Municipal Pugilism Local government vs. big business The push for municipal broadband in the Illinois cities of Geneva, St. Charles, and Batavia has gotten ugly. SBC and Comcast's PR departments have been busy trying to persuade voters that municipal broadband projects generally end in fiscal failure. Naturally the Tri-City broadband commission is angry, suggesting there would be no need for municipal broadband if these companies had shown such interest in service much earlier. While the vote looms, 'misinformation' reigns, and the city mayors claim they will push the project forward even if they face a loss. We first mentioned the Illinois municipal broadband project during its earliest stages in February of last year, at which time the three cities had become frustrated with the service of AT&T Broadband, and were just beginning to explore their options. Using the success of other communities such as Spencer, Indiana; Thomasville, Georgia; and Palo Alto, California, as a blueprint, the Tri-City area leaders began to draft their plan and formed a research commission. The city of St. Charles began to keep a progress log of its push to revitalize its business district, part of which would now include high speed infrastructure. After waiting through the summer of 2002, a requested 700 page feasibility study was completed for the broadband initiative, and the three cities began to plan in earnest. The proposed plan would cost $63 million and would create nearly 50 city jobs to administer and maintain the broadband network. Naturally the plan had its skeptics from the start. The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research organization based in Chicago, released a scathing 22 page report that stated the project was likely to go bankrupt, and that the city would be unable to compete with the private sector. Area papers and leaders criticized the Institute, claiming that while it claimed to be bias free, it repeatedly took pro-business stands on public policy issues such as the privatization of public services. The cities weren't fazed. One Batavia city administrator claimed that Bast and the institute did not have an "accurate understanding of the project", others arguing that since the city already ran its own electric utility, start-up and operation costs would be significantly less. "Historically, we got into the electric utility for the same reason: the residents wanted it," Geneva Information Systems Supervisor Peter Collins said at the time. "We're used to being different." With the feasibility study completed, and area leaders convinced the project could be practical and successful, they now faced the problem of convincing voters that such a plan was in their best interests. A community vote was set for April 1st, and area leadership began to pitch the idea to area residents. Debate began to rage in local papers over the necessity of the project. One woman wrote her local editor to complain about the local leaders trying to pitch the broadband idea as a "necessity of life". "I raised two very intelligent children without cable television and high-speed Internet", argues the woman. "Necessity of life? Whose life?"Ironically enough, in some ways the mother of the project, AT&T Broadband, whose poor service helped to birth the plan, began to finally show an interest in the region. In a sense showing that competition was already having a positive impact on the area; the company began sending out letters to area consumers informing them that they'd be finally upgrading the area's cable system after years of unheeded complaints. One area resident wrote us in amazement after receiving the letter. "I find it strange that, after years of putting it off, AT&T all of a sudden sends me a letter saying that they will be upgrading the cable system in my area (Geneva, IL), so that I can get enhanced services like cable broadband. AT&T has been putting off the work for years until now, when the tri-city area is thinking about doing it on their own, without the help of a big telco/ISP/Broadband provider."As the April first vote grew closer, SBC and the newly merged Comcast began to fire up their PR machinery, trying their best to convince area voters that a municipal broadband system simply wasn't in the residents' best interests. Both companies began by issuing surveys via telephone and mail, which asked customers questions such as "Is it appropriate to spend 62 million for broadband service when two private companies already provide that service?" and "Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?" When criticized by local officials who claimed the surveys were misleading propaganda, neither company was willing to release the content of the surveys to the press. Thanks to area residents, Broadband Reports received a transcript of the questions available here. On March 13 Comcast began running an ad (pdf copy) in area papers 'warning' voters that building such a network would be a fiscal gamble, and that residents could wind up with "higher taxes, higher utility rates, or decreased city services". Comcast followed up that ad with another ad (pdf copy) that claimed most other nationwide attempts at local government operated broadband networks ended in failure, calling the Illinois endeavor "a long shot". The company even circulated a list of these "failed" municipal projects to area residents and leaders, all of which are rebuked at the Tri-City broadband website. SBC meanwhile turned to its employees for support, sending them an e-mail (pdf copy) that urged them to lend their voice to oppose the broadband plan. "Despite what you may have heard from our opposition", the letter says, "SBC has welcomed competition. However, all competitors must enter on a level playing field. A government funded network relies on taxpayers' hard earned money, threatens SBC jobs and puts the municipal broadband at an advantage not afforded to other competitors."For the first time since the plan was launched, the three mayors of Batavia, St. Charles, and Geneva stood together at a meeting yesterday evening to encourage voters to say "yes" to the April 1st vote, and to criticize both Comcast and SBC, whom they say are engaged in a campaign of "lies" and "misinformation". "We aren't trying to misrepresent anything," said Patricia Andrews-Keenan, Comcast vice president for communications, who pointed out the company was spending $50 million for upgrades in DuPage and Kane counties. So what happens if voters say no on April 1st? According to the Kane County Chronicle, the mayors, who at one point promised they'd only move forward with resident approval, are now saying they may move forward regardless, thanks in part to SBC and Comcast's tactics in the region. According to St. Charles Mayor Sue Klinkhamer, the "economic development of our communities depends on it." According to one area resident we spoke to this morning, the Kane County Chronicle article is misleading in that while St. Charles and Batavia are or will soon be home rule, Geneva is not, and can not move forward without a proper voter victory on April 1st. We've fired some questions at the leaders of the "Fiber for our Future Committee", who have created the Tri-City Broadband Citizen Support Group, and will post the interview hopefully this week.
|
 | | Make the monopolies make counter-proposals I say, make the monopolies put their money where their mouth is. Have them put a counter proposal on the ballot. With stipulations and stiff and unappealable penalties if they don't meet their promised deployment goes. | |
|  |  mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Make the monopolies make counter-proposals I would be cool with that...but what similar mechanism can be put in place to protect the taxpayers if the municipal project goes belly-up?
If SBC/Comcast had any brains, they would shut up and allow the municipal deployment. Then when it bankrupts, they buy it out for pennies on the dollar...complete with infrastructure, customer base, etc.
