 sweepy
join:2003-12-12
Apex, NC | Cool Beans Cool | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | O.k. guys, name one bad thing about this muni.... Give me one well thought out argument against UTOPIA. | |
|  | 
PenguinChill
How I Wish You Were Here
join:2001-02-12
Fishers, IN | Re: O.k. guys, name one bad thing about this muni. It's evil according to Comcast.
Ok it wasn't thought out, but it's the only thing against the muni. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: O.k. guys, name one bad thing about this muni. That's like the pot calling the kettle black | |
| | | | nael
join:2001-12-02
philippines
1 edit | said by moonpuppy  :Give me one well thought out argument against UTOPIA. Because it is funded by taxpayers and therefore is evil? Government is evil etc etc. | |
| | phuntism
join:2003-08-01
Manhattan Beach, CA | I heard once that UTOPIA filters pr0n. If it's true, it'd be enough to send a few users away I bet. | |
| | chakotay2
join:2002-02-26
South Jordan, UT
 ·Comcast
| The only thing I am wonder is if they could have waited 2 years and deployed a WiMax network a lot cheaper than laying fiber all over the place.
They won't even start construction in phase 2 till 2006 and it says it will last for 3 years. I think wireless is the way to go personally. | |
| | | noogoo
join:2005-06-27 | Re: O.k. guys, name one bad thing about this muni.... How's the latency or ping on WiMax? | |
| | | 
Boricua65
join:2002-01-26
Puerto Rico
1 edit | Re: Till Muni's are killed I agree. I hope John McCain (I think) passes legislation to allow Munis do what UTOPIA is doing. This is the type of competition that is healthy for America.
EDIT: misspelled a word. | |
| 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Can UTOPIA compete? Comcast is going to compete with UTOPIA?
What happens if Comcast wins?
UTOPIA is a good product at a good price. UTOPIA is not a company that can easily offer competition if Comcast decides to enter their market. | |
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Can UTOPIA compete? said by jjoshua :Comcast is going to compete with UTOPIA? What happens if Comcast wins? UTOPIA is a good product at a good price. UTOPIA is not a company that can easily offer competition if Comcast decides to enter their market. Couldn't Comcast sign on to Utopia and offer their services over the network?
Just a thought, from what I understand it's an "open" network that any service provider can join. | |
| | | bchoate8
join:2004-02-17
Logan, UT
| Re: Can UTOPIA compete? That's correct. Utopia doesn't actually offer internet, video, or voice services, they only provide the wholesale network upon which anybody else can offer whatever service they would like. Comcast, Qwest, SBC, Verizon, Joe's Discount ISP, Ted's Data Backup... Businesses get a minimum 1 Gbps connection and residents get a minimum 100 Mbps connection (to the Utopia network). How that connection is used is wholly dependant on what services they are subscribed to from various providers.
As I understand it, if a resident wants to use more than 100 Mbps's worth of services, they will be able to upgrade to a 1 Gbps link. I'm not sure if that's available in this early stage of deployment, but it should become so.
I live in Utah, I personally wrote every state representative offering details, facts and my own opinion as a computer consultant as to why Utopia can only do good things for our state. Luckily the law Qwest pushed through was altered enough that it couldn't kill Utopia, but alas... I couldn't get my own city to become a member city. :P Maybe the new mayor we're getting will be more supportive of our future. | |
| 
HurtMeSomeMore
@comcast.net | I can really use a break! I'm paying $60.95 a month for 4Mb service ,and Comcast isn't even giving me "The" speed upgrade! Go Munis!
I'm getting really tired of being abused! | |
| | | | | |
Derrickt
@sonic.net | Re: I am being ripped off! Why is Utah has fiber and the Silicon valley does not? =( | |
| | | | jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA
| Re: I am being ripped off! Well, all those government officials in Silicon valley still think the greatest thing since slice bread is dial up modems.
Wait...the greatest thing is their millions bucks VOIP telephone system  | |
| | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | said by Derrickt :
Why is Utah has fiber and the Silicon valley does not? =(
You all got @Home before anyone else did. It's not your turn. :-P | |
| | | 
diehardspeed
Premium
join:2003-05-14
Salt Lake City, UT | I know what you mean!
