What is Digg?115 Comments
- cstmoore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I saw this on SiliconValley.com. It really made me angry:
"The United States is the 19th ranked nation in household broadband connectivity rate, just ahead of Slovenia. Want to know why? Because, contends telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick, the Bell Companies never delivered symmetrical fiber-optic connectivity to millions of Americans though they were paid more than $200 billion to do it. According to Kushnick's book, "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal", during the buildup to the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, the major U.S. telcos promised to deliver fiber to 86 million households by 2006 (we're talking about fiber to the home, here). They asked for, and were given, some $200 billion in tax cuts and other incentives to pay for it. But the Bells didn't spend that money on fiber upgrades -- they spent it on long distance, wireless and inferior DSL services. Some headlines from Kushnick's work:
* By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions.
* The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household.
* The World is Laughing at US. Korea and Japan have 100 Mbps services as standard, and America could have been Number One had the phone companies actually delivered. Instead, we are 16th in broadband and falling in technology dominance."
http://esp.realcities.com/a/hBD4mFEAPnpi4APtV1IACPJ5o.APnpdQ5$/gmsv4 - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ epluribusunum
I totally disagree. Why is that commercial?
Don't governments lay down infrastructure and charge people for it's use? What makes fiber any different from a highway, garbage collection, city bus, and water and electric? - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Bell South doesn't care about geek people."
...he says as a clearly uncomfortable Mike Myers looks on... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"High speed Internet is not a necessity. Much like golf courses, the Internet is not a space the government belongs."
One could argue paved roads, water utility service (you can drill your own well), trash pick-up (truck it out yourself) and sewer service (septic tank) aren't necessities either. But they do enhance the overall quality of living. The same can be said for municipal-provided wireless or fiber internet access.
I'm very libertarian on most issues, but this is the one exception that I'll make. I think city municipalities can offer a better service for cheaper than the other ISPs can. Why do you think the ISP's are all afraid and filing suit left and right? They're scared *****. - motorbikematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know I commented on this in an earlier thread, but BellSouth wouldn't even offer DSL to my neighborhood, much less fiber, because the demographic in the area (a bunch of older, lower income folks) wouldn't prove to be a supportive customer base.
I know this is a free market and a company should be able to make rational business decisions, but god damnit, they should not STOP someone from trying to do it themselves. - orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This from a company that took back it's donations to katrina victims after they hard about other companies offerng free or cheaper services
- Sell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's funny how Capitalism drives technology and stifles it at the same time.
- usergentoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well im in favor of making a wifi to wifi network using wifi devices such as routers. This is a project ive been working on and it would allow each person that has a wireless router to connect to each other from neighbor to neighbor , city to city, state to state. Then we could have our own network, websites etc.. to allow a free service. Right now several people in my area is doing this we use our routers, pcs and allow others to build websites on them. So if your within range of any of the wireless routers you can connect to them and visit our many community sites we have made all for free. We have our own dns server and do not charge for domain names or anything.
If we could all work together we wouldnt need anytype of wired connection and we could control it and allow what type of content goes on it.
It may never become anything big but it is worth a try. - alpha-male, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Being from Baton Rouge I admire Lafayette's strides to build a better city. Wish we had that kind of leadership in BR.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@samdu
when it becomes the only way to check your bank statement, the only way to register for classes, the only way to pay your water and electric bill, it will be. - Sithlrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to work for Bellsouth and it's really no surprise. There are meetings on a nearly daily basis on how to extend their monopoly while at the same time making it look like they're doing us all a favor and providing great services to the public.
Meanwhile their PR machine is constantly assuring the people that there is competition in the Bellsouth states. Well I'm here to tell you they're lying. There is no competition at all against Bellsouth. They've even made agreements with the other Bell companies to keep them out of BellSouth territory.
Telecom competition is a lie, the Bellsouth employees are liars and perpetrators of the biggest crime against the american public in recent history. - mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yet another way the world has gone leaps and bounds ahead of the US of A.... and no one cares because its more important to make a dollar now, than ensure we make plenty of dollars/yen/euros/naira/etc in the future.