If the cities are successful, then SBC/Comcast builds out their own network according to their own business plan and engages in legitimate competition for customers...which is what they claim they want anyway.
To be fair, if I were an SBC employee living in that area, I would kind of resent my tax dollars being used this way.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 19:26:56] | |
| | | | | Re: Make the monopolies make counter-proposals Simple, the officials who ran the system get voted out of office, and the budget gets overhauled. As long as, the system is controlled by democratically elected officials, it will have 10 times the accountability, efficiency, and productivity of unregulated monopolies. | |
| | | |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Make the monopolies make counter-proposals said by 2farfromCO7:
it will have 10 times the accountability, efficiency, and productivity of unregulated monopolies.
Question... say the voters do not approve the measure and the mayors, as they have claimed, continue to build it anyway against the will of the people. Is this the kind of accountability you had in mind?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
|
| Never mind. Error!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 13:22:29] | |
|  BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| full steam ahead at your cost so just like an average politician. "we are going to do it whether it works or not. i am not paying for it."
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 14:09:21]
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 14:17:10] | |
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost Well I can see the mayors' point....these companies have paid a nice sum to confuse and otherwise bewilder the public into thinking these municipal projects are nothing but fancy and quite ludicrous....it would be sad for the whole plan to go down the toilet because people were too lazy to actually do research into the issue and make an educated decision...
If I were mayor and I were certain that this plan was well designed and could bring jobs, competition, and lower rates to the area, I'd push forward too....and let them name a few Gazebos after me in area parks several years later once people see the effects like residents of Tacoma are witnessing with the low rates offered by Click! network..... | |
| | | BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | Re: full steam ahead at your cost where is the competition with government broadband???? | |
| | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost It's LOCAL government first off...not nearly the threat SBC paints it as....National government tax payer supported broadband...that might be a threat, but that's not occurring.
The competition comes from the municipal offerings themselves....the telco and cable company's are immediately thrust into a price war, and subsequent quality war.....
Years of no competition has left them "fat and stupid" so to speak, with no reason to cut costs or really improve other than to compete with Satellite....
Check out Click! Network:
»www.wired.com/news/business/0,13···,00.html | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Where is the competition with the current oligopoly? In the five or so years DSL has been out has any bell DSL division ever tried to win customers over from the other bells. The answer is no and it is probably due to collusion.
Could it be people are tired of being pawns for the bells, tired of being held hostage, tired of crappy support, tired of lies and deceit.
When these communities come together and cooperatively put in broadband, the ILEC and cable providers find themselves forced into competitive practices. From what I read once this is in, customers will have a choice of phone, Internet and cable TV services.
The "its my way or the highway" corporate strategy for winning customers won't work anymore. | |
| | | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | What's the matter? Is SBC and Comcast afraid of a little municipal broadband competition? Oh, yes, they are. Nevermind.... | |
| | | | | BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost you make it sound like dsl is in the bill of rights. so when sbc/comcast undercut the price and government broadband goes belly up, the taxpayer has to bail it out while paying for broadband from someone else. wow what a great idea. if it is profitable, a company will turn up broadband.
can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? the government is always going to operate at or exceed the budget allowed. with the government there is not an incentive to operate at a profit.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 20:45:42] | |
| | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: full steam ahead at your cost Well, if you can stop your whining for 5 minutes, maybe we can watch and see what happens. | |
| | | | | | | BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | Re: full steam ahead at your cost "Well, if you can stop your whining for 5 minutes, maybe we can watch and see what happens."
so next time sbc requests a state to not force them to share their broadband equipment so they can deploy to a rural area, this will be my response.
i would also like to note that i posed a question of "can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? " and your response is to stop whining. am i to assume you do not have a response due to your lack of knowledge or your inability to debate? do we really want to start the name calling? | |
| | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by BBC4544:
"Well, if you can stop your whining for 5 minutes, maybe we can watch and see what happens."
so next time sbc requests a state to not force them to share their broadband equipment so they can deploy to a rural area, this will be my response.
Too bad it wouldn't apply when you used it.
said by BBC4544:
i would also like to note that i posed a question of "can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? " and your response is to stop whining. am i to assume you do not have a response due to your lack of knowledge or your inability to debate?
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services, and well, gee, it looks like city run broadband is starting to work in the places it's being rolled out in. Of course, I guess everyone should depend on the known dishonest qualities of the existing telcos and cablecos, but you know? I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't going to roll over to them as much as someone like you expects. Damn shame about that. Now here's a question for you: Why is SBC, a company that claims it's bleeding money (while making $2 billion a quarter), spending money on ad campaigns spreading disinformation about a possible city run broadband initiative when that money could be better spent increasing the quality of its service? As it has been pointed out many times already, and of which you have refused to accept, this municipal project would never have been considered if it wasn't for the fact that SBC and Comcast provided poor service.
said by BBC4544:
do we really want to start the name calling?
What "name calling" is that? I didn't call you a name. I pointed out that you're whining. You owe me an apology. | |
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
You can't make a blanket statement out of this. In Philadelphia for example, PGW (Philadelphia Gas Works), the municipally-owned natural gas provider, continues to have numerous financial problems and mismanagement issues. They charge the country's highest rates for natural gas and the city and state government constantly have to pour millions of dollars each year into it to keep it afloat. Certain suburban municipal governments in my area have had problems managing sewage processing. Given this track record, its a perfectly reasonable assessment to believe that the local government can and will fubar this project as well.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over!
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 12:57:29] | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by pnh102:
You can't make a blanket statement out of this. In Philadelphia for example, PGW (Philadelphia Gas Works), the municipally-owned natural gas provider, continues to have numerous financial problems and mismanagement issues. They charge the country's highest rates for natural gas and the city and state government constantly have to pour millions of dollars each year into it to keep it afloat. Certain suburban municipal governments in my area have had problems managing sewage processing. Given this track record, its a perfectly reasonable assessment to believe that the local government can and will fubar this project as well.