When Sprint Broadband came into town they where the closest thing to broadband I could get for about the last 5 years. (And they sucked BIGTIME) | |
| coded flat
join:2004-02-29
Las Vegas, NV | Munis or bust My brother has service on the utopia network and he loves it.
I had to move about 3 weeks before it was ready in my area. Just my luck. Vegas needs to start this but knowing vegas the politicians have already been bought. | |
| 
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
2 edits | Well thought out argument against MUNI's if Muni's recieve government funds, that leaves them open to constitutional challanges regarding Data that's allowed to pass across the network.
If government funds are used to fund the Muni...
some fringe radical liberal is going to demand that the local preacher TV channel NOT be shown...(bad)
or...
Some fringe radical conservative is going to demand that anything even remotely related to porn NOT be available across that network.(really really bad!)
I'm not kidding, this is going to happen...
(and who's going to police the police to make sure they're not spying on you!)
I'm not PRO cable, I just happen to work for one, and if a Muni drives them out of business, then I'll go work for the Muni...it's not a big deal to me, it's just a job.
I do believe tho, that if you take Cable TV and Cable Internet out of private hands and start funding it with public money, you WILL see this kind of constitutional challenge some day.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Well thought out argument against MUNI's Problem is that in private hands, prices go up. No competition means higher prices as this article states. There is no argument on that.
Also, this is Utah. Land of the Mormans. If they haven't banned porn yet, my guess is they won't.
Also, Comcast already spies on you and sells your information. What is the difference with government? | |
| | |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
| Re: Well thought out argument against MUNI's Takes a warrant or subpeona today by law enforcement to get any data on you the customer to the police. I know this as part of my job.
The Mormon's have nothing to do with this, challenges to data made available across taxpayer funded networks will come from far right and far left political action groups.
You asked, I answered, the problem with Taxpayer funded data networks is that they are open to constitional challenge regarding what data can pass across them, and that expectations of privacy for the consumer are tenuous at best.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Well thought out argument against MUNI's said by gheezer :Takes a warrant or subpeona today by law enforcement to get any data on you the customer to the police. I know this as part of my job. And no warrant is required if this were a muni operation. If you read the article, you would notice it was being run by a private company (DynamicCity Inc.)
said by gheezer :The Mormon's have nothing to do with this, challenges to data made available across taxpayer funded networks will come from far right and far left political action groups. My guess is that you haven't been to Utah. Mormons control a good part of that state. There are no "bars" but clubs which you have to be a member to go into. If you are a Mormon, being a member is bad but you can always be a "guest."
Mormons are a political group themselves and can push for certain things of they want to.
»www.lds.org/newsroom/showpackage···,00.html
said by gheezer :You asked, I answered, the problem with Taxpayer funded data networks is that they are open to constitional challenge regarding what data can pass across them, and that expectations of privacy for the consumer are tenuous at best. Again, this is a publicly funded operation under private control. Same rules apply to them as does Comcast and Quest. | |
| | | | | bchoate8
join:2004-02-17
Logan, UT
| Re: Well thought out argument against MUNI's Moonpuppy is correct. The local governments who are participating aren't "funding" the building of the network, they are only backup up the bonds.
Check out the Utopia faq for more info:
»www.utopianet.org/faq/faq.htm | |
| | | 
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| said by moonpuppy :Also, Comcast already spies on you and sells your information. What is the difference with government? You have proof of this I assume or do you just tossd accusations out of your a$$ because you are that lame?
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: Well thought out argument against MUNI's Remember the whole proxy server incident? | |
| | | |
Locofreak
@rr.com
| From their own site.
Q: Will UTOPIA censor content over the network?
A: No. It is contrary to the nature of government to infringe on or restrict first amendment rights. Any content deemed legal for distribution over traditional media (current cable TV and Internet, for example) may be distributed over the UTOPIA network.
