Cox Blames 'Misinformation' For Kansas Broadband Bill Troubles
The cable industry's recent attempt to pass protectionist new laws in Kansas that could potentially hamstring towns, cities and even Google Fiber
ran into a bit of a wall the last few weeks as people started asking why a cable company was dictating local infrastructure rights. While there's 22 states that have these kinds of ISP-written laws now on the books (most recently the Carolinas
), the Kansas effort appears to have received attention because of the interest in Google Fiber.Ars Technica
notes that because of press coverage and resident attention, the cable industry appears to have hit a few approval delays. In a statement sent to Ars, Cox claims that the problems facing the cable industry's bill were due to "misinformation," though they fail to get specific:
"With approximately 22 other states having some type of restriction on the use of taxpayer dollars for these kinds of facilities, we thought it a relevant topic worthy of our involvement given our significant investment in the communities we serve and our public-private partnerships. There was enough misinformation regarding the legislation that made it appropriate for the committee to defer action at this time. We look forward to a continued discussion with all parties on this issue."
As it's always worth noting when these bills surface, towns and cities in Kansas wouldn't be trying to wire themselves for broadband (or turning all their hopes toward a search engine) if the ISPs themselves were delivering the kind of speeds at the kind of prices consumers want.
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Random claims Cigarettes are good for you, these anti-smokers are spreading miss-information. Please support our "every child needs a smoke" initiative.
Why is it that the companies with the lowest prices, tend to have the fastest Internet, while talking about how cheap it is? Then you have these other companies that offer crap speeds for high prices and complain 24/7 about how bad things are.
Port Orchard, WA
Re: Random claims Unfortunately, the majority of ISPs out there have bad speeds and high prices. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc., have high speeds, but high prices, that's the power of a monopoly. There are still a few good local ISPs out there, and I'm fortunate enough to have one.
CenturyLink, Frontier, and AT&T are the different ones of the bunch. Low speeds and high prices, in almost all of their locations.
Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist
said by Eddy120876:Neither do the ultraliberals.
the sad part is this new GOP/Tea party/Libertarians don't give a damn about compromise
said by Eddy120876:?
A year ago the Gop came up with a plan they ask the president to back the agreement and as soon as he did they torpedo it saying it shouldn't be created.
Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism you don't actually believe what you wrote?
Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism
said by mr sean:Why is it that when an individual DARES to stray from the orthodox groupthink of DSL Reports, they are automatically labeled a shill? How about debating the issue rather than attacking the commenter?
the poster has a long history of presenting the appearance of....um...corporate mouthpiece.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Taxpayers can certainly vote to assess themselves to support infrastructure, and if you've followed my posts, you'd note that I am not opposed to the will of a supermajority ("consensus") of the actual taxpayers (property owners) choosing to lien themselves to that end.
My objection comes when the city, already having sold a franchise to the MSO, now uses tax money to build and operate the muni, and in doing so, is not only cross-subsidizing to sell below cost, but is also illegally taking the franchise's customer base without compensation.
If the locals want to use the aforementioned bond money, and form a separate cooperative - at arms length from the city government, to overbuild and compete with the existing ISPs, more power to them. Just don't muddy the waters by allowing the local politicians access to the money and process.
If you actually examine the history of municipal development of cable and broadband, you will find time and again, greed, graft, corruption, self-dealing, embezzlement, and a general coverup of actual cost, by way of cross-subsidy from other ledger accounts.
Government exists to perpetuate itself and grow, not to serve you. MSO-based broadband has its quirks, but they actually want your business, and they actually do continue to improve their offerings, year over year; government has no reason or incentive to.
Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Why do you require a super majority to pass the legislation? Unless mandated by a state constitution that all legal actions must have super majorities, the normal practice in the USA is that 50% plus one gets a bill or referendum passed.
Real estate property owners are not the only residents of many cities or counties. They are not the only ones who pay county or city taxes, other residents do also. Some pay some of them indirectly through rental payments. We actually created an economic disaster in the USA by thinking every family should own their own home and created badly performing loans that led to the mortgage mess.
Many of the telephone companies had chances to build out fiber to the cabinet such that good VDSL2 would have been available to every POTS user. They failed to do so, mainly due to spending the money that was to go to advanced wireline networks on cellular.
The cable companies were never intended to be the advanced internet providers for the USA, the telcos were supposed to handle that.
HSI was a nice bonus for the cable companies in having built a physical plant that turned out to be able to handle it in addition to the television they were franchised to provide. The cable companies that were abused by local governments do have some legitimate gripes. High franchise fees, that drove up subscriber bills, wasted on nonsense pet projects of city councils. Ridiculous subsidies of open to the public television studios. Those things needed to be capped and limited. I think if there had been more transparency in billing, much higher reliability in service, and a different revenue model for video and internet service, cable companies would have much less to worry about from citizens requesting municipal owned networks. Many cities reluctantly got into this business, when the incumbents ignored complaints and failed to reinvest in network improvements. That has been done when private electric companies and private telephone companies failed to provide services that residents wanted. The residents voted to create their own service providers.
Private companies do not exist to think about long term societal needs. They exist to provide stockholders with dividends and increases in stock valuation every 91 days if possible. Anything that gets in the way of that, such as FTTH build outs, is eliminated from the approved expenditure of net profits.
Santa Monica, CA
·Time Warner Cable
Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism A super majority requirement for taxation means you have consensus, popular support, not just a partisan vote that might be reversed later. Most taxes last 10-20 years, or forever. Its critical to have support amongst all the people, not just the beneficiaries.
Real estate property owners aren't the only taxpayers in the county, but when you're looking to attach assets, to finance the $5-10K/address for (FTTH) infrastructure, they and they alone are going to pay the tax, so it make sense that you have their support, as opposed to imposing yourself upon them.
Cable and satellite aren't responsible for pay-tv pricing. Period. You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to reform content licensing and broadcast retransmission, that's an issue for Congress.
Cable has certainly been delivering on broadband. All one has to do is look back 10 years or so, and compare, to see the progress that has been made, and stop complaining.
Telco is a mixed bag; in some cases, I agree, they could do better.. But you ignore the fact that the citizens aren't willing to pay for the service, all the while you want to make everyone pay for it, then point to the government's artificially subsidized low price and claim they know best.
Private companies do think about long-term "needs", but they look to profit off them as well, instead of simply raising taxes and pretending to shift and hide the real cost from the consumer.