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more. And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless. Obviously city run services aren't going to work everywhere, just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records. | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
Get back to me when you're paying $200/month in electric bills (even with conservation) to a "private" company that literally wants to jack rates up 400% more.
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
said by JakCrow:
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow:
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
said by JakCrow:
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by pnh102:
And who created the "deregulated" environment which allowed this to occur, the great state of California of course! Was there accountability? Not exactly, the same people who fubared "deregulation" may or may not still be in office and they haven't fixed it. This is precisely the reason that government shouldn't meddle in these kinds of ventures. We truly deregulated electrical generation here in Penna. as well, and our electric rates have been going down, not up, and you truly do have a choice of providers.
Do you want the long or short version of the "deregulation" story? You certainly have it wrong, that's for sure. I would be happy to dispell your misconceptions, unless you're a "free market" idealogue. Then there's no point in going any further.
said by JakCrow:
And be careful about those generalizations. You looks like you're applying your local situation to the every municipality regardless.
In your original post, you said that:
said by JakCrow:
Local governments seem to be doing pretty well with utility services
which sounds like a generalization to me.
[/QUOTE]
And you follow up with what also sounds like a generization. Have some consistancy.
said by JakCrow:
just as company run services won't either, and SBC and Comcast have already established their poor track records.
There are already ways in which the private sector has dealt with poor service from these companies, many places have rolled their own broadband without government help and without imposing another burden on taxpayers. This is arguably the better route.
[/QUOTE]
What are these "many places that have rolled their own broadband without government help"? With the exception of the municipalities that are succeeding, the private sector non-telco/cableco solutions are few and far between. And once again, someone such as yourself also overlooks that user fees can provide coverage for municipal services such as broadband without taxing everyone. | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
Do you want the long or short version of the "deregulation" story? You certainly have it wrong, that's for sure.
The short version is that California decided to cap the amount of money paid by subscribers to electric utilities without capping the amount of money that the utilities paid to resellers. Because of California's wacky environmental laws, among which prevented new power plants from being built to meet increasing demand, the supply of electricity in-state remained constant while demand increased, and because no new in-state generation could occur, PG&E and SCE had to buy energy from out of state at very high prices. Sounds like a major government screw up to me. Granted, a bunch of companies did try to exploit the situation, but once again it is the state government's fault for creating the environment in which this kind of exploitation could take place to begin with.
said by JakCrow:
And you follow up with what also sounds like a generization. Have some consistancy.
A specific example, like the one I cited with PGW is not a generalization. However, a specific example is all that is logically required to disprove your original generalization that municipally run services are inherently better than privately run services.
said by JakCrow:
What are these "many places that have rolled their own broadband without government help"? With the exception of the municipalities that are succeeding, the private sector non-telco/cableco solutions are few and far between.
Ruby Ranch comes to mind, and then there are also the hundreds of WISPs that are springing up all over the country as well.
said by JakCrow:
And once again, someone such as yourself also overlooks that user fees can provide coverage for municipal services such as broadband without taxing everyone.
Many municipally run broadband providers rely on some other municipally run service to keep them afloat (e.g., the cable network in Glasgow, KY, relies upon the municipally run power company). If that other service wasn't their to prop up the internet service, where would this money come from? More taxes? On the other side of this coin, how much money could these municipally run services be returning to the ratepayers if they were not involved in subsidizing other non-essential municipal services?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
| | | | | | | | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by pnh102:
Because of California's wacky environmental laws
give me a break. see ENRON and other unethical businesses that drove up the price of electricity by conspiring to keep powerplants offline longer than necessary.
--
R. Kelly = child molester/ child pornographer | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by morbo:
give me a break. see ENRON and other unethical businesses that drove up the price of electricity by conspiring to keep powerplants offline longer than necessary.
This didn't happen in any state other than California. You can't tell me that California's regulatory environment didn't contribute to the exploits by some companies when the same antics did not occur in any other state.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by pnh102:
The short version is that California decided to cap the amount of money paid by subscribers to electric utilities without capping the amount of money that the utilities paid to resellers. Because of California's wacky environmental laws, among which prevented new power plants from being built to meet increasing demand, the supply of electricity in-state remained constant while demand increased, and because no new in-state generation could occur, PG&E and SCE had to buy energy from out of state at very high prices. Sounds like a major government screw up to me. Granted, a bunch of companies did try to exploit the situation, but once again it is the state government's fault for creating the environment in which this kind of exploitation could take place to begin with.
You forgot about how the the instate power companies signed on to the deregulation plan with the future hopes of reaping huge profits -after they fulfilled certain requirements- to become full deregulated and allowed to pass costs on to customers. PG&E and SCE dragged their feet do meet those requirements and were caught with their pants down when the suppliers started gouging. It's also ridiculous to say that the state deregulation process caused power suppliers to become dishonest. Evidence points to the desire to simply gouge California. It didn't matter who was paying the bill.
Now if you want to talk flawed as in deregulation came about because the power companies wanted huge profits and their large corporate customers wanted cheap power while the individual user was barely considered, I'd agree, but something tells me you're one of those black and white "free market" types.
said by pnh102:
A specific example, like the one I cited with PGW is not a generalization. However, a specific example is all that is logically required to disprove your original generalization that municipally run services are inherently better than privately run services.
It's anecdotal and you imply that's how it will be everywhere, then you go on to say there are private companies for which you can buy power from. Just as you wouldn't buy services from an overpriced, poorly run private company. So what's the problem?
said by pnh102:
Ruby Ranch comes to mind, and then there are also the hundreds of WISPs that are springing up all over the country as well.
You do remember the hell Ruby Ranch has to go thru to get to the point they're at now, and the length of time and legal hassle they had to go through, right? Imagine how hard it's going to be if they want to go farther than just basic DSL to a small collection of homes. The WISP market isn't as big as you'd like to think it is right now, and the bells are encroaching on the WISP market too. I expect some kind of lobbying effort by them in the next year or so in an attempt to hurt the small providers in that area as well.
said by pnh102:
Many municipally run broadband providers rely on some other municipally run service to keep them afloat (e.g., the cable network in Glasgow, KY, relies upon the municipally run power company). If that other service wasn't their to prop up the internet service, where would this money come from? More taxes? On the other side of this coin, how much money could these municipally run services be returning to the ratepayers if they were not involved in subsidizing other non-essential municipal services?
