Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

[boutons_deux]

public resource monopolies screw the public:

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ou-nice-things

America is ed and un able.

AT&T: Mega Mergers And Anti-Compe ive Behavior Are Bad...Unless It's Us Doing It


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...doing-it.shtml

where is compe ion delivering real advances and huge value for money? automobiles

[boutons_deux]

Colorado unshackles cities, lifts ban on govt-owned muni broadband

Voters in Colorado have abolished laws that had prohibited local governments from offering their own broadband internet services.

Local ballots in 17 counties all resulted in voters electing to allow their local governments to offer broadband service in compe ion with private cable companies. The vote overturns a 2005 law that prevented any government agency from competing in the broadband space.

Originally intended to encourage private companies to thrive, the laws have been blamed for keeping high-speed internet out of rural communities and other areas where private companies don't have an incentive to lay high-speed lines.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11...broadband_ban/

And Texas "freedom"?

[ChumpDumper]

those of you clowns on cable...i assume u clowns are on docsis 3.1 technology = 1gb+ speeds

Not here yet. 3.0 tops out at 300mbps in Austin.

[Winehole23]

Minnesota sees a broader public benefit to subsidizing rural internet. Is it possible there's an upside to redistributive policies, i.e, broader public benefits that outstrip the initial expense?

If no, what the is government for?

Rural interests and state legislators are banding together behind a proposal to inject $100 million into expanding high-speed Internet access across Minnesota.

They say the funding would put a dent in the $3.2 billion needed to complete the job.


"Our proposed $100 million Border-to-Border Broadband Fund promises to extend vital broadband connectivity to underserved areas of the state by promoting partnerships that leverage significant state, local and private investment," said Sen. Matt Schmit, D-Red Wing, who has traveled the state discussing broadband.


The effort is a start on what supporters say is $3.2 billion needed to help rural Minnesotans get access to high-speed Internet, something they say is needed to compete with their urban cousins.


The Greater Minnesota Partnership says that if 95 percent of Minnesotans had access to high-quality broadband, it would boost the state economy $1 billion.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...speed-internet

[boutons_deux]

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed 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 forslow, expensive internet access without compe ion.

AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing compe ion, 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 CesarConda, a lobbyist who previously served as Rubio’s chief of staff. Registration do ents show that Conda now represents AT&T.


https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-pushes-to-block-low-cost-high-speed-broadband/

[DMC]

Some areas in RR got AT&T fiber optics I read recently. I wonder if they are going to lease these out to people like TW.

[boutons_deux]

Some areas in RR got AT&T fiber optics I read recently. I wonder if they are going to lease these out to people like TW.

most cable companies have been fiber to pole for years, certainly in newer deployments. CATV is really old .

[DMC]

most cable companies have been fiber to pole for years, certainly in newer deployments. CATV is really old .

Once again has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Your answer:

It's been that way for years.

My question:

I wonder if TW will lease the NEW fiber optics.

[ChumpDumper]

Some areas in RR got AT&T fiber optics I read recently. I wonder if they are going to lease these out to people like TW.

I don't see why they would but I guess if they stop giving a about expanding "Gigapower" after acquiring DirecTV, maybe.

[DMC]

I don't see why they would but I guess if they stop giving a about expanding "Gigapower" after acquiring DirecTV, maybe.

Gigapower blows. I don't want to pay 30 extra a month to keep them from spying on me. Not that they aren't already.

[Wild Cobra]

Marco Rubio Pushes to Block Low-Cost, High-Speed 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 forslow, expensive internet access without compe ion.

AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing compe ion, 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 CesarConda, a lobbyist who previously served as Rubio’s chief of staff. Registration do ents show that Conda now represents AT&T.


https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-pushes-to-block-low-cost-high-speed-broadband/

So B- . I know you read the legislation, so how about linking the relevant parts, instead of giving us a pundits take on it.

I'll bet the resistance is undercutting business with tax payer money.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting.