Its just a matter of time before the world quits speaking english and starts speaking chinese/japanese/____ese. - ScoobyRex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's probably going to end up with the Government subsidizing BellSouth and other companies that own the infrastructure of the Internet here. Thinking of a broadband source to the Internet is going to become like thinking about roads and sewer systems, it will become a fact of life. At this point companies trying to fight the move to fiber-to-the-house are just wasting money using antiquated business models.
- richmlpdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the Bells, et al are going to try and extort money from contect providers and cut us off from VoIP or change the open nature of the Internet then the gloves must come off. We obviously can't trust them with our networks that we've been paying through the nose for already so something must by done. Go Layfayette, I hope many more cities and states follow your lead.
- gerham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Government entities should not be conducting commercial enterprises." Is the only thing wrong with this is that it might be labeled socialist? I think it's obvious that profit motive has impeded broadband development and nurtured contentment in the bells to simply maintain the status quo. Wouldn't it be something if highways were only built where people were willing to pay tolls? If you like pure capitalism, go live in Nigeria.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK. Why are we limiting the number of licenses per market?
Whats wrong with an extra competitor? Why can't the CEO of the competitor be a mayor of a city?
How could competition with municipal Internet access be a bad thing for consumers?
Mark my words. I will open a new Internet Provider. That's it.
Want Wireless? VoIP phone over the Nation Wide WiMax Network. Want TV content? Plug into the Fiber to the home network.
No speed throttling.
No "priority" services.
No problem.
"our job is to connect you to the services _you_ want." - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Atlanta-based BellSouth disagrees. Bill McCloskey, a company spokesman, argues there are no barriers to entry into the broadband business, as evidenced by the army of carriers — cable, wireless, local governments and others — that are trying to compete.
"For anybody to say that there is no competition just doesn't compute," McCloskey says.
Yes, but they all have to use, and pay for, YOUR infrastructure. It's not other carriers they are trying to stop, it's anyone trying to lay their own cable so they don't have to go through the bells for everything. - xman00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I live in Texas. It's now illegal (Thanks Republicans) for any municipality to install their own broadband network. Can you imagine what our country would have been like if it had been illegal for a city to have its own library system or garbage collection agency? Now, if you're lucky, you get the choice between the cable monopoly of the phone monopoly for your broadband. That's assuming you live in an area that has service. You're SOL if you live in a rural area.
X - thicke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The main issue here is that you're being too specific. It should be "BellSouth doesn't care about people"
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I got the 1000th digg! I hope you guys make diggnation and get wider recognition. Bell's behavior sucks. If they aren't providing the service, they shouldn't be able to sue other people for doing it.
- Vision77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bell South: We won't step up (even though we have been paid to). But we don't want you to do what we were paid to do. We want you to pay us to do it.....again.
- sometemple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't believe how often I hear these big companies talk about how much "competition" there already is in the broadband market. I live in a small city of 50,000 people just outside of Cleveland, and there is certainly zero competition when it comes to broadband, or for that matter, phone, electricity, etc...
We have 1, count them, 1 cable provider in the city who has signed a 10 year contract that gives them exclusive rights to the lines here. We have 1, count them, 1 telephone company that has a contract with the city giving them sole stewardship of the phone lines. Same w/ the electric. These companies will permit other companies to offer service over "their" lines for a fee, which makes everybody else completely unaffordable.
What are they going to do when the cost of sattelite drops through the roof? We just saw on a story earlier today about how Honda is sidestepping the oil industries (after they refused to construct a viable network of hydrogen stations) by implementing new technology that will let consumers create hydrogen fuel from natural gas in the comfort of their own homes.
I hate capitalism... - bryan8m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Fuc* BellSouth.
Fuc* U.S. telecom companies.
Fuc* them in the a$$. - saysaknow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dumbwhiteguy(actual name) says
"Bell South doesn't care about black people.
Discuss." - johnqpublic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have bellsouth service for the moment, but that is about to change. I have just sent their customer service (you can contact them at
consumer.customer.service@bellsouth.com)
the following email.