And it's because of those other municipal services they're able to offer something extra. There's nothing wrong with that. And since the power services are already there, your scenerio doesn't apply since the power services aren't going to be uprooted tomorrow to have a negative impact on additional services. Your's is a straw man argument since what you're saying can be applied to the telcos and cablecos, except replace "taxes" with "price increases". Speaking of subsidized services, how's your residential phone line working out for ya? | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
You forgot about how the the instate power companies signed on to the deregulation plan with the future hopes of reaping huge profits -after they fulfilled certain requirements- to become full deregulated and allowed to pass costs on to customers.
So why did the legislators cave into the power companies? The legislators in other states aren't giving into the demands of SBC when it comes to deregulation. As elected officials, the legislators have a moral duty to prevent these kinds of screwups.
said by JakCrow:
Evidence points to the desire to simply gouge California. It didn't matter who was paying the bill.
But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If this scheme made Enron and other companies so rich, why wasn't it done on a national basis?
said by JakCrow:
Now if you want to talk flawed as in deregulation came about because the power companies wanted huge profits and their large corporate customers wanted cheap power while the individual user was barely considered, I'd agree, but something tells me you're one of those black and white "free market" types.
Damn right, I am a Yankee-imperialist capitalist pig and damn proud of it.  This freedom includes the right for companies to make stupid decisions like was the case with PG&E and SCE. But this begs my original question, why didn't California's legislators think before they passed this law? Certianly legislators in other states see the problems with giving SBC what amounts to a "blank check." California's legislature should have had some foresight. You can't sell something for less than what it costs and you don't need to be brain surgeon to realize that.
said by JakCrow:
It's anecdotal and you imply that's how it will be everywhere, then you go on to say there are private companies for which you can buy power from. Just as you wouldn't buy services from an overpriced, poorly run private company. So what's the problem?
Its perfectly fine for private companies to take risks like these because they're the ones who will go under as a result, provided that the government doesn't step in to "save the day." However, if a government does this, taxes will go up to pay for it (see my previous posts regarding western Penna. school districts). California created an electric power deathtrap that didn't exist in any other state and now people like you have no choice but to pay. Had deregulation been done right (or not at all), the state would be in a better position.
said by JakCrow:
You do remember the hell Ruby Ranch has to go thru to get to the point they're at now, and the length of time and legal hassle they had to go through, right?
Nothing worth doing is easy. If they didn't go through all that heck, they wouldn't be doing business.
said by JakCrow:
the bells are encroaching on the WISP market too.
The bells don't want WISPs to take away their customers, if WISPs encourage the bells/cable companies to expand service then this is a good thing.
said by JakCrow:
I expect some kind of lobbying effort by them in the next year or so in an attempt to hurt the small providers in that area as well.
As we can see with what's happening in Indiana and Nevada, it not a sure thing that these will pass.
said by JakCrow:
And it's because of those other municipal services they're able to offer something extra. There's nothing wrong with that.
If I am paying $100 in electric bills and I know that $50 is going to subsidize internet service that I don't use, I would be a bit steamed that my bill couldn't be reduced by $50.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by pnh102:
So why did the legislators cave into the power companies? The legislators in other states aren't giving into the demands of SBC when it comes to deregulation. As elected officials, the legislators have a moral duty to prevent these kinds of screwups.
Probably for the same black and white free market ideology that doesn't look at the big picture except for PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. If I remember correctly, all the western states were seeing the high prices as well, but were not in the midst of a deregulation process.
said by pnh102:
But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If this scheme made Enron and other companies so rich, why wasn't it done on a national basis?
Calfornia was a current target? Other states were next? I don't know, do you? I don't think it mattered who paid the bill, customers or power distributors.
said by pnh102:
Damn right, I am a Yankee-imperialist capitalist pig and damn proud of it.
You misunderstand: I have no problem with a capitalist society. I have a problem with the die hard free marketeers that want deregulation no matter how many people have to be stepped on get it (usually the individual consumer). I'm also tired of deregulation that comes about because the industry wants to make more money, or large customers of said industry want to spend less, and damn anyone that gets in the way, while yet again, the individual is left out of the equation but has the most to loose.
said by pnh102:
This freedom includes the right for companies to make stupid decisions like was the case with PG&E and SCE.
I agree
said by pnh102:
But this begs my original question, why didn't California's legislators think before they passed this law?
Bribery? Blind free market proponents? This kind of thing doesn't just happen in CA either.
said by pnh102:
Certianly legislators in other states see the problems with giving SBC what amounts to a "blank check." California's legislature should have had some foresight. You can't sell something for less than what it costs and you don't need to be brain surgeon to realize that.
PG&E and SCE signed on to the process, so I assume the hope was for a speedy transition, which obviously didn't happen because of PG&E and SCE. If you want to talk "blank checks" in general, there's the matter of the states that are giving the bells free rides without foresight.
said by pnh102:
Its perfectly fine for private companies to take risks like these because they're the ones who will go under as a result, provided that the government doesn't step in to "save the day." However, if a government does this, taxes will go up to pay for it (see my previous posts regarding western Penna. school districts). California created an electric power deathtrap that didn't exist in any other state and now people like you have no choice but to pay. Had deregulation been done right (or not at all), the state would be in a better position.
And if a government run program is failing, it's up to the people to vote the ones out responsible. I'm not saying all these city run broadband projects are going to work 100%, but it's obvious WHY they're coming about.
said by pnh102:
Nothing worth doing is easy. If they didn't go through all that heck, they wouldn't be doing business.
It wouldn't have been a problem if Qwest hadn't tried to kill the project to begin with. Earning its reputation again, after all.
said by pnh102:
The bells don't want WISPs to take away their customers, if WISPs encourage the bells/cable companies to expand service then this is a good thing.
