What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
139 Comments
- ThatsNotPudding, on 06/03/2009, -2/+356I hope this is the spark that sets the whole country alight.
- SmokenJoe, on 06/03/2009, -2/+289The people win. There should have never been a question though the more competition the better the phone company was showing their true colors fighting the peoples interests. Provide good service in the first place and the city would not have bothered.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -3/+134I've been screaming this ***** for years. Companies like Comcast and AT&T have been raping us since the beginning.
- BroadcastEng, on 06/03/2009, -10/+131While I detest the idea of goverment-run programs that should be left to public sector, this is one subject that I find difficult to take a definitive stance on.
I hate getting shafted by TWC, paying upwards of $60/month for inferior docsis2 cable that doesn't even allow me the full speed I'm paying for (during peak hours).
And I'll never switch to my local phone service for DSL as they require a local line which would run my bill over $70 for LESS (albeit more consistent) bandwidth than TWC.
If I felt I could trust my local government to not use their service for undisclosed traffic monitoring and surveillance I would love to pay for the service (if it means I get GOOD service). It would also mean I am keeping my money in the local economy. It'd create a few new jobs for people maintaining the network.
If companies are afraid that a municipality will be able to compete with them even with the "government waste" factor thrown in, it's time for the telecoms to man up, change their business model, and become competitive.
They will be their own undoing. - aserer511, on 06/04/2009, -3/+84this sets up an awesome, awesome precedent
- bradleyland, on 06/04/2009, -1/+46The problem with the system right now is that we have government granted monopolies. Utilities rely on access to private property. In our town, they call it easement. There's only so much space to run cable, so the government's answer was to grant this right to one corporation. Ever since then, it's been very difficult to unravel. No one wants to make the investment in running millions of miles of new cable, and the ILECs have a "right" to use the cable they've already laid.
It's a nasty hybrid were you have all the negative components of a government run system, along with greedy capitalist exploitation. The system either needs to be completely privatized, with the right use use easement open for competitive bid, or completely public, run by state and local governments. - EarlOfLade, on 06/04/2009, -2/+44Thanks to these telco's and cable companies, USA is an Internet Third World Country!
But I guess, when you are scared ***** of the word "government" and when the word "corporations" to you mean "they can do nothing wrong", this becomes a frightening decision! - 4NDr01D, on 06/04/2009, -0/+40its a utility just like mobile networks !!
why is a freakin text msg 20c !!! ?! - uknowwhoibe, on 06/04/2009, -2/+37YouTube comments are -----> that way.
- unabsolute, on 06/04/2009, -4/+34The court shot down Bridgewater's argument that Internet service could not yet be considered a utility because it doesn't have the "near universal usage common to a utility."
with the defination of "near universal usage" would that include or exclude cell service as a utility? - Mike17102, on 06/04/2009, -0/+28You hear that Verizion? ***** you and everyone in PA you managed to screw over by blocking public wifi.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/04/2009, -0/+26Local government is one of the few levels the people actually have any control over. I'd rather have my local government running fiber and an exchange than some greedy company in another state.
- brickbat, on 06/04/2009, -0/+23Similar thing happened in Australia. The local telecom (Telstra) kept trying to bully the government into a terrible deal. After a year of negotiating, the government said "FU We'll do it ourselves."
- kitsua, on 06/04/2009, -1/+23I've been saying this for ages now: high-speed internet access should be considered a utility alongside electricity and water etc; It needs to have some element of government control and support so that people are not left out of the loop due to financial decisions made by a boardroom and there is a level playing field for private enterprise to offer competitive services to all citizens in a society.
This should be the new paradigm for the modern world - the internet is the future, prepare for it! - jimbo92107, on 06/04/2009, -2/+21It's not a utility, the internet is a series of tubes! Tubes, I tell you, toooobs!
- Mike17102, on 06/04/2009, -0/+17After re-reading my comment, it didnt quite come out right. Let me try again:
"***** you Verizion, from everyone in PA you screwed over." - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/04/2009, -0/+17especially when sms costs NOTHING to anyone at the source or receiving company...nothing at all.
- AndrewMoyer, on 06/04/2009, -2/+18...maybe alight with more lawsuits. These corporate interests aren't going to take this lying down.
