honestly believe that private providers' temporary and limited incentives or retention offers are priced below cost in the end?

said by Phillip Dampier :

Rep. Avila can certainly no longer claim to be for low taxes, because her bill would effectively raise them for community-owned networks.

The legislation requires city provided telecommunications services to remit to the city general fund "an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city-owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city-owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider."

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila’s support for smaller, less regulatory-minded government must also be called into question with this bill’s ridiculously complicated regulations for serving unserved areas of the state (which also grants a special window to private providers to protest, which they will certainly do in just about any area of the state even partially suitable for a future project).

Ridiculously complicated? More like mostly irrelevant. The "unserved" issue only matters if/when a city wishes to have the provisions of G.S. 160A-340.1, 160A-340.4, and 160A-340.5 be non-applicable. The legislation doesn't prevent a city-owned telecommunications project just because an area is "served" or not.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila destroys her own “level playing field” argument in language within her own bill:

“The city or joint agency making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion.”

That paragraph is in respect to for other paragraphs in that section of the legislation. It's not as big of a deal as what Dampier implies. Read the legislation


Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
reply to swintec

said by swintec:

If a government run network is going to be erected, it should be done so with a level playing field to that of private business.

Wait, you mean the "level playing field" of private businesses where the major ISP's spend millions/billions in DC and get special laws written their ways and/or significant tax breaks given to them and not given to others?

That...."level playing field"?

You do really the utter stupidity trying to actually claim such a thing?


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by Bill Neilson:

said by swintec:

If a government run network is going to be erected, it should be done so with a level playing field to that of private business.

Wait, you mean the "level playing field" of private businesses where the major ISP's spend millions/billions in DC and get special laws written their ways and/or significant tax breaks given to them and not given to others?

That is a huge problem with the government for letting it happen, and needs to be addressed.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

I think the fundamental question or outlook here is, is fiber high speed broadband really something that should be a public utility like water, roads, etc.? Should the government bear the cost and manage the buildouts? I really don't think we are there yet as a society. I don't think this is a top of mind burning issue for most people.