Dear Bellsouth,
I ran across the following story. If this continues I will be stopping my service with your company. I will also advise my friends and associates to do so.
Meg and Dave XXXXX
Posted 1/3/2005 9:35 PM Updated 1/3/2005 10:27 PM
Today's Top Tech Stories
• Apple rolls out $69 iPods, new Showtime downloads - 9:56 PM
• Taming the tangled web of cords - 9:49 PM
• Radar system spots debris on runway - 9:50 PM
• WTO rejects EU's ban on genetically modified crops - 8:54 PM
• Google treading on Microsoft turf in Dell tests - 7:18 PM
• Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds
E-Mail Newsletters
Sign up to receive our free Tech e-newsletter and get the latest tech news, Hot Sites & more in your inbox.
E-mail:
Select one: HTML Text
Bells dig in to dominate high-speed Internet realm
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
To hear BellSouth talk, high-speed fiber lines are the way of the future. So why is it so determined to stop Lafayette, La., a rural community in the heart of Cajun country, from installing its own fiber?
Vinnie Sinatra lays fiber optic cable in Buffalo Grove, Ill., in October.
By Jeff Roberson, AP
Joey Durel, Lafayette's mayor, has been asking himself that same question. His city plans to build an advanced broadband network to offer voice, data and video to its 116,000 residents. But local officials claim BellSouth is trying to kill the project. And they say it's getting help from Cox, the local cable-TV operator.
"We have the opportunity to do something great for this community — and in a state that needs a big win," Durel fumes. "They have to get out of our way."
It's the dark side of the fiber story.
The regional Bell companies have made much of their billion-dollar plans to run broadband networks across the USA. Yet they're also quietly trying to erect hurdles that would make it hard — or expensive — for anyone to compete with them.
Besides municipalities like Lafayette, the Bells are going after their phone rivals, Internet carriers and major metro areas — anyone with an interest in building services that might compete with the Bells.
Critics say the Bells' efforts are an attack on competition and that consumers could be the big losers.
"If municipal governments and others are blocked from entering this market, the vast majority of Americans are going to wind up on the wrong side of the digital divide, because they will be unable to afford high-speed services," says Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union.
Atlanta-based BellSouth disagrees. Bill McCloskey, a company spokesman, argues there are no barriers to entry into the broadband business, as evidenced by the army of carriers — cable, wireless, local governments and others — that are trying to compete.
"For anybody to say that there is no competition just doesn't compute," McCloskey says.
Broadband rates in the USA are already among the highest in the world — $35 to $40 a month. And that's for relatively slow speeds of 1 to 2 megabits a second. In Japan, consumers pay about $15 a month for speeds of 30 megabits or better, notes Raul Katz, CEO of Adventis, a Boston-based consultancy.
The Bells have proved adept at using their fiber plans to persuade regulators to grant them concessions. Without those concessions, the Bells have warned, they wouldn't make their huge fiber investments. The implied threat: that the USA, which ranks a lowly 13th in overall broadband deployment, would slip further.
"Fiber is the pawn that allows them to extract concessions," Katz says.
Regulators aren't the only ones buckling. Consider Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania had considered legislation, backed by Verizon, to bar its cities from selling broadband services. After a series of compromises, Gov. Edward Rendell signed a bill in December letting Philadelphia and other cities proceed with their own broadband plans — until 2006. After that, they must give Verizon a first right of refusal.
Verizon says the bill is fair, especially considering that Pennsylvania is requiring phone providers to offer broadband statewide by 2015.
What's more, the Bells say, their local-phone turf is under attack from rivals, forcing them into combat mode. They also note that wireless is becoming a substitute for traditional "wired" phones, thus putting more pressure on the Bells.
Well, yes and no.
The Bells themselves own two of the three biggest wireless companies in the USA. That alone makes them a far-reaching presence in many consumers' lives.
Cingular, the No. 1 player, is owned by two Bell companies, SBC Communications and BellSouth. The No. 2 wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless, is also controlled by a Bell company, Verizon.
Consumers could pay price
Experts say they worry about diminished competition in broadband services. Unless others can step into the fray and compete aggressively, broadband could fall under the control of just two players, just as the cell phone business did for years. With just two cell phone carriers per market, operators tended to keep prices high.