- greevar, on 06/04/2009, -0/+14And the little red hen said, "Fine, I'll just do it myself!"
- Koushiro, on 06/04/2009, -0/+14How have I lived in MN and this is the first I've heard about any of this?
Gods our local news stations are so completely corporately owned and useless. - philodygmn, on 06/04/2009, -1/+14***** TDS! It's not tax-free if the people already have paid their taxes and paid into the bonds which fund it!
- kaelyiesta, on 06/04/2009, -0/+12"TDS charged that the project was not a utility and was instead an unfair use of government power to compete with private business."
Now, I know that two wrongs aren't the best way to make a right, but seeing as how the unfair use of government power CREATED the ***** that is our telecommunication tier 1 carrier oligopoly, I don't think they have any right to say a god damn thing on this issue. At this point they should be happy with the anti competitive edge they still hold even after pissing away the protectionism given to them by the FCC and congress in general by just sitting on the millions of dollars they were given from taxpayers wallets.
That said, I don't know much about TDS, or if it was given any fascistic support(socialized costs, privatized profits). It may not have been under the umbrella of protectionism that shielded other ISPs from free market incentives, so don't take my rant as being specifically addressed to them. I only suspect them of corporatist collusion with government, I have yet to be sure of it. - footbag01, on 06/04/2009, -0/+12You think the Government isn't looking because AT&T or Comcast are running the show?
I'd love to get those guys out of the business of Internet. - ASfinkterSezWut, on 06/04/2009, -0/+12? ohplease ? Do you not get the part where the Telcos are NOT providing the infrastructure, access and services that you are claiming they are?
FTA : " Not satisfied with current DSL and cable offerings, the town of Monticello hatched an ambitious plan to wire up the entire community with fiber, build an interconnect station, and allow ISPs to link up to the site and offer Internet access over the city-maintained fiber links. "
FFS, At LEAST read the freakin article before commenting. - kefkaantakrist, on 06/04/2009, -0/+12"and allow ISPs to link up to the site and offer Internet access over the city-maintained fiber links."
So, yes, TDS could offer internet access via the city fiber lines. - JustLoren, on 06/04/2009, -1/+11@juankovo, by your logic I can't complain about ANYTHING that I can't personally do. That really cuts into my bitching-ability. Apparently, I can only whine about masturbation, touch typing, and telekinetically manipulating rodent feces.
What a short list :( - mrsteveman1, on 06/04/2009, -0/+9They want the hassle, because they want a monopoly
- jmahnn, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8The even lesser-known town of Windom, Minn did this first.
http://www.windomnet.com/
It pissed the hell out of Qwest and Comcast in the area - HonoredMule, on 06/05/2009, -0/+8Towns are doing it themselves because the telecoms *refuse* to expand their infrastructure into those areas. What else were they supposed to do? It would be like the electric company saying, "We couldn't be bothered servicing your area, but don't you dare generate your own electricity...you'll just have to watch TV by candle light."
The telecoms are only building out into those areas after the fact because they're terrified of anyone else--even a municipality--getting a foothold on the market. Such a foothold will show the nation how successfully others can provide broadband and how much more satisfactory such alternatives can be. - kefkaantakrist, on 06/04/2009, -0/+8Generally it is not possible because the initial costs of setting up a network are too high. If it was just a matter of paying the upkeep, you'd see a lot more competition, and that's what the Gov't is doing in this article. The telephone and cable companies have it relatively easy because they already had cables running to everyone's houses - just have to keep up the network
The question is, if you are the only game in town does that give you the right to gouge your customer? I think not.
(Which is not to say that I think any particular ISP is gouging anyone. I paid $30/mo for 3mbps ATT DSL and was satisfied with what I was getting for my money, though I was pissed they wouldn't sell me $35/mo 6mbps because I didn't have a landline.) - sobe4u8k, on 06/04/2009, -1/+8Geez, if I didn't hate Monticello because of a deep rooted football rivalry I would be very happy for them. But I do, so they can take their interwebz and shove the cables up their ass, damn inbred drunks.
- seaaleggs, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7I live in saint cloud, a few miles away, and I'm incredibly jealous.
