Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 11 2016, @05:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the back-to-the-early-days-of-DSL dept.

Susan Crawford, author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age who also ironically shares a name with a telecom fatcat, has published an analysis of the recent Google fiber deal in Huntsville Alabama. This deal differs from all previous deals in that the city will build and own the fiber network and that Google has only committed to lease capacity on it, leaving the city the option to lease to other internet service providers and thus engender competition for internet access. It is a utility model for connectivity that has had great success in other nations, but is contrary to the way American telecom corporations view their role in the broadband market.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday March 11 2016, @07:40AM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday March 11 2016, @07:40AM (#316941) Journal

    Muny fiber is also getting hammered by politicians at the state government level.

    Craig Settles [wordpress.com] wrote a characterization of all the laws in all the states. The summary is at the prior link and the detail is here:
    http://cjspeaks.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Snapshot-1-15.pdf [cjspeaks.com]

    Settles expects these laws to get hammered down in the coming years, especially since the Feds are offering legal help to municipalities that want to get around their state's regulations. Getting beat up by the feds a few times and even the most restrictive states will start revising their laws.

    He mentions three types of laws on the books of 21 states:
    If-Then Laws, Minefield Laws, Total Bans. They are all explained beginning on page 8 of the above PDF.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by bitstream on Friday March 11 2016, @12:47PM

    by bitstream (6144) on Friday March 11 2016, @12:47PM (#316988) Journal

    It's kind of hilarious that a country that want to be seen as at the edge of technology have these laws that fit backwater villages with miniature popes and incumbents. Perhaps it's better to just move to get things done?

  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday March 11 2016, @09:12PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday March 11 2016, @09:12PM (#317167)

    Thanks for that, I'm encouraged by the fact that the If they won't build it, Then the municipality can. I hope more cities are able to push through with it.

    One possible problem I see on the horizon is dealing with Tier 1 and 2 networks. If a city has its own network, it must connect to the larger net through a Tier 1, possibly Tier 2. I guess this is where Net Neutrality becomes exceedingly important, but I can see a few valid problems for private networks.

    If Cable Co. owns the Tier 1 access points into a town, then the town will have to pay Cable Co. to access the outside lines. If enough of Cable Co's customers switch to the muni connection then Cable Co won't be getting enough money to justify keeping their infrastructure in place. Hopefully market competition will actually bring prices in line, but access to internet backbones seems like a valid concern.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~