However, UTOPIA is sensitive to the standards of its unique community. As a result, all Internet service providers and video program providers will be required to provide content filtering as an option--free of charge--to all its subscribers. Using the provided tools, individuals may determine for themselves what they wish to receive or exclude over the UTOPIA network. | |
| PARADOX_SEV
join:2005-02-08
Salt Lake City, UT | Murray Sandy, Utah didn't sign up for UTOPIA. Murray did and I am enjoying the $29.95 service courtesy of Comcast until UTOPIA is installed in my house. 15 megs for $44.:) | |
| rockboy128
join:2005-09-23
Pittsburgh, PA
| Munis or ANY competition would be nice We have just had a Verizon FIOS rollout in our neighborhood. Cable had been the only high speed option up until now. To boot, we are stuck with Adelphia as that cable provider. Talk about inept. I called adelphia to see if they would react. Mind you, I live in a fairly affluent neighborhood in our region. They were completely unresponsive. I let them know, that not only would they be losing my broadband business, but when Verizon rolls out IPTV early next year, they'll be losing my television business as well. "I'm sorry to hear that is what the supervisor said." Can you believe that. Further, even though VOIP has been offered by Comcast for nearly 2 years now, Adelphia STILL has no intention of offering it....and they are the premium provider in the area...their pricing is almost 10% higher across the board than Comcast...JOKE. | |
| |
gheezer
Compooters R Us
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY | Re: Munis or ANY competition would be nice have you ever poked your nose into the Adelphia forum? Ya mighta gotten an answer there if ya asked nicely..
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
|
ForeignInUtah
@comcast.net | 5 miles away I'm 5 miles away...
In Salt Lake City, and no game for me...
I'm being ripped off too...
Thanks Mayor  | |
| | PARADOX_SEV
join:2005-02-08
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: 5 miles away Rocky is the biggest idiot in Utah. | |
| 
christos
join:2002-01-09
Bridgewater, MA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| This is why... monopolies are bad for consumers. Comca$t is ripping people off all over the U.S. so that they can have enough money to crash the competition when it pops up. There should be a law to make them offer the same price state-wide. Then they cannot use the money they are stealing from me to subsidize areas that they feel threatened. | |
| phaqu
join:2005-05-26
Marietta, GA | Its too bad all the local govt in the country dont do the same. I know we could sure use it here.
Ahh... to see comcast have to compete.....just breaks my heart. | |
| Lincoln99
Premium
join:2005-03-24
Pleasant Grove, UT
| Why I support UTOPIA I live in a non-pledging UTOPIA city, so the UTOPIA network will not be deployed to my home until 2008 or 2009.
Before building the house, I called both Comcast and Qwest, and they both said they served my home with high-speed Internet.
So I called Comcast a month ago -- they sent out a worker, and he said AT&T cable had failed to spend $100 to extend the conduit to my home when the street was laid in 1999 because all they cared about was being purchased on Wall Street, so I can't get Comcast.
So I called Qwest. They said they could offer me DSL - at a maximum speed of 256 Kbps.
256 Kbps is NOT BROADBAND -- ITS THE DARK AGES. | |
| | | trouble56
join:2005-01-25
American Canyon, CA
| Its a good thing Comcast has been trying to keep anyone from trying to compete in the market against them, Just check out what they have been trying to do against different city's, they take them to superior court stating that local and state agencies shouldn't be in the ISP market. Hummmm fighting them every step of the way to provide low cost internet service to those who cant afford it, If anything they should work along side of the local and stats agencies to build a better relationship.. But Capitalism is built on GREED and greed is like a fish tank filled with nothing but shark's, there ok until you stir up the water. Anyway that's My thoughts | |
| damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Exactly what the Broadband Industry Needs! This is exactly what the broadband industry needs all over the United States! This is the only way that broadband prices will drop to reasonable levels, and we will see the kind of bandwidth that a technologically advanced nation such as ours is capable of.