- oriondr, on 06/05/2009, -0/+7Telcos dont "invest" infrastructure until it's heavily overloaded. They just keep piling more and more customers on the same lines and then when ***** starts to stop working and people start complaining for a couple months, THEN they invest in their infrastructure. And then when they do they slough the costs onto their customers with inflated rates.
- bigteebo, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7Good ruling. If the phone company won't do it, someone else will, and no, you can't sue because of that. Otherwise can't you sue the phone company for NOT implementing fiber?
- azimir, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7Because people will pay it. Sad, but true.
- breadfred, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7That is why you ensure that the ownership of the cables and pipes is not in the hand of the service providers. My telephone is connected through a cable from NTL. I use OneTel as my telephone company. I do the same with my water, gas and electricity providers.
- footbag01, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7No... It's the fact that once a stable Internet connection can be provided independent of the Cable/Telco providers, then potential consumer cost savings emerge. As long as the Cable Telco companies are in charge, they will limit the bandwidth to prevent competition with their core businesses.
- mrsteveman1, on 06/04/2009, -0/+7Your local government isn't the one spying on you, they don't care.
- dehn, on 06/05/2009, -0/+6Im from MN and I would much rather deal with any city then Charter when it comes to my internet....***** you charter and your ***** ass service!
- Dougman82, on 06/04/2009, -2/+8Yeah! What the hell have we been thinking with all our roads, sewers, power lines, etc. being provided by the government?
/s - Ecuno, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6It's amazing. I live in the town over and our city is in talks with doing the same thing. Thanks Monti -Elk River
- tgc1, on 06/04/2009, -0/+6Awesome. Hopefully more cities and towns do this.
- moosetoga, on 06/04/2009, -1/+7With each passing year it gets increasingly difficult to argue that the Internet shouldn't be treated as a utility. This case might be proof that we've finally reached a tipping point.
- MxM111, on 06/04/2009, -1/+7Look, your house needs ONE fiber optic cable, one pipe for water, one electrical cable and so on. In such conditions competition is not possible and private company will become monopoly if you use private company to provide this service. Thus the main reason of why private business is better (competition between companies) does not work here, and because of this, government (or private business under strict control of the government, like we have in case of electrical cables) is more effective way of doing utilities. The same is true for the thing like army, police force and so on.
- drewh1991, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Holy crap! I live just 5 minutes from there.. thats random. Its not a big town at all.
- gamingspartan, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5Its about time somebody steps up (figures its Monticello they have a decent cashflow), but seriously with the way that private contractors that work for TDS, Comcast, and AT&T move around this state its about damn time somebody boots them the hell out... at least in terms of internet
- HonoredMule, on 06/05/2009, -0/+5FTA: "The Appeals Court decision sends a chilling message to the private business community operating in the state of Minnesota. The decision will likely discourage other private enterprises from doing or expanding their business in Minnesota."
Well, gee, what can I say? How about HOORAY! You ***** can scat while the municipalities show you how a communications network is run. I hate how everyone looks to private enterprise as the holy grail of protection from getting screwed by the government, when in reality the only practical difference is that publicly owned utilities are mandated to operate responsibly and for the good of the public. In contrast, private equivalents don't even make a pretense at any mandate save to take your money by the broadest and most effective means possible.
Sure big government is still a huge and worrisome problem. But whatever happened to just having more smaller pieces of government? Just handle as much as possible at the smallest effective unit level possible. Ultimately, there is such a thing as competition between municipalities too...it's a competition for the presence of the population itself. - cjhowe, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5And to think people had privacy concerns over government knowing which books they checked out of the library. Not pretending I have any privacy from the federal bureaus, but opening up that can of worms on the local level? Yikes.
- superkendall, on 06/04/2009, -0/+5"Near Universal Usage" definition would mean the telephone lines are close to no longer being a utility, as more people use cell phones.
- s73v3r, on 06/04/2009, -0/+4If the fiber in the town is municipally controlled, then that should make starting a competing ISP a lot easier. Instead of trying to get roads closed to install fiber, the city has already provided a fiber hookup to all of my potential customers. Now I can concentrate on offering service to my customers, and I don't have to worry about all the red tape associated with laying lines.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is