What is Digg?162 Comments
- MariusAgricola, on 07/24/2008, -2/+222I applaud what this city, and others like it, are doing. Screw the telcos if they can't or won't deploy these fiber networks. The people of the town have spoken, so that should be enough. Private companies should not get to dictate what private citizens decide to spend their money on. Period.
- zinc6471, on 07/24/2008, -7/+191this is why we need a national fiber optics plan for the whole nation.
unregulated of course.
(if only) - thepromise, on 07/24/2008, -0/+158This seems like a pretty valid lawsuit to me. Why should people be able to put fiber optic lines within the ground of their own community? I mean, that's ridiculous. What's next? Communities wanting to build sewer systems in the ground?
- Darrelc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+126"enter into direct competition....."
Where's the competition if the telco doesn't want to build fiber? - EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -2/+89The government already paid $200 billion to the telcos for fiber to the premises. They took the money and never delivered on their promises. http://www.tispa.org/node/14
- SilverBlade2k, on 07/24/2008, -1/+71The telcos have no legal ground to sue the city. Since the Telcos WON'T install a fiber network everywhere, then someone else WILL. If they wanted the money from subscription fees, they had YEARS to get the network up, but they sat on their asses, picking their nose and delaying at each and every turn.
Sorry Telcos. You had your chance. Put up, or shut up. If you won't install fiber, someone else will. Your argument won't stand up in court. You call it 'unfair competition'. We know you want zero competition. Pack up and go home. - geoken, on 07/24/2008, -0/+68I heard about this one community that tried to run power line's to all their residents homes. It was like a slap in the face to the kind, generous hydro company who deemed these power lines unnecessary.
- purkel, on 07/24/2008, -0/+62I want to live in a city with fiber optic networks. /tear
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+61Exactly. That telco needs to be told to "Lead, follow or get out of the way".
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -2/+61This tactic sounds oddly familiar......***** the **AA anyone?
- kaelyiesta, on 07/24/2008, -0/+53Exactly. This anti competitive behavior is the one area that government regulation is suppose to punish. These ***** have no legal(or moral) grounds trying to maintain such an exploitative monopoly.
- cliffr39, on 07/24/2008, -0/+51What pisses me off about it is that a large part of the Telco's network was built out from tax money so what is the difference... ***** them - they shouldn't even be allowed to sue
- geoken, on 07/24/2008, -1/+51I don't understand this statement;
"Mitchell, who has been involved with the city on this entire issue, tells Ars that he's sympathetic to arguments from private companies about having to compete unfairly with cities."
Why is it unfair for the city to do something for itself that private corporations aren't willing to do? Even if private corporations are willing to do it, why is it unfair if the city decides to compete with them? - josh0518, on 07/24/2008, -0/+47We really need to begin fighting this monopolies/oligopolies that operate the telco industry! It's starting to get ridiculous!
- iridesce, on 07/24/2008, -4/+49This is the type of true American ingenuity and cooperation that can demonstrate how we can address a community concern
- oneredeye, on 07/24/2008, -0/+44Suing to prevent competition? If that's not monopolistic, I don't know what is.
- fapfapfap, on 07/24/2008, -0/+36happened a couple of years ago in Louisiana.
A small town Lafayette wanted fiber optic, the telco said no, they started to install it themselves, telco got state law changed prohibiting cities from installing their own cable.
Ended up in court systems, but haven't heard what was the final outcome. - hwy9nightkid, on 07/24/2008, -0/+35that would take the government backing it...but they will just hand it to the bells. and we're back where we are today..or worse
- jbmcb, on 07/24/2008, -1/+34Idiocy all around. The city should build out the network, charge a little above the cost of running it to defray operating expenses and recover costs, then after a few years if the telco wants to get into the fiber market give them an option to buy it from the city, at a profit to the city of course.
- sporg, on 07/24/2008, -1/+34Telcos say: "Taking out bonds to build a fiber network is illegal."