Would you be happy if the bells killed WISP competition? I know I wouldn't.
said by pnh102:
As we can see with what's happening in Indiana and Nevada, it not a sure thing that these will pass.
Good, but don't think the bells won't keep trying.
said by pnh102:
If I am paying $100 in electric bills and I know that $50 is going to subsidize internet service that I don't use, I would be a bit steamed that my bill couldn't be reduced by $50.
Stuff like this is more like pennies on the dollar, not half the bill, and that implies no basic user fees. Bur anyways, we're getting sidetracked on the whole CA power dereg now.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 16:32:43] | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
You misunderstand: I have no problem with a capitalist society.
Sorry about that... That's just my standard honest reply to anyone who asks me that question LOL.
said by JakCrow:
I have a problem with the die hard free marketeers that want deregulation no matter how many people have to be stepped on get it (usually the individual consumer).
I agree with you 100% on this one, but I also think that what happened in California with regards to the electric companies should not have been called "deregulation" because it clearly wasn't that at all.
said by JakCrow:
I'm also tired of deregulation that comes about because the industry wants to make more money, or large customers of said industry want to spend less, and damn anyone that gets in the way, while yet again, the individual is left out of the equation but has the most to loose.
I believe there does exist a happy medium with regards to this. As I said before, regulation of electrical generation in Penna. has been successful on both fronts, it not only gives customers more choices with regards to price, but companies have continued to make money. Local governments here can now buy their power from the lowest bidder like they do with any other commodity. Some people I know here however don't use price as the sole criteria for their choice of electrical generation company. A lot of people choose "earth-friendly" power companies even though they cost more than what they paid before. I think its great that people actually have these choices now.
said by JakCrow:
And if a government run program is failing, it's up to the people to vote the ones out responsible.
Sigh... as long as people benefit from these "failed" programs (most welfare programs imo), they will never go away.
said by JakCrow:
Would you be happy if the bells killed WISP competition? I know I wouldn't.
Nor would I, but in the areas that WISPs operate there hasn't been too much of a move by the Bells to kill them.
said by JakCrow:
Stuff like this is more like pennies on the dollar, not half the bill, and that implies no basic user fees.
That's how it all starts. No matter how poorly a municipally run cable system is run, as long as it has a crutch to provide it with funding, it will continue to operate with no incentive to improve. Its very easy for a municipally run utility to jack up rates to subsidize internet access because everyone needs electric power. In Greece for example, the 3 government-run TV networks all get their funding by tacking on surcharges to the electric bill. There's no way to get out of paying for them.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
|
| | | | | | | | BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | 1st off I state my opinion and you call it whining. if you disagree with me so be it but it is insulting for you to say it is whining. I accept your apology.
if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that sbc needs to invest in a potentially high risk service that could cost too much money. you base this on the fact that they make 2 billion a quarter. the reason they make 2 billion a quarter is because the do not throw their money at high risk investments.
the main point I am trying to make is that it is not the government's role to get involved with the private market. what is next government gas stations, video stores, food stores, construction companies, clothing stores.........
this sounds familiar. some famous men had the same idea...STALIN, LENIN, CASTRO......
lets get this last thing straight. government is government, it does not matter if it is city, local, state, federal. the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner. | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by BBC4544:
the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner.
Yea... not too long back a bunch of school districts in western Penna., along with Orange County, CA (among other governments) invested tax money in high risk junk bonds as a way to increase their spendable money. The schemes backfired and the result was that Orange County had to go into bankruptcy, and the Penna. school districts all had to raise taxes to pay for the current year's instruction along with the next. It was precisely because of this steady stream of unlimited taxpayer money that they had no incentive to invest in something reliable.
I have a feeling that these municipal network promoters aren't telling the whole story. How does tricitybroadband.com know how much the system will cost when they aren't the people who will be building it? Isn't it going to be the government that sets the final cost? People who want the government to fund their particular pet project routinely understate the true costs because they know governments are reluctant to spend money on something that appears overly expensive.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by BBC4544:
1st off I state my opinion and you call it whining. if you disagree with me so be it but it is insulting for you to say it is whining. I accept your apology.
You're obviously mistaken. I didn't apologize
said by BBC4544:
if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that sbc needs to invest in a potentially high risk service that could cost too much money.
While wasting cash in an ad campaign against municipal broadband, apparently in an area they don't want to invest much in anyways. What's up with that, hmmm?
said by BBC4544:
you base this on the fact that they make 2 billion a quarter. the reason they make 2 billion a quarter is because the do not throw their money at high risk investments.
Oh, so then that pesky money bleed SBC claims is just smoke and mirrors. No shock there. Don't forget, part of that $2 billion a quarter is from price increases and fees tacked on to customer bills to pay for future expansion that had never been seen in most places. Tsk tsk...
said by BBC4544:
the main point I am trying to make is that it is not the government's role to get involved with the private market. what is next government gas stations, video stores, food stores, construction companies, clothing stores.........
this sounds familiar. some famous men had the same idea...STALIN, LENIN, CASTRO......
If that's your point, you need to go back to drawing board. Municipal services in this country come about when the "private market" (built by government subsidies) fails to provide the services and support that localities want/need/require. If the participants in the "private market" had their acts together in the first place, we wouldn't even be talking about this. And your hysteria at the bottom there shows you shouldn't be talking about this at all. Here, I'll make it all better: the sky isn't falling because these cities are considering a broadband program. Get a grip.
said by BBC4544:
lets get this last thing straight. government is government, it does not matter if it is city, local, state, federal. the government has no incentive to ever do anything in an efficient manner.
You realize you can replace "government" with "telcos/cablecos", don't you? | |
| | | | | | | | | | BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | Re: full steam ahead at your cost "You're obviously mistaken. I didn't apologize"
i was giving you the benefit of doubt. you have showed i was mistaken about you being an adult.
"Don't forget, part of that $2 billion a quarter is from price increases and fees tacked on to customer bills to pay for future expansion that had never been seen in most places. Tsk tsk..."
check OK. i know you live in the socialist state of CA but in the rest of the country companies exist to make a profit.