--
DAMOX Proud to be a member of Team Discovery | |
| dapoohda
Kompani Linge
Premium
join:2000-11-09
Fargo, ND
clubs: 
·CableOne
| Muni-Broadband Muni-Broadband
Taking the power back from utilities
or
Cities meddling with the business sector
»hpr1.com/coverstory.htm
By Brandon Teachout
Contributing Writer
The importance of high-speed Internet connectivity has grown to the point where it can be considered a critical piece of municipal infrastructure. As a result, many cities across the country have considered offering broadband access to citizens as a public service, much the same way they offer power or water.
Broadband Internet is generally defined as access at speeds of 256 kbps or higher (about five times the maximum speed of dial-up), though technically the FCC defines it as 200 kbps or higher. The two most common forms of broadband in the United States are cable and DSL, generally provided by the same traditional telecom giants that bring most cable television and landline telephone service. Wireless broadband is becoming more popular, and is offered in around 50 cities by Verizon Wireless and on a smaller scale by others. It is not surprising to see these big names at the forefront of broadband service. But public provision of broadband is growing.
Locally, the most obvious model of muni (short for municipal) broadband is in Moorhead. Last summer, Moorhead Public Service invested $2.3 million to launch the citywide GoMoorhead wireless Internet service. For $19.95 a month, users can access the Internet from anywhere in the city at a speed of up to 1,000 kbps per second. This is accomplished through nearly 250 routers mounted on streetlights throughout the city. These routers access 13 gateway routers that are directly connected to a fiber optic ring looping around the city.
That fiber ring is what got Moorhead started down the path of muni broadband. And the development of a similar ring in Fargo may lead that city down a similar path--or a different one. There are plenty of models for muni broadband, but all of them start with fiber. Fiber optic lines send an immense amount of data at rapid speeds by converting electronic signals into light. The initial reason for Fargo to construct its ring was to provide redundant networking for city business and public safety purposes. But once that ring is in place, more can be done with it.
Moorhead, taking advantage of its strong tradition of public service, decided to develop its infrastructure into a wireless broadband network. Fargo, which does not provide any utilities publicly, lacks the business infrastructure necessary to follow suit--but they could lease space on their lines to private providers. This sort of "open service" model is already in place in the southwest.
In Utah, a plan called Project Utopia has led to fourteen cities providing fiber-to-the-home connections, in the same way that homes are connected to the power, telephone and cable grids. Once connected, households have the option of receiving service from a variety of private service providers. The fiber lines are paid for by bonds, which will be repaid by the profits of the private service providers.
Jamestown has something even more incredible here at home. DakTel, an independent telecom cooperative, has entered into an agreement with the city to provide what is called "triple play" service: Internet, cable and telephone service all coming through one fiber optic wire into the home. People once dreamed about all these services coming via the Internet. That's not quite what is happening here (the protocols are different) but the one-wire dream has been realized. For only $94.95 a month, Jamestown residents can get local telephone service, digital cable and 5,000 kbps broadband access (the same top speed of CableOne and Qwest here in Fargo-Moorhead).
And these are just some of the ways that muni broadband can be done.
Why muni broadband?
The spread of muni broadband is spurred by several factors: accessibility of wireless service for city use, the high prices and low service quality of existing broadband options, and a belief that the Internet should be accessible by anyone.
The first use is a justification for city expenditure on a network for city use. A wireless network could be used to monitor water meters remotely, to send sketches or mug shots of wanted criminals to police cruisers, and to beam Amber Alerts into every home. All of these things can be done presently through other systems, but a Wi-Fi muni broadband network would arguably do it cheaper and more efficiently.
The second motivating factor comes out of the public-private divide. The private telecommunications corporations that are currently providing broadband Internet service are fiercely protective of their territory, and refuse to share fiber optic or other lines unless compelled by regulations to do so. This monopolization of infrastructure limits competition, drives quality down, and keeps costs artificially high. As long as the federal government considers fiber laid by private companies to be private infrastructure inaccessible by competitors, the market's invisible hand is hindered. These problems could be addressed through revision of shoddy FCC regulation, but that federal agency (led, incidentally, by an appointee of the Bush administration who is far more concerned with levying indecency fines) has little interest in doing that.
