States win right to ban municipal broadband

[handymanshandle]

33 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Tennessee, huh. That means Alabama isn't far from getting this passed, and if that happens, fuck me.

Instead of it being Alabama, it could be ripabama? No? Okay I'll stop doing play on words.

[Vandy190]

Mean while her in good ole Tennessee we still have TVA yet for some reason we can't expand municipal broadband out of cities like Chattanooga. There are ISP monopolies and there are no doubt about it and this is one of the few ways it could of been fixed.

[Yog]

I'm all for states rights...I actually think the Federal Government assuming rights that were originally the states is one of the biggest problems in the US...but for the life of me I can't think of a good reason why a state, even a small state, should be able to make this sort of restriction for all of its cities/municipalities.

[handymanshandle]

1 minute ago, Yog said:

I'm all for states rights...I actually think the Federal Government assuming rights that were originally the states is one of the biggest problems in the US...but for the life of me I can't think of a good reason why a state, even a small state, should be able to make this sort of restriction for all of its cities/municipalities.

It should be a city's/municipality's right to put restrictions on competition. /s

 

But yeah I agree the state shouldn't be limiting competition from a provider that initially was in one city and wants to expand their coverage.

[Trik'Stari]

56 minutes ago, Yog said:

I'm all for states rights...I actually think the Federal Government assuming rights that were originally the states is one of the biggest problems in the US...but for the life of me I can't think of a good reason why a state, even a small state, should be able to make this sort of restriction for all of its cities/municipalities.

Agreed. If we are going to prioritize states rights over federal, we might as well prioritize city/county rights over everything else.

 

That's a really good argument btw. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Trik'Stari]

56 minutes ago, wcreek said:

It should be a city's/municipality's right to put restrictions on competition. /s

 

But yeah I agree the state shouldn't be limiting competition from a provider that initially was in one city and wants to expand their coverage.

No one should ever have the right to restrict competition. Competition is necessary. Government should only be allowed to encourage it, and when necessary, FORCE it.

 

Verizon, TWC, Comcast, AT&T, should be forced to sell off 90% of their networks respectively. Each being divided into at least 25 buyers.

 

No more monopolies. No more giant businesses. Yes they make hella profit, but they don't benefit the consumer, or the employee as much as they should

 

I don't care how much money their owners lose. A few hundred people (probably less than a hundred share holders) < a few hundred million people as far as priorities go.

[Belgarathian]

You also need to seperate the ISPs from their networks - OR, create regulations that they have to open their networks to resellers at a fair price. 

 

For instance (a maximum wholesale rate of) - 

$30/mo for Copper

$40/mo for Fibre connections

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Belgarathian said:

You also need to seperate the ISPs from their networks - OR, create regulations that they have to open their networks to resellers at a fair price. 

Absolutely. Google is having trouble in one southern city (can't remember which) because they have to access another ISP's poles to run their services.

 

And it takes several months to do so. The ISP's are worried about quality and outages, and anyone with any knowledge about the issue can only think "as if Google's work would be in any way, shape, or form, as terrible as your own".

[handymanshandle]

12 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

No one should ever have the right to restrict competition. Competition is necessary. Government should only be allowed to encourage it, and when necessary, FORCE it.

 

Verizon, TWC, Comcast, AT&T, should be forced to sell off 90% of their networks respectively. Each being divided into at least 25 buyers.

 

No more monopolies. No more giant businesses. Yes they make hella profit, but they don't benefit the consumer, or the employee as much as they should

 

I don't care how much money their owners lose. A few hundred people (probably less than a hundred share holders) < a few hundred million people as far as priorities go.

We use Verizon for our phones they're not that bad but they do have some questionable practices. But the service is good.

[Belgarathian]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Absolutely. Google is having trouble in one southern city (can't remember which) because they have to access another ISP's poles to run their services.

 

And it takes several months to do so. The ISP's are worried about quality and outages, and anyone with any knowledge about the issue can only think "as if Google's work would be in any way, shape, or form, as terrible as your own".

We had that issue in 2005 - You'd send a text message from one Telco to another and it would sometimes show up 2-3 days later! Not to mention everything was expensive because if one telco wanted to communicate with another, the other telco would charge for traffic over their network. 

 

Luckily for us, the Government deemed it anti-competitive and brought in legislation that separated the infrastructure from the ISP and created a majority state owned enterprise to govern telecommunication infrastructure and the wholesale rates are set by Government (cellphone towers are still owned by each telco, but I believe that they are required to offer competitive wholesale rates that are set by the Government).

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

At this rate, with all the idiocy going on right now, everyone in the US is fucked.

 

Time to move to Antarctica and start a nerd nation. Once global warming hits, it will probably be liveable.

It'll probably turn into a swamp. IDK about you but i don;t want to be running fiber in a swamp.

[Belgarathian]

1 hour ago, Mark77 said:

Its a problem because cities should not be taxing their citizens, to take business risks for which they have no expertise.

 

Do you *really* want the government controlling your Internet connection?  Lol.  Good lord.

God yes. 

 

https://www.chorus.co.nz/about-us/who-we-are

 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0103/latest/DLM124961.html

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/telecommunications/

 

And finally - the benefit of what it has done. 