"If that's your point, you need to go back to drawing board. Municipal services in this country come about when the "private market" (built by government subsidies) fails to provide the services and support that localities want/need/require. If the participants in the "private market" had their acts together in the first place, we wouldn't even be talking about this. And your hysteria at the bottom there shows you shouldn't be talking about this at all. Here, I'll make it all better: the sky isn't falling because these cities are considering a broadband program. Get a grip."
it is not for you or a government to decide the needs of the private market. the private market determines the needs. if a gas station is needed at elm and main then it is up to the private sector to research and discover this. it is not the governments role to compete with the private sector. as far as who needs to stop talking "mr brownout", you live in a state that is eyeball deep in debt due to getting involved in the private sector.
"You realize you can replace "government" with "telcos/cablecos", don't you?"
ahhh, NO. government has elected officials and collect taxes on an involuntary basis. telcos/cablecos are companies that are there to make a profit and sell stocks on a voluntary basis. if you do not subscribe to their service, they do not collect money. if the government collects a tax that does not mean you are entitled to all services. actually to the contrary, the more taxes you pay the less service you get. | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by BBC4544:
"You're obviously mistaken. I didn't apologize"
i was giving you the benefit of doubt. you have showed i was mistaken about you being an adult.
An adult would use a little rational thought regarding this matter. You however.....
said by BBC4544:
check OK. i know you live in the socialist state of CA but in the rest of the country companies exist to make a profit.
Last I checked, some of the OK legislators were a little pissed off at SBC for not living up to its promises (meanwhile SBC plays fast and loose with interpretations). And guess what state a significant amount of SBC's profit came from bucky?
said by BBC4544:
it is not for you or a government to decide the needs of the private market. the private market determines the needs.
Uh, yes, it is up to the government, and by extension, the people to decide the "needs" of the private sector, especially when it comes to industries with monopolistic participants that try to manipulate the market. The "private sector" works for the customer, not the other way around, and operates at the "blessings" of the governments involved, local, state, and federal. For example: if a city wanted to legally end a contract with a cableco, there's not a damn thing the cableco could do about it.
said by BBC4544:
if a gas station is needed at elm and main then it is up to the private sector to research and discover this. it is not the governments role to compete with the private sector.
In this case, the private sector isn't competing at all, which is why this matter exists. Do keep up.
said by BBC4544:
as far as who needs to stop talking "mr brownout", you live in a state that is eyeball deep in debt due to getting involved in the private sector.
Oh, there's that name calling you were talking about. Good going. And you're telling me to shut up because I disagree with you AND I live in a particular state? You're a conservative, aren't you? I was right. You are whining.
said by BBC4544:
"You realize you can replace "government" with "telcos/cablecos", don't you?"
ahhh, NO. government has elected officials and collect taxes on an involuntary basis.
Many taxes are approved or denied by the voters in such "backwards" states like, oh, California. Imagine that. We can repeal taxes too. I hope you're able to rise to having such ability if you already do not.
said by BBC4544:
telcos/cablecos are companies that are there to make a profit and sell stocks on a voluntary basis. if you do not subscribe to their service, they do not collect money.
Except when they're the only game in town. Then they need to be smacked down when they behave badly. You consistently and purposefully ignore the fact that -if SBC and Comcast were providing the services and support the people had wanted in the first place, this wouldn't be happening-. If SBC and Comcast (and their supporters here) weren't going around saying there was no profit in providing broadband in the markets that propose city run broadband projects, then backtrack and blitz people with ad campaigns against the city providing services that they didn't want to provide anyways, then perhaps people would have given them yet ANOTHER chance to redeem themselves, but they blew it. You really have no other argument outside of some ill-conceived ideology.
said by BBC4544:
if the government collects a tax that does not mean you are entitled to all services. actually to the contrary, the more taxes you pay the less service you get.
That's why we have elections to vote abusers out if we so choose. We also have the right to approve a municipal services if we so choose. Isn't America great -for everyone-? I'm sorry you don't feel the same. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost It wasn't for my lack of trying. I'm still trying to get Tauscher, Feinstein, and Boxer out of Congress. Snooty cows.
I almost forgot an appropriate comparison here: Just like voting against someone in office doesn't mean they'll lose, not buying service from a something like a telco doesn't mean they'll go out of business or have less an effect on the market.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 16:42:34] | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by JakCrow:
It wasn't for my lack of trying. I'm still trying to get Tauscher, Feinstein, and Boxer out of Congress. Snooty cows.
I understand and sympathize... I can't bear to imagine the kind of socialist paradise that Feinstein and Boxer help to create. But this goes back to my earlier point. Elected officials will stay in power by basically granting a majority of the constituents freebies from the treasury, no matter how ineptly or inefficiently they are run. This fact alone creates the kind of obstacles you face in throwing these bums out.
My example with PGW exacerbates this point. Every year many people in Philadelphia complain about PGW and say it should be privatized, but because PGW provides jobs for political hacks and cronies, and because it "gives" away so much product to so many people because the agency doesn't enforce billing, it makes it very hard to vote in politicians that will make the push to privatize the utility. Philadelphia has been run by the same flock of politicians for the past 50 years, its very hard to make anything change there.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
| | | | | | | | | | JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by pnh102:
I understand and sympathize... I can't bear to imagine the kind of socialist paradise that Feinstein and Boxer help to create. But this goes back to my earlier point. Elected officials will stay in power by basically granting a majority of the constituents freebies from the treasury, no matter how ineptly or inefficiently they are run. This fact alone creates the kind of obstacles you face in throwing these bums out.
See my addition. Much about government can be applied the industries like telcom with only a few powerful players stomping about like giants in a playground. As to Boxer and Feinstein being socialists? I prefer to catagorize them more plainly: elitist bitches that want to have more rights than the average person. Like Feinstein wanting more gun laws that hurt honest people while she has a concealed weapons permit.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-26 17:10:23] | |
|
| | | | | | | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | said by BBC4544:
some famous men had the same idea...STALIN, LENIN, CASTRO......
yes and the health care system in cuba is f-ing amazing. wonder why? not because the private sector stepped up to the plate.