Bell and all their partners in crime have already been paid to install upgraded fiber optics in cities all over the US. They took billions in subsidies and rate hikes slated for last mile upgrades and fiber laying and just pocketed it.
http://digg.com/tech_news/The_200_Billion_Rip_Off_ ...
- Br3ach, on 07/24/2008, -0/+29They dont want to compete with them, yet they do not want to provide the service themselves to them.
That is called INSANITY - Angmar, on 07/24/2008, -0/+25Louisiana Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Fiber-to-the-Home Plan: http://www.lus.org/site184.php
- EtherGnat, on 07/24/2008, -2/+27I think the argument is that the city is supported by tax dollars and does not need to be profitable, thus it has an unfair advantage.
note: I didn't say it's a good argument. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+22This is what we call Corporatism. When the government is infiltrated by corporations and used to cater to the corporations to insure that no competition faces them. The telecom industry gets billions annually to upgrade networks and only a fraction of that money really does go to upgrading networks. The rest is pocketed. Certain telecom companies are granted the rights to different regions destroying all other competition. For instance, Fios isn't allowed in my district, but if I lived 40 feet away, I would have access to 20mbit Upload and Download. Instead, I have to either use Time Warner Cable or AT&T.
- paulsabo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+21Then there was that other city who got this crazy idea in their heads to have their own workers pave all the roads...
- rz8472, on 07/24/2008, -0/+21Unregulated content definitely... but I don't see the telecoms stepping up and doing something like this. The best chance of a nationwide network happening would be something akin to the huge national infrastructure projects in the 40s and 50s when the interstate highways were built.
- Clusterfrak, on 07/24/2008, -0/+20My sentiments exactly. The Telco has no right to deny them a product or service on the grounds they might provide it someday. Can you imagine if hospitals operated that way.
- KMartSheriff, on 07/25/2008, -0/+19How the ***** has there not been any punishment for that!? The government gave them $200 billion and they just took it and did nothing? Did they just look the other way or something?
- KnightMareInc, on 07/24/2008, -1/+20Comcast and Verizon teamed up to stop Philly from having free wifi, nope collusion between those two.
- OdinTGE, on 07/25/2008, -0/+17I want to go live in this town. These people are winners.
- elister, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16While local Seattle Qwest Communication hasnt sued the city of Seattle, they have been able to get Seattle to drop its plan to wire for fiber. Not once, but twice. City has submitted another bid, hope the third time will be the charm.
- VeritasAequitas, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16Monticello is not THAT small, it's like a suburb just a little further out of the twin cities.
I'm about the same distance south in an even smaller town 700 people but we have an adjoining city of 20,000 and in my little town we all have fiber to the house, the bigger town doesn't yet. What the city did here was encourage and aid in a small local business to install fiber using a loan that is directed at improving internet connections in "rural areas" I have the service and it's great. I pay $100 a month for Phone, Extended Basic (I get NFL network and Big Ten Network too!) and fiber internet. Hopefully more people will get this soon. - kingvik, on 07/24/2008, -0/+15Keep your youtube comments out of my digg.
- peaceninja, on 07/24/2008, -0/+13Ether and logan got it right. Most laissez-faire economists would sympathize with companies having to compete with a tax supported (socialized) system, it keeps the free market out and goes against free market capitalism.
but...if the free market telcos refuses to penetrate a market, i dont see a problem with a socialized fiber optic network. this is true at the local and national level!!! - bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+13And when that alternative (probably Comcast, being that it's in Minnesota) decides to ***** you over, I guess dial-up is just fine!
If the corporation refuses to install something the citizens want, then ***** THEM.
This "monopoly" coverage area ***** has to stop. I WANT A CHOICE IN MY ISP AND CABLE PROVIDER! - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+14Capitalism is competition, and value for value. Not petty legal maneuvering. This is not capitalism
- KMartSheriff, on 07/25/2008, -0/+13Seriously? That's taking things too far.