The same could occur in broadband, warns Mark Cooper, research chief at the Consumer Federation of America. "Two is not enough for real competition," he says.
Cooper notes that the U.S. cell phone business, which was a legal duopoly for years, turned competitive only when the Federal Communications Commission chose to grant up to eight licenses per market. The entry of six hungry players caused cell phone prices to plummet — a boon for consumers.
Since 2000, though, the wireless business has consolidated. Once Sprint and Nextel complete their merger, there will be just three major wireless carriers.
"It's just too easy for two or three players to figure out how to avoid lowering prices," Cooper says.
Kimmelman agrees. The way things are going on the regulatory front, he says, "consumers are going to end up paying inflated prices for high-speed Internet access, which is becoming essential for day-to-day life in America."
The future of Internet-based phone service, known as VoIP, is also at risk, he says. In its final path to a home, VoIP travels over high-speed lines — a cable-TV or phone line. If access to that line is blocked, Kimmelman warns, development of the service could stall.
Kimmelman says the situation is now especially urgent, with AT&T and MCI retreating from the residential phone business.
"With AT&T and MCI exiting the consumer market, the only way consumers are going to get real competition is through VoIP," he says.
The big Bells are taking advantage of that retreat by plowing ahead with their fiber deployments. Their plans vary. Only Verizon vows to extend fiber lines all the way to homes. Its customers could see top speeds of 100 megabits or more.
SBC plans to take fiber only to the overall neighborhood, with speeds of up to 25 megabits a second. BellSouth has committed to take fiber only to the "curb" — 500 feet or less from the home. Its speeds would top out at 24 megabits a second.
The connection speeds for SBC and BellSouth are so much slower, in part, because of the hybrid fiber-copper nature of their broadband pipes. Copper doesn't have nearly the horsepower of fiber. That's one reason Verizon has chosen to plunge ahead and build a 100% fiber network directly to homes.
Just a few years ago, the Bells had pledged to run fiber straight to homes. In return, they wanted the FCC to rule that they didn't have to lease their fiber to rivals who could then turn around and use it to deliver competing services.
Their request went to the heart of U.S. telecom policy. That policy has long been based on the notion that the Bells were obliged to share their networks with all comers.
The rationale owed to the history of the Bells. Their networks were built over the course of a century using monopoly ratepayer money. Like the U.S. highways, the Bell networks have been regarded as a unique infrastructure that had to be open to others on terms that were fair.
But in 2004, in a nod to the changing nature of telecom, the FCC granted the Bells' request. That concession paved the way for the Bells to deploy fiber to homes.
That's when the foot-dragging began.
Instead of taking fiber to the home, BellSouth asked if it was OK to just take fiber to the neighborhood, relying on its existing copper for the final run from the curb to the house. But it still wanted to be free of the sharing obligation.
The FCC said OK. The agency noted that the Bells didn't need to let rivals use any line that wasn't set up for traditional phone service.
That led SBC to up the ante. Its argument: If it was OK to take fiber just to the neighborhood and not share it, then surely it was OK to take it just to the "node" and not share. (The node is the stretch of copper between a central switching office and a home or business.)
So long as fiber exists in some part of the network between the node and house, SBC thinks it should be treated, from a regulatory view, as though it were running fiber all the way to homes. And it doesn't think it needs the FCC's approval.
Meantime, all the Bells are pushing for a raft of regulatory concessions that would make life difficult for would-be rivals. Dave Baker, a vice president at EarthLink, an Internet service provider, says the trend is inherently bad for competition — and for consumers.
"By splicing in a little fiber, the Bells can squelch competition," Baker says. "There can be and should be competition in broadband services on new networks."
Little Lafayette's a threat
For the Bells, the motive is clear: money. They've committed billions to deploy high-speed fiber lines across the USA. Their huge investments are predicated on the assumption that they'll have plenty of customers available to buy their high-speed services.
That's why efforts like the one in Lafayette are threatening. If too many communities peel off and build their own high-speed networks, there could be fewer customers for the Bells.
