reply to Van
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT I have to wonder what would happen in other areas of the country if community broadband service was created by local or county government to serve as competition for other providers. I'm not sure if I'd be 100% in support of developing an option like this everywhere, but I do have to think that providers like Cox, Time Warner, and Comcast might compete on price and service if they actually needed to do so.
Many communities have tried, and incumbents sue to stop it. And if that fails they bribe the state legislature to outlaw muni broadband outright.
So pool money together and start a cooperative.
said by silbaco:Building a network takes a lot more money than people are going to have on hand to throw into a pool.
So pool money together and start a cooperative.
However, starting a nonprofit organization that would seek loans to build it and then operate it on a nonprofit basis could work. They'd just need to charge enough to repay the loans, cover operating costs, and maintain a fund for needed repairs and upgrades. The only issue is that you can't start out too small, since you have to spread your costs over a large enough area to get enough subs so that you can charge them a competitive price.
I think the best place to try something like this would be in an area where you have lots of highly-paid tech-literate residents and crappy broadband service. Huntsville, Alabama comes to mind, although I don't know how good their broadband options are up there. For telco, they have AT&T, and, for cable, I believe they have Comcast and maybe some overbuild from Knology.
reply to Androidian
Personally, I would like to see a nationwide rollout of 1 fiber network to every business and consumer that can be used by anyone to reach anyone. If I am in St. Louis and feel Comcast has the best offer and service, then I can use them over that. If I think AT&T is that company, I should be able to choose them.
How we accomplish this whether it be community based, state based or nationally based I dont care. I just believe that the people of the US should own it and not a corporation.
To begin that, I think all ISP's should be split to have an ISP side and a network side so they dont control both the network and the content.
How exactly are you going to pay for this nation wide fiber rollout?
How much will it cost each user?
suppose a home, business owner decides the cost is more than it is worth to them... can they opt out? suppose it's more than they CAN pay? would you seize their property?
How are you going to compensate existing providers for your anti-competitive destruction of their business by making their physical plants worthless/non-viable. (even existing fiber rollouts that don't meet your specs)
Suppose your take rate is not high enough due to cost, or gov't restrictions on usage (Gov't owned network COULD NOT be used for terrorism, criminal, or treaty violations such as IP theft, for example) Who would pay the full cost?
It obviously can't be built overnight, so who gets served first?
Suppose by the time it is built, a private provider comes up with a better, cheaper solution (wireless quantum sub-nanosecond bonding) which can be rapidly rolled out using entirely private funds at a lower price point, will your Gov't net block them to "protect" the unpaid taxpayer investment?
reply to Skippy25
"To begin that, I think all ISP's should be split to have an ISP side and a network side so they dont control both the network and the content".
Right On! Just like a trucking or moving company They don't own the roads, but make a business out of using them for services of various kinds. But the "free enterprise" dogma we hear from all the plutocrats is "We should own everything" ..Gimme!
reply to tshirt
negative.., Government should use the FCC fund to do it.. lets face it the companies keep getting the money but not doing nothing to expand their networks.. their fault.. why should our tax money go to them?
that being said maybe a non profit that gets the money from the government same that their handing to the other companies... and build the network.. heck I wouldn't be surprised if google aint looking into trying to get that to subsidize their network build out
reply to jfleni
Speaking of trucks and moving companies, there are similar issue with regards to beer makers becoming distributors. It makes it too easy to allow for anti-competitive behavior.
reply to Cobra11M
The FCC (USF?) funds (or a like amount) HAVE been expanding the networks, the trouble being it's a drop in the bucket compared to the real cost.
Recognize that MOST of that was dedicated to providing copper PHONE lines, the idea of making a "greater than 14.4Kbps" requirement is very recent under FCC decree.
The phone company can't help that 'WE" have been paying them to provide out of date technology.
If you NOW want to require they scrap copper and replace it all with fiber, be prepared for a HUGE frontend bill even if (in theory) maintainace costs will drop (in theory, only because when a tornado or some redneck decides it's fun to pull out 50 miles of fiber, duct, and knock down some poles, it gonna be another big bill for the rush repair)
reply to tshirt
We could redirect $200B of the defense budget and still be about five times what any other country in the world spends, or still more than the next 7 countries combined spend. And then somewhere around 20-30% of that would actually come right back in the form of taxes over the few years the build out would take.
reply to Androidian
Lafayette, LA has its own cable network (LUS Fiber) that competes with COX.
reply to Xioden
We certainly could, but we haven't yet. and remember that defence money pays exist salaries for millions, and like much of the federal budget unlikely to be easily redirected/recommitted.
If you expect a 20-30% return on taxes, in only a few years, you are dreaming. even if you taxed at 100% it is unlikely faster internet alone would instantly generate $25+ billion in NEW annual revenue (NEW, being not just taken/displaced from other sectors)
This isn't a 3-5 year pay off sized project, and until proponents offer more realistic guesstimates and solutions to compensating existing providers(which may be an equal or larger amount) a publicly owned overbuild won't get much traction.
This is why USF like, 'slow and steady' trickle of funds has been the basis of federal efforts to gradually improve broadband.
Yes it is slow, inefficient, and like insufficient on it's own, it and an occasional "stimulus"-like (which actual was more effective that expected) bursts are all the federal funding you will see.
Consistent, long term (something we the people haven't been good at for awhile) tax benefits to make it in the incumbents best interest to do it themselves will make the product more expensive (any mandate with all the added requirements does this) but would be more likely to get it done quickly.
That $200 billion doesn't need to be taken out of one years defense budget. Over the course of a 5 year roll out $40 billion a year is a lot more manageable. And the fact of the matter is more than that is wasted on either redundant stuff that is already handled by other agencies or outright stupid shit.
The USF is a slush fund that is just one huge money sink.
Subsidies just wont cut it anymore, see pretty much every single small community build out in the past 5 years and all the opposition faced by them by the incumbents. You think subsidies are going to stop that?
Compared to all the bullshit this country spends money on, a national broadband build out should be a no-brainer. The sad fact is it is good for our infrastructure and good for the American People. Those two facts alone will guarantee corporations will never allow it to happen since it will hurt their shareholders bottom lines.
said by Xioden: I very much agree.
...Compared to all the bullshit this country spends money on, a national broadband build out should be a no-brainer....
Your problem is convincing the no brainers in Washington and all the people at home that, Right now, WE ALL need to commit to an extra $2000 in debt per household over the next 5 years and the THIS is the plan WITHOUT changes and modification and studies and committees and boards and commissions and addons and extras and earmarks and...
AND that this is actually enough to complete it and it will pay for itself in X-years and Uncle Bob who works at the cableco will still have a similar job. and that this isn't just so your kids can spend the rest of their lives in the basement playing games, downloading stolen IP, hacking sites, and whacking off.