--
R. Kelly = child molester/ child pornographer | |
| | | | | | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
| | | | | | |  extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | said by BBC4544:
i would also like to note that i posed a question of "can someone show where in the long term the government has done anything efficiently? " and your response is to stop whining.
RFP!
Leviathan provided an excellent link to a few examples of successful municipal broadband.
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 | |
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: full steam ahead at your cost said by extreme50:
Leviathan provided an excellent link to a few examples of successful municipal broadband.
In my own state municipal governments continue to raise property taxes to pay for vital services (e.g., schools, police, etc.), and now the governor is proposing a tax hike to bail them out. If my town were to waste its money on a municipal cable network, while continuing to raise taxes (and instigating the need for a general statewide tax hike), I would seriously question my government's priorities.
I suppose I could "vote them out" as is suggested, but when the government robs Peter to pay Paul, they will always have the support of Paul. Hence the government's strategy seems to be to put at least a majority of people into Paul's position. You think anyone who gets taxpayer-subsidized broadband is going to vote it away when things get tight (as they are in many places still)? I doubt it. In these times, governments at various levels must reassess their spending priorities, contrary to what people are saying here, I would say things like the military, counter-terrorism and education funding are a little more important than a toy network.
With this in mind, it still doesn't address the real problem here, the lack of service provided by incumbent cable and telcos. Its very easy for people who are sick of this to start their own privately-run co-op that could provide the service needed. The various governments involved (state and local) could pass laws such as tax breaks and grants of easements, (which is possible given how many have opposed proposals sponsored by the larger companies) that make it easier for such competition to come into the picture. There would be local accountability and the money would remain in the given town, but the government would not be bothered with expense and hassles of running the operation.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! | |
|
| | | | |  ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | said by BBC4544:
you make it sound like dsl is in the bill of rights.
So, how happy would you be to give up your dsl and go back to dialup? At the very least, the broadband capabilities of a town are a factor in attracting business, practically ANY business. Not to mention it raises property values - I know several folks looking for homes staying away from my town because they all know our broadband/cable stinks. But if/when we go FTTH, watch out. Now, are municipal power, electricity or sewer or good schools in the bill of rights? Get real. | |
|
| | | | | The competition will come every 4 years at election time. If things are screwed up, somebody will pay the price at the ballot box. When will the competition EVER come with unregulated monopolies? | |
| | | | wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | said by BBC4544:
where is the competition with government broadband????
The fact that there *is* no competition from the incumbents is the reason for the planned municipal facilities. If the cable/phone company wanted to wire up the area, they could do so. Apparently they don't want to do this, so the cities in question are taking it upon themselves to provide a service that cannot or will not be provided by private enterprise.
They want to compete with the government? Fine. Let 'em string some wire...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Not exactly.
1) Big monopolies don't care. Non-responsive. Sit back and won't help...
2) So... Mayor et all works on alternatives, comes up with a good plan for local residents, and starts pushing for it.
3) Big monopolies suddenly realize they are about to be blown out of the water, so they roar back pouring big dollars into trashing the Cities plan and dissing the Mayor and trying to kill their proposal.
No wonder he's pissed, and he's right: These companies just don't care or give a damn. If they win, they'll roll out the minimum required at the maximum the market will bear. The cities plan is MUCH better.
I wish I had a mayor and council who cared half as much as these ones do.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948 (Yep, it's dead.) | |
| | mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Well, they are claiming 63 million (and I assume that's just startup costs???).
Considering that it's government-run, the total will probably be much more. Can the government, even a local government, do anything below budget, much less at a profit as the officials of these cities claim?
The combined population of these three cities is about 90,000. That comes out to $700 per person in cold, hard tax dollars, with no promise of success.
I wish them the best, but if it were worth doing, private industry would have already been there.
peace,
mocycler
[text was edited by author 2003-03-25 19:07:31] | |
| | |
See 12 replies to this post |
kmoss
join:2002-09-14
Lisle, IL | It won't matter... Come April 1, it won't matter much what the voters say. If it gets voted in, they MAY build it - and by the time they get done (with luck sometime in another 18-24 months), I bet a good portion of the people who voted for it won't even be living there anymore (voters do move, you know). By then, Comcast will have upgraded the local infrastructure and be offering 3500/384k for next to nothing just to blow the municipality away. The masses will want a stable, cheap connection - and won't care who it comes from. The whole endeavor, while it sounds great now, will lose steam over the long haul. Then, to pay off the $62mil for building it, tricities will have to sell off the network to the most likely bidders of SBC or Comcast and the residents will be right back to square one. | |
| |
See 34 replies to this post | |
extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | Bring on the VOIP! "One woman wrote her local editor to complain about the local leaders trying to pitch the broadband idea as a "necessity of life". "I raised two very intelligent children without cable television and high-speed Internet", argues the woman. "Necessity of life? Whose life?"
She may change her mind when she finds out with a real broadband connection (I'm not talking about upstream-impaired telco DSL) she could video-chat with her grandkids 1000 miles away, for free I might add.
And that beats a 10 cent per min voice call any day!
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 | |
| | | Voodoo economics These discussions have a "free lunch" quality to them.
If people were willing to pay the price for a deluxe fiber network, the private sector would build it.
They aren't. Just ask WINfirst. | |
| | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Voodoo economics There's plenty of people not willing to fund the bombing of Iraq, yet Ta-Da!
It's the wonder of government...they assume what's in your best interests and make it happen...sometime whether you like it or not.
In this one case of municipal broadband, I agree with them. It's an amazing twist in the broadband story that has the potential to keep the oligopolies honest...or at least trying.... | |
|
 FrankL6Purity Of Essence
join:2002-07-01
Algonquin, IL | None of this would be a problem... ...if Comcast/SBC would take half the money they spend on advertising and used it to upgrade their networks.