The letter is signed by eight senators. It has to do with the FCC stepping on the 10th amendment, and unfunded mandates to the states.

[boutons_deux]

Interesting.

The letter is signed by eight senators. It has to do with the FCC stepping on the 10th amendment, and unfunded mandates to the states.

tenthers! red states! slave states!

free markets always provide the perfect solution (for screwing customers)! but monopolies screw 'em much harder, deeper!

how is FCC allowing municipalities to run their own networks a federal, unfunded mandate?

Not Chattanooga, nor any municipality with its own network, was mandated by FCC to build its network.

the questions missing are:

"what BigCorps are paying for rural broadband out of their own pocket without USF subsidies?"

"where are the rural areas with rural broadband (DSL, not even fiber) provided by BigCorps?"

the Rubio letter is nothing but BigNetworkCorp Repug s doing tricks for their johns.

unfunded mandates from FCC?

[boutons_deux]

FCC loses court battle to let cities build their own broadband

The Federal Communications Commission's plan to let cities build their own broadband networks hit a major roadblock today, as a federal appellate court ruled that the commission was overstepping its authority. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said today that the FCC is not able to, essentially, remove state laws that prevent the construction of municipal broadband networks, as it attempted to do in Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee last year.

Both Wilson and Chattanooga had pe ioned the FCC for permission to build out their own broadband networks — a measure some cities are turning to in order to increase compe ion among internet providers, who often hold regional monopolies and more or less refuse to compete. State laws, however, prevented them from doing so; that's the case in 19 states in total, all of which could have been affected by future FCC orders had the court ruled in its favor.

"WE CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE DECISION."

The FCC had argued it had the power to preempt state law when it comes to "remov[ing] barriers to broadband investment and compe ion," as is directed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, the commission is not explicitly granted permission to overrule the states like this. And while government agencies are generally given deference to interpret their own powers where a law has left them unclear, the court determined that isn't the case in this situation. That's because it would be going so far as to overrule a state law, and that, the court said, requires an agency's power to be clearly stated in federal law.

The ruling does not bode well for the FCC's municipal broadband plans.

The commission could ask the full court to hear the case, but three judges have already ruled against it.

It could also try appealing up to the Supreme Court, where it risks facing a court with an empty seat. The commission has not yet indicated what its next steps are, but it sounds generally defeated by today's decision.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/10/12...ppellate-court

So I minority of the court can deny the case from being heard by the full court?

BigCorp sucking wealth from, gouging Americans.

Will Dems write a bill to stop BigTelecom from blocking "free market" compe ion.

[Winehole23]

FCC throws in the towel:

While over-shadowed by the net neutrality vote the same day, the FCC's decision last year to protect municipal broadband was potentially more important. For more than fifteen years in bent ISPs have quite literally been allowed to buy state laws that hinder communities from improving their broadband networks, or even in some instances from striking public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. These protectionist laws, passed in nineteen different states, are a huge reason why you currently only have the choice of one ty cable provider and one ty telco for broadband service (if you're lucky).


The FCC originally believed it could use its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely broadband deployment" to strike down the most restrictive portions of these laws. But as we noted earlier this month, an appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have this authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. And in speaking with the New York Times this week, the agency stated for the first time publicly that this is a fight it won't be pursuing further:

"The F.C.C. does not plan to appeal the federal court’s decision “after determining that doing so would not be the best use of commission resources,” Mark Wigfield, a spokesman for the agency, said in a statement. That means municipalities that want to keep expanding their municipal broadband networks will have to fight to overturn state laws on their own."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...nd-fight.shtml

[boutons_deux]

Comcast Joins AT&T, Files Lawsuit Against Nashville To Slow Google Fiber


ISPs like AT&T feel threatened by anything that could speed up compe ion in these stagnant markets, so it has been suing cities like Louisville and Nashville for trying to do so.