Lafayette, population 116,000, is a pittance for BellSouth. The carrier has 22 million local access lines in nine Southern states, including Louisiana. But if enough cities followed Lafayette's lead, BellSouth could lose more business.
Jim Baller, a lawyer who often represents municipalities in fights with the Bells, says he understands the Bells' predicament — to a point.
"I sympathize that there is not enough money for them to go all the way to the home everywhere at the same time," Baller says. "I just wish they would get out of the way of folks who want to do it and can step up to the plate."
Lafayette happens to have a staunch supporter: Louisiana's governor. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, elected in November, has signed a law that lets municipalities build their own broadband networks. Phone and cable operators opposed it.
Sam Jones, Blanco's local government liaison, says the state's goal is to keep broadband affordable. With more competitors, Jones says, "You allow consumers to get the best price and the best products."
BellSouth, meantime, is working all the angles.
It told local regulators in Lafayette that they should use the FCC's "Part 64" accounting rules, which have long been imposed on local phone companies, as a benchmark to set rules for the city. Lafayette countered that those rules would be an unnecessary burden.
Yet within days of making that argument last fall, BellSouth turned around andasked the FCC to relieve it of the Part 64 rules for its broadband services. It complained that the rules were onerous and outdated and force carriers to keep "extensive and tedious" records.
BellSouth insists it's just trying to look out for the interests of the local Lafayette taxpayers. Its argument hinges on the fact that the city-owned utility, which is building the network, is a monopoly.
"We're just saying that the local utility ratepayers should not be cross-subsidizing this new business that they want to get into," says McCloskey, the BellSouth spokesman. "They are a monopoly, and they should be regulated like one."
And BellSouth?
According to McCloskey, BellSouth "is no longer a monopoly," which is why it's asked the FCC for relief from Part 64 rules.
"We're a different kind of animal," he says.
Terry Huval, director of the Lafayette Utilities System, thinks BellSouth's real goal is to kill the project. "Their end-game is to frustrate us so much that we back away from this project," he says. Huval adds, "There won't be any cross-subsidies" because the city plans to use revenue from its new broadband services to finance the entire cost of the project.
Lobbying by BellSouth and Cox has forced the city to spend $400,000 defending itself, Huval says. "They go around telling people we're spending too much, even though they're the cause of a lot of that," he fumes.
Mayor Durel says the city isn't backing down.
"This is much bigger than Lafayette," Durel says. "This is about economic development for us. This is about future-proofing our city." - thisnameisfake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No digg for bryan8m's comment. Like noone has read ***** before.
- iamcdn28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone else notice that the two largest cable companies, Comcast and Time-Warner do not compete in the same city. In fact, they don't even do business in the state. Hmmm, you ever think they are some agreement that they won't compete against each other. Yes competion is alive and well in America.
- GTPilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i didn't read through all the comments, so i don't know if it is mentioned as for reasons why a small city would get fiber layed before bigger ones, .. but here's my story:
i was talking to a guy on a plane on the way up to washington state, and he said his little town, moses lakes, WA, had fiber. the reason such a small town got fiber was that they never had dsl or cable layed, so it was cheaper to lay fiber at this point. - n00ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Enough of the "old story, no digg." USA today, reliant on profit of readership, found this publishable just over a yr ago, and while the comp industry tech power doubles every 18 months, have u found this to be true for broadband? Absolutely not, and therefore the issue is still relevant.
As for gov't control of broadband = socialism, gimme a break. We're talking a municipality, basically the closest direct link to people's opinions and needs there is in the gov't hierarchy, and the people WANT it. And for once, gov't is acting on what they want and trying to give it to them. The disconnect between the small town consumer and industry is becoming as bad as the disconnect between the citizen and his gov't. In this article, the table is turned-give them their friggin' broadband... - Drewjames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Something like this is happening in Arizona. The city I live in, Chandler, along with a neighboring city, Tempe, is currently building the nations largest Wifi coverage zone. Cox is very prominent throughout many of the cities in Arizona and now they are suing cities because of their loss of business! Cox... what an appropriate name.