- jonshipman, on 07/24/2008, -9/+20Capitalism at it's finest
:eyeroll: - fanclerks, on 07/25/2008, -1/+12I'm always reminded of the government funded projects that were started by FDR to bring the US out of the Great Depression when I think of ways that our tax money should be used to improve this country. If they did that again I can only imagine where we'd be.
- charityslave, on 07/25/2008, -0/+11 I live in Lafayette. While I wouldn't say it's a small town (110,000), we are quite progressive in some ways (for a southern city, anyways). Our mayor, a local business owner, has quite a vision for our city.
Anyway, Bell South and Cox cable fought tooth and nail, throwing every dirty trick in the book, to stop municipal fiber. They were unable to stop the citizens from exercising their rights. Funny thing is, many of these same people really believe that corporations have their best interests at heart. - sporg, on 07/24/2008, -1/+11http://digg.com/tech_news/The_200_Billion_Rip_Off_ ...
Fiber to curb where are thou? - cliffr39, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10oh really? What do you call the post office vs UPS vs DHL vs FedEx ? Last time I checked the USPS is a government agency that you take a federal civil service exam for.
- geoken, on 07/25/2008, -0/+10If 74% of the population voted in a referendum that it should be done with tax dollars, then who are you to say it shouldn't be done?
- javaroast, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9A plan similar to the Rural Electrification Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification ... and it's 1949 extension for telephone service would seem to fit the whole broadband internet problem perfectly.
- latrosicarius, on 07/25/2008, -5/+14um? Unregulated? god damn idiots. Net neutrality means the government REGULATES it you *****.
The government regulates the TELECOMS. Get it??? There's no regulation of the content or the people.
If the internet was UNregulated, then the telecoms would start doing the whole "tiered" service plan, restricting content, giving priority to preferred customers, throttling or blocking as they please, and other gay *****.
I'm tired of total ***** idiots saying to unregulate the internet, when it's the complete opposite of what you mean.
***** read and understand:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what - bjornski, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9It's the came concept as giving oil companies millions of acres of leases that they refuse to implement. It's nothing but locking in profits for companies, ensuring a profitable bottom line.
THEY refuse to utilize it, but YOU aren't allowed to either!
Use it or lose it, *****. And you can pay back the money you were given to build the network in the first ***** place. - Kinsbane, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Citizens voted = end of story
- DestroyFascism, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Keeping the network Social or government owned is a great model if only Australia did so when selling Telstra to pay for Government Workers unfunded Super. (A crime in itself).
The basis for such a model is simple. Fibre to the node and exchanges remain government owned. Specifications can be argued is a group made from the ISP's with interest. Should the network age the ISP's can push for an upgrade. The Money comes from the ISP's and the local Community or State Government.
The reasoning is simple. The Leading ISP's who currently own the major components in Australia at least are charging between 4000% and 10,000% depending on the service used. The government owned model reduces this "data" component to about 1%. The cost recovery is distributed between State, Local government and the ISP's access charge.
It removes the ISP from funding its own local network and charging access and data.
It allows for higher specs on the hardware and data rates.
It removes the TAX deductible component for which investment is = to or less than 30% of profits, which also greatly limits investment to under 10% of income for an ISP.
It allows greater competition and a level playing field, the better companies will have faster help desk and support times, less downtime and faster connection times. It also allows an area specific ISP to operate in a smaller capacity to service the local people, employ local people and so on.
Having just Optus and Telstra as the only operators with Infrastructure of which Optus does not share leads to hijacking of competition, tangled government rulings and data costs that to most Australians is simply unfordable. To pay for 20mb/s connection and 20gb a month on Optus is $100. You can't watch video and are limited to extreme on content. Online services are not going to compete under these situations as most people have less than 10gb services.(around $55). - juniorb, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9Except when the public is demanding it and no business is willing to take the risk.
- Radan, on 07/25/2008, -4/+11Well, it all comes down to who is running the business. Here in Sweden almost everything that can be government funded is government funded, but still we got very up to date services. You just need to make sure your tax payments get spent properly.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is