But the most compelling reason--and the most important--is the last one. The Internet is increasingly becoming a critical part of everyday life, and in the near future a lack of quality broadband access will reduce our technological competitive advantage over the rest of the world and limit innovation and economic growth. America's lack of access to high-speed broadband Internet is harmful in a global world where our hallmarks are innovation and technology.
Falling behind
The United States lags far behind the rest of the world in broadband deployment. South Korea has the world's highest broadband penetration--23 percent of its citizens use broadband Internet. China has the world's most urban users of broadband. In a list taking all factors of broadband availability and use into account, America ranks 13th. This is a particularly humiliating fall for the country that literally invented the Internet nearly half a century ago.
Japan, South Korea and Sweden are among the global leaders in the provision of high-speed Internet. This is because their governments have not left the development of network infrastructure to the crippled invisible hand of an awkwardly regulated market.
Japan's government set out at the turn of the century to make the country "the world's leading IT [Information Technology] nation" by last year. It worked. 26 Mbps DSL is available in Japan for only $22 a month--about five times the fastest speed offered by Qwest at a third of the price. Ultra-high speed broadband --100 Mbps, fast enough for streaming HDTV --is available to 80 percent of Japan's citizens.
One way this remarkable success was achieved was selective deregulation and forced competition. The Japanese government required regional telephone companies to allow access to their infrastructure by competitors for a fee of around $2 per line per month. In so doing, they overcame one of the chief obstacles blocking telecommunications competition in the United States.
To develop ultra-high speed broadband, the government gave private companies tax breaks and subsidies for laying fiber lines--so long as they allowed competitors to use them. And, in rural areas, they subsidized municipalities in laying fiber lines.
Ironically, the American government tried a similar approach. An e-book by Bruce Kushnick, a telecom analyst and member of the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee, states that the federal government gave $200 billion in subsidies to the Bell companies in exchange for a promise to re-wire America--to lay fiber lines, open to use by competitors, capable of carrying traffic at up to 45 Mbps. And there was a goalpost, too: 86 million households by 2006. It's 2006. Zero households have that access.
Clearly, American cities lack the advantage of their Japanese counterparts, as they find little help from the government in the form of either well-spent subsidies or intelligent regulation. Despite President Bush's 2004 statement that "We ought to have…universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 2007," the federal government is doing little to realize this goal. The Telecommunications Industry Association estimates that only 69.2 million Americans will have broadband in 2009--two years after Bush's stated goal. Three years after 86 million households were supposed to have 45 Mbps lines, only a fraction of that has anything at all.
But Japan does offer a helpful model in its blend of a public-private effort to modernize Internet access. In Japan, the government required all fiber line-holders to allow competitors to use their line. Obviously, American attempts to bribe the private sector to provide good service failed. But the idea of public services laying fiber accessible by the private sector has merit.
Potential problems
Still, it is important to realize that there is much that can go wrong with muni broadband, and any wrong decision that results in the city going over-budget or losing money means that taxpayers are left holding the bag. That is a significant obstacle to providing service. In order to mitigate that threat, the city must essentially go into business: models must be created and plans thought through in order to make sure that taxpayers are at least as safe as shareholders would be.
Even then, obstacles can arise. GoMoorhead is currently facing some difficulties in signing up subscribers--they currently have around 1,000 fewer customers than anticipated. Because the business plan behind GoMoorhead anticipated using profits to pay off the initial investment in the network, this raises the question of what the city will do with the debt.
Technical problems are another potential landmine. While Moorhead demurred from launching a WiFi network in 2003 because the technology was too new, even the 2005 network uses some cutting-edge equipment. As a result of being early adopters, GoMoorhead is facing an abnormally high amount of technical difficulties that may prove costly to fix.
Yet difficulties like these can be addressed. The greater question is if the city should be the organization doing so. Ultimately, what must be decided is whether or not high-speed Internet access is to be valued as a public good. If it is, then Moorhead has done the right thing--and Fargo is doing well by looking into following in its footsteps.
--
You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. ~William Blake 9.032 ghz | |
| | | |
|
|
What Cable Competition Really Looks Like
I am being ripped off!
·
·
·