- madmathmatician, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"my hatred of the Bell companies continues to grow. they are pathetic."
AGREED
Those asian countries get all the best deals. I wouldnt be surprised if a few of the communist ruled countries got faster Broadband speeds than us! - Offill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm just pissed. This pisses me off more than I have ever been pissed before.
- absurdist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@RKMBrown:
Another moron trying to make thi into a liberal/conservative issue, eh?
Frankly, if the telcos and other providers are doing such a wonderful job, then why is it that so many municipalities are getting fed up and doing the job themselves? And why is it that the telcos are screaming bloody murder and doing everything in their power to stop them?
But you know, in one sense, you're right. Competition is best for everyone. So let's take down all the barriers to that competition. Let's open the markets to both private and public providers. And at the same time let's eliminate ALL of the subsidies and tax advantages to everyone so they're all competing on an equal footing, eh?
Your bridge called. It's lonely and wants you back. Shoo. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why wouldn't a town of 200,000 be the first to have fiber? Fiber is mostly about cost savings because it can travel much further without amplification. You would not expect to see it first in a city with CO's in close proximity. Let's calm down and not blow our load over fiber to the XYZ, it's not really about the consumer... it's for the telcos -- just a material that allows for a longer reach. You might think that it implies more bandwidth... maybe, but that isn't to say they couldn't get that by putting more coax in either. They are NOT going to pass the savings on to us guys ;) The best thing for any industry, when it comes to pricing, is competition; not technology.
- RKMBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> I live in Texas. It's now illegal (Thanks Republicans) for any municipality to install their own broadband network. Can you imagine what our country would have been like if it had been illegal for a city to have its own library system or garbage collection agency? Now, if you're lucky, you get the choice between the cable monopoly of the phone monopoly for your broadband. That's assuming you live in an area that has service. You're SOL if you live in a rural area.
Huh? Yet another liberal making a false republican statement. First off go here http://www.westernbroadband.com/ It works great you'll like it esp. if your rural.
Secondly I for one don't want to pay the government for internet access really what have they done well? Mail / Fedex are better examples of global services best left to capitalism that the internet should be based on. My god can you imagine what the government would do with a monopoly over our communications? - loginname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FYI:
Link to LUS FTTH Blogs
http://lusftth.blogspot.com/
http://lafayetteprofiber.com/
Link to the LUS fiber site:
http://lusnet.net
Fiber Film Festival with commercials edited by locals who were pro-fiber:
http://www.fiberfilmfestival.com/ - justjosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just a thought, but Bell South and Cox are both publicly owned companies. Would it be worthwhile for us geeks to start buying up shares to maybe at some time have a greater voice in their actions. Concerns from investors probably ring louder than those of customers.
- netsendmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I work for this company, dont know what I'm legally allowed to or not to say but what I WILL say this.
LUS brought electricity to Lafayette when no one else would and we are carrying on that tradition to today by making for ourselves rather than waiting on others to do it for us. That is what Lafayette has always been about. - gotpaint547, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whats after fiber optics?
- Merlin8000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To those who have commented:
I am also a resident of Lafayette, LA.
I really have to ask the question here. When exactly was it that the internet (particularly internet connectivity) become strictly a business venture???
The internet was, after all, a federal government project from the start, and connectivity is provided by many, many state universities. The people of Lafayette have voted, and LUS is in a unique position to use the dark fiber already laid down (an old project which BellSouth left us holding the bag on) and this is why a city of 200,000 is so ready to bring FTTH.
Personally, I'd most like to see LUS connect the existing fiber to the homes and then lease the lines cheaply for a start-up period so that we can get away from the shared monopoly held by BellSouth and Cox, at the same time bringing some interesting business to an economy that's promising in spite of the damage done to the state budgets after hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
We are also not just going to get internet from this, but TV and phone as well. I don't see TV as an infrastructure utility but I do believe that phone and internet are infrastructure utilities as much as power (why exactly is power a necessity again?)
I've been on the fence about this issue, but completely over the TV aspect. That said I just hope that Joey Durel and his crew can rewrite the bond proposal so that it can get pushed through this time.