 

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/technology-communications/communications/previous-reviews-and-consultations/first-phase-2013-review-of-the-telecommunications-act-2001

[kaylexmorgana]

just red neck states. not even close to me.

[Nowak]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

If we are going to prioritize states rights over federal, we might as well prioritize city/county rights over everything else.

City's rights are already more important than county rights here in New England. All Connecticut and Rhode Island counties, and 8/14 Massachusetts counties, have no county government, while cities are given immense amounts of rights.

[deviant88]

i dont think i understand people anymore, other than corporations ruining everything for their wellbeing and profit nothing makes sense

[Citadelen]

They could just nationalise all the telecoms businesses, merge them into one, and then invest everywhere with state backing. There we go fast internet provided by a company that won't care about profit.

[sof006]

What? Are people serious that dense?

 

 

[Technic77]

I live in a town in Massachusetts where the internet, cable, and electricity are all owned/managed by the city itself. You have no choice in using a traditional ISP. So far, their prices are a little bit higher than Charter, the main ISP in my area but I will say that my speeds have been 100% consistent and haven't been throttled whatsoever. I'd say I'm happy so far. I get 50/up and 6/down for $55 a month.

[samcool55]

16 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

At this rate, with all the idiocy going on right now, everyone in the US is fucked.

 

Time to move to Antarctica and start a nerd nation. Once global warming hits, it will probably be liveable.

We know  

And it looks like it's all downhill from now on.

Your next president probably won't make it any better.

 

I'll send you a card from the EU once you are settled on Antarctica.

[samcool55]

16 hours ago, Mark77 said:

Its a problem because cities should not be taxing their citizens, to take business risks for which they have no expertise.

 

Do you *really* want the government controlling your Internet connection?  Lol.  Good lord.

If done properly, yes!

Belgium is one of the more positive examples of this.

1 of the 2 big ISP's is mainly owned by the gov. They have 50% + 1 shares of the company.

 

And we don't have 1gbps but the ISP's are fighting ok-ish.

Fibre is being rolled out for years and still going, and prices are quite good for the speeds i get.

45 dollars for 62 down* 4 up (* i get more than that at certain hours of the day, i've seen speeds up to 80mbps.)

And unlimited! 600GB a month no problem, i know they will contact you if you use too much but i don't know where that limit is at, it's above 600GB at least

 

I can get 200/10 (upload speeds are terrible sadly) if i want to.

 

And the gov also owns a complete fibre backbone in belgium that's constantly being expanded, designed for universities and gov buildings and whatever.

There are multiple 100gbps (yes 100) connections between their main stations. Which is plenty because in belgium we rarely reach 150gbps going in and out of belgium.

 

So if the gov really really wants to push it, they can.

 

The netherlands is an example why this technique works.

What the gov did there is sold everything ISP related they had and accepting the smaller isp's to fuse together.

Result is prices are going up, fibre rollout is slowing down and speeds are barely going up.

[Nowak]

7 hours ago, Technic77 said:

I live in a town in Massachusetts where the internet, cable, and electricity are all owned/managed by the city itself. You have no choice in using a traditional ISP. So far, their prices are a little bit higher than Charter, the main ISP in my area but I will say that my speeds have been 100% consistent and haven't been throttled whatsoever. I'd say I'm happy so far. I get 50/up and 6/down for $55 a month.

Where in MA do you live? I want this. Also, I think you mixed up your up/down speeds.

[marldorthegreat]

22 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

Trying to get the general public to understand anything is impossible. 

 

I wouldnt call it stupidity, just a lack of interest. There is a lot of things that you do not care about, doesnt make you an idiot for not caring. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, marldorthegreat said:

I wouldnt call it stupidity, just a lack of interest. There is a lot of things that you do not care about, doesnt make you an idiot for not caring. 

Ignorance is excusable up to a point, willful ignorance in the face of those attempting to educate you about something, is stupidity or idiocy.

 

Try getting someone who isn't tech-literate to learn about net neutrality. Try explaining it to them, their not giving a shit is entirely willful.

[marldorthegreat]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Ignorance is excusable up to a point, willful ignorance in the face of those attempting to educate you about something, is stupidity or idiocy.

 

Try getting someone who isn't tech-literate to learn about net neutrality. Try explaining it to them, their not giving a shit is entirely willful.

No it isnt, its just some people dont think that the internet being slightly slower is very important. I know my parents dont care. But calling people stupid for not caring about a issue that doesnt really affect normal people is ridiculous. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, marldorthegreat said:

No it isnt, its just some people dont think that the internet being slightly slower is very important. I know my parents dont care. But calling people stupid for not caring about a issue that doesnt really affect normal people is ridiculous. 

It effects everyone. Or it will at some point in the future.

 

The internet is much, MUCH more than just cat pictures and memes. It's the free flow of information, ideas, and education. It gives the average person the power to communicate, en mass. A power which until recently, has been locked away at the hands of the rich and powerful. This has the capability of fundamentally transforming our entire society for the better.

 

Unless it's misused, abused, and locked down. Throttling is part of that lock down. Monopolies are a part of that lock down.