SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senators, including Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio, have signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission opposing municipal broadband:
In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service.
Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services. The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for slow, expensive internet access without competition.
In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as "The Gig," a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second for less than $70 a month — a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.
AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing competition, have used their influence in state government to make an end-run around local municipalities. Through surrogates like the American Legislative Exchange Council, the industry gets states to pass laws that ban municipal broadband networks, despite the obvious benefits to both the municipalities and their residents.
[...] Rubio's presidential campaign has relied heavily on AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, the public policy co-chair of Wiley Rein, a law firm that also is helping to litigate against the FCC's effort to help municipal broadband. As one of Rubio's three lobbyist-bundlers, Weaver raised $33,324 for Rubio's presidential campaign, according to disclosures. Rubio's campaign fundraising apparatus is also managed in part by Cesar Conda, a lobbyist who previously served as Rubio's chief of staff. Registration documents show that Conda now represents AT&T.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday December 15 2015, @09:51PM
Not exactly. The 'last mile' is going to be a monopoly or at best a 'managed competition' between a couple of politically connected private entities. But it doesn't mean we have to have the current worst case scenario system we have now. If I were looking for something that would be worse than the current system though I doubt I could come up with something worse than direct government ownership of something like Internet service.
Break up the phone and cable companies but this time we break up the phone company the right way. Company A owns the last mile and is a regulated utility who doesn't innovate lot and just pays regular utility company dividends to shareholders. It sells access to all at regulated rates including to Company B from the breakup that sells dialtone, data and for a little longer, traditional cable TV service. Along with Company B you can then have Company C-Z also get into the game.
If breaking them up isn't a viable option, second best would be for the city to build and own a new network but to sell access for providers to service the customers. I don't want the government directly deciding the outbound Internet buildout, rate limiting, terms of service, etc. and I certainly don't want them operating the CATV side and picking what channels are politically acceptable.
This is also being attempted with electricity, where you have one monopoly own the wires and other companies sell the actual electricity. There have been some teething issues but in theory it should be workable. Not really sure water can be made a competitive resource in the same way since the delivery system is most of the value.
Roads are always the sticking point when Libertarians get to looking serious at what a world designed along their lines would look like. We might have to admit those are going to largely stay a legitimate government function until our social technology advances a bit more or our tech technology makes it a moot issue somehow.
Normally I'd be all over the obvious political bias in this article since it is obviously written as a hit piece on Rubio.... but screw Rubio. He is the current establishment darling so let them defend him.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 15 2015, @10:29PM
Break up the phone and cable companies but this time we break up the phone company the right way. Company A owns the last mile and is a regulated utility who doesn't innovate lot and just pays regular utility company dividends to shareholders. It sells access to all at regulated rates including to Company B from the breakup that sells dialtone, data and for a little longer, traditional cable TV service. Along with Company B you can then have Company C-Z also get into the game.
There is no one "Right way" to delineate who provides service. Your plan is as unworkable as any other mess created by any other so-called "visionary with a plan" (arguably the most dangerous man in the world. Your plan would NEVER have worked when bell was broken up, because dial tone and first-switch access had to be provided the last mile, It was an analog world.
Its different now, and because its different now, its all packets, nothing but net. And there is no real reason you can't buy telephone service from a provider in New York City and Oslo Norway at the same time over the same fiber. But that is NOT where we where when the Bells were broken up. But hey, hind sight is easy, isn't it!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.