When comcast took over here, they ran a bunch of TV ads saying that they aren't just going to move in and expect people to like them, they're going to "earn" it. Unfortunately, they spend more on telling us they're going to earn it than actually earning it.
When will these guys learn that the best advertising is having good product?
I hope Tri-City broadband is a success. Then maybe my town will start its own municipal broadband project. Either that or Comcast and SBC will finally start upgrading the area. | |
| vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | Lawsuit anyone? Comcast is BLATENTLY spreading propaganda trying to destroy another startups reputation. Whats going on here?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Lawsuit anyone? Their lawyers, from the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe told them they could get away with it since it is in the political arena. | |
| | | vic102482Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Lawsuit anyone? said by lesopp:
Their lawyers, from the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe told them they could get away with it since it is in the political arena.
But thats wrong, you shouldnt be able to slander someones name in your own ads. Comcast has unlimited money for ads, and this is only a startup. This should be illegal.:(:(
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
 macyhEx-IspPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-24
Medina, OH
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Lies and lawyers are cheaper than network upgrades Municipal owned and coop owned utilities are a fact of life across the nation, providing electric, water, sewer and gas, even telephone and catv services reliably for many years. Many are building out fiber and broadband, some are doing very innovative work with Fiber To The Home, which the telco's and cable's aren't willing to finance. Note that nearly all of these local utilities initially came into being originally because a private utility did not want to do the job, i.e. spend the money to provide service to an area that was under-served.
The present situation still comes down to the would-be monopoly providers using lie and lawyers to stifle competition in any form while they continue to defer network upgrades and quality service...and limit competition so that their services are the only two choices available to end users.
FWIW: I've seen ILEC's and cable co's use similar PR and misinformation tactics against authorizing low-profile tower site rezoning for Wireless Internet Service Providers by city councils, e.g "This wireless service would require each residential user to construct a 60' tower in their back yard." Cable co's have also attempted to persuade local governments to forbid all satellite dishes, even though the FCC specifically prohibits this, in the same manner.
--
Macy Hallock APK Net, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates (1955-Present) in 1981 | |
| | | but it's what the FCC advocates well, at least what Michael Powell advocates: facilities based competition. | |
|  brianhn1Sup Brotha
join:2003-01-26
Jacksonville, FL | Error: * please provide catchy title It's just adding broadband competition, thus more and more ugly talks between the companies. If I were the mayor, I would just make a deal between the two companies. Settle the matter and move on. No need to fight the large corporations.
--
Yep | |
| |  batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Re: Error: * please provide catchy title With what leverage? Do it or we'll be mad? Franchise agreements are a joke. When Comcast is your sole provider, how do you deny them a franchise? And say you do, do you then tell your entire town to buy a dish? It's not realistic....
SBC...."We'll bring it when we think you need it."
Gee thanks! | |
|
| | Ok I'm gonna throw something in the works here 63 million dollar for the initial build out. Why not? Maybe seeing they will offer better service at a lower price they can make money. The fat cats file a 2 billion dollar quarter and offer high prices and low service. So let's say the municipal charge just 10 dollars less and a better service. I am sure they would make the money back. The only way for them to lose is for the fat cats to cut their prices and up their service, Which is hard to see them doing it. My isp is starting to slack off now. the 24 hour tech support is gone the retention to their news server is only 24 hurs on most groups. Funny were still paying the same price. What is bandwidth getting more expensive and did it become a natural resource that we may run out of someday? With all this stuff about faste speeds and new speed records why does it seem like they want to charge more and give less? Sorry got rambling on there. Give me some municiple broadband in Peoria Illinois. Ok now let the people start flaming what I had to say seeing I know they will. | |
| | | NO Vote Means NO CHOICE The 1996 Telecom Act was created to spur competition...SBC and Comcast (AT&T) have no other competition, so it is just 'business as usual'. Many times just the announcement of a municipal feasibility study will spur lower prices by incumbents or network upgrades as in the TriCities case. The citizens of the TriCities need to vote YES on April 1st - a NO vote means the incumbents can do as they wish. The TriCity leaders have invested a good deal of time researching this project and speaking to the leaders of cities that have done the same. Whether they build it or not, with a YES vote the citizens win. | |
| | | | Why not Revenue Bonds If the Tri-cities are so convinced their scheme will work, why not issue Revenue Bonds instead of General Obligation (GO) Bonds. Revenue Bonds have tradtional been used for projects that are supposed to fund themselves (i.e. the tollway system) That way if the project fails it is the bond holders and not the tax-payers who are left holding the bag. If the plan is viable there would plenty of investors stepping forward to purchase the bonds. Maybe the investment community doesn't think the plan is viable. By using GO's it is the tax payers taking the risk, not the bond holders. | |
| | batageekSlave To The DuopolyPremium
join:2003-01-25 | Re: Why not Revenue Bonds Much lower interest rates for GO bonds than Revenue | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Why not Revenue Bonds said by batageek:
Much lower interest rates for GO bonds than Revenue
Of course! The governments involved don't have to care how well these bonds do investment-wise because they know that taxpayers will be bailing them out no matter what.
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
|
| | Palo Alto a success story?? As I understand it the Palo Alto project was a failure. The city installed fiber optics loops, the technology was based on SONET and was too expensive for residential service (even for high-income Palo Alto.) My two friends that live in Palo Alto use DSL from Pacbell.
Their municipal cable coop also went belly-up and now they have Comcast like everybody else (»www.cableco-op.com/). | |
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Palo Alto a success story?? said by wsanders:
Their municipal cable coop also went belly-up and now they have Comcast like everybody else
Were the city taxpayers left to hold the bag?
--
Pissed off at traitorous, ungrateful musicians? Don't just boycott them! Trade their MP3s and really screw them over! And don't forget, 2 out of 3 human shields agree! Saddam really is evil! | |
| | | | | Re: Palo Alto a success story?? I don't have an answer for you on that. I don't remember exactly how they funded the original project or whether the fiber they left in the ground was taken over by a commercial provider. | |
| | | | |
| |
|
|
Re: full steam ahead at your cost