If you've ever dealt with BellSouth's or Cox's "support", you know why this is the best choice for Lafayette. Also, I wouldn't support this if it were at the state level, state infrastructure is to be provided to the municipalities in my view, not directly to the citizens. - justjosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sending my complaint letter off to my provider, Cox. Does anybody else here do that, or do we just complain on the comments? A letter of kudos to governor Blanco could also be good.
- loginname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, the link to the LUS fiber site should have been this one:
http://www.lusnet.net/index2.php - oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Merlin8000, thanks for noting what a lot of people commenting seem to miss: This isn't just broadband.
That's really why Bell and Cox are pissing themselves - one company offering everything they offer on a tax-funded network. If you really buy into this municipal fiber network, Cox gets shut out of the cable money you pay them, and BellSouth loses phone service revenue.
That's why a city of not-even-200,000 is such a battleground for this: that's revenue from three services with good profit margins – cable TV, broadband and telecom – disappearing.
Also, I don't think either would be in this hole if people were happy with their service. If people actually liked what Cox and BellSouth offer, that narrow vote would have gone against muni fiber.
If this does work out, I know where I'll be going when I can really afford to move out of Lake Charles. It's just a damn shame I'd have to stay in state, but at least I'd be in Lafayette. Teh womens got nice butts dere too! - DEIx15x8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My home town of Kutztown, PA has had fiber for over four years now. They offer their own cable, phone, and Internet package service. All the other services in the area flipped out about it and dropped there prices by nearly 50% proving that we were all getting ripped off. By law the borough is forced to allow it's competitors to use the lines so the entire town was helped by it no matter what they went with. The borough still offered the best though and is part of the reason that it is now illegal for any municipal to start to offer Internet access in PA.
http://www.hometownutilicom.org/ - skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0as much as i HATE bellsouth, do you really want the government to manage our broadband?
@el taco "Old article.. no digg"
old article!?! it's dated 01/03/2005!!! oh wait...it's 2006. - au071, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Or Bell South just don't care about anything except profits.
- dumbwhiteguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bell South doesn't care about black people.
Discuss. - loginname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My home town too, nice to see some Lafayette people in here.
I am a Systems Admin who is responsible for four locations running 10MB and 100MB fiber connections within the city of Lafayette. It's a great system (although we are on the business/local gov side of things and not a home install) and I can't wait to see what this brings to the homes in Lafayette. In our case, the system is pretty neat, it's almost like a really long Ethernet cable stretched between locations. They use a fiber transceiver on each end, so all you really have from them (in our case) is an Ethernet jack on the wall that connects to your network.
I have spoken many times and worked closely with the chief engineer of the LUS fiber project for our fiber and VLAN setup, and from what I can tell, this is a very genuine effort on their part to really bring something great to the city of Lafayette.
And for what it's worth, Cox and Bellsouth NEVER mentioned the word "fiber" until LUS got the ball rolling, and now that is their buzz word for every commercial I hear in this area. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Americans finally realize why monopolies are EVIL. How monopolies stifle progress and innovation. It's about f***ing time! What do you think everyone has been warning you about all these years? Now you know.
[quote]as much as i HATE bellsouth, do you really want the government to manage our broadband?[/quote]
The government already DOES manage our telecom! Who do you think gave these predatorial monopolists the authority to persecute the competition? Instead of encouraging competition, the government protects these monopolies.
The result? ***Communist China now has better broadband than we do!***
http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/4776/p/f/evilcheney.jpg - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dinki - "I'm from Lafayette too. I think that it isn't government's role to provide a service that private industry could/should/already does provide. Where will this end? What if the government decides that it can provide goods at 20% lower cost than Walmart. Should a government store be opened at that point?"
Yes!
Explain to me how a government run store is bad for the people of Lafayette?
Is saving 20% over Walmart's cost bad?
I have a major issue with the government preventing private businesses from competing. I have no issue at all with the government competing with private business. Seems to work well for the Post Office / FedEd / UPS, why not do the same thing with Verizon, Bell, Time Warner and AOL? -
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 