Comcast has decided to join the fun, and has now filed its own lawsuit against the city of Nashville (pdf), claiming that these reform efforts "upset the existing, carefully designed make-ready process" allowing "encroaching attachers" to move Comcast gear with "only" fifteen days previous notice. This, Comcast claims, will result in "significant, irreparable injury" to the cable giant:

"...Comcast will suffer significant, irreparable injury to its property, operations, and customer relationships.

By departing from the carefully balanced approach to the make-ready process embraced by Comcast’s contract with Metro Nashville and the comprehensive Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulatory framework, Metro Nashville’s Ordinance exposes Comcast’s network equipment to serious risk.

It permits third parties to encroach upon, move, and potentially damage Comcast’s equipment,

thereby imposing significant costs on Comcast and threatening interference with customers’ services and emergency communications—while offering Comcast no way to protect against these harms or even seek recourse after the fact.

Well, no. These aren't just errant idiots running around ripping and replacing expensive telecom gear like meth-addicted copper thieves.

These are licensed and insured contractors doing the work; in many instances likely the same exact technicians Comcast uses for its own pole work.

Comcast previously has tried to claim that network outages would jump 50% or more

if this reform passes, but there's really no evidence to support this claim.

AT&T, meanwhile, has tried to accuse Google Fiber of government favoritism for pursuing these reforms, ignoring not only that the plan has the overwhelming support of the public, but the fact that

AT&T has enjoyed decades as a government-pampered monopolist that quite literally gets to write protectionist state telecom law (when it isn't busy bone-grafting itself to the country's ever-expanding domestic surveillance apparatus).

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161026/07362935891/comcast-joins-att-files-lawsuit-against-nashville-to-slow-google-fiber.shtml

ing corporate lawyers are lowest of the low, putting any bull n paper that their corporate johns demand.

[Wild Cobra]

My question, though it will be poorly expressed, is basically this...

Will Google Fiber pay for itself, or is it an intended loss, to take away market share at a negative profit, just to boost rates later... Maybe greater than the now dead compe ion?

It would be immoral for one corporation to cripple others in such manners.

Does anyone believe Google is a more moral corporation than others?

[Wild Cobra]

I forget the exact numbers, but I believe Comcast made an annual profit of about $0.85 per share, and paid over $1.00/share in taxes. At about $65/share, does anyone think the profit is excessive?

[boutons_deux]

It would be immoral for one corporation to cripple others in such manners.

immoral?

in business?

profit seeking, capital ac ulation are totally immune to, indifferent to ethics, morality.

[boutons_deux]

Broadband Compe ion Helps to Drive Lower Prices andFaster Download Speeds for U.S. Residential Consumers

-The presence of gigabit service in a market is associated with a $27 decrease in the average monthly price of broadband plans with speeds of 100Mbps or greater but less than 1Gbps. That's a 25 percent price reduction.

-Markets with gigabit Internet also see smaller price decreases for plans as slow as 25Mbps. The presence of gigabit Internet has no significant effect on prices of plans with speeds below 25Mbps. This isn't that surprising since the slowest plans are already the cheapest and aren't suitable subs utes for gigabit speeds.

-Gigabit prices decline when at least two providers offer gigabit service. "If a DMA moves from having one to two providers of gigabit Internet, we estimate that the standard monthly price for gigabit Internet will decline by approximately $57 to $62, which is equal to a reduction in price of between 34 and 37 percent," the study said. Going from one to three gigabit compe ors would reduce prices by an estimated $98.11 to $106.50 per month.

-Compe ion at any speed reduces prices. "An increase of one compe or is associated with approximately a $1.50 decline in the monthly standard broadband price for Internet plans with speeds ranging from 50Mbps to less than 1Gbps," the study said. For plans with download speeds of less than 25Mbps, the decrease in average monthly price is $0.42 for each compe or.

-Availability of fast speeds increases the likelihood that other ISPs will introduce their own higher-speed plans to match compe ors. "In particular, we find that each additional compe or offering broadband in a higher speed category will increase the probability that other broadband providers in the market will offer broadband at those higher speeds by 4 to 17 percent on an annual basis," the study said.

-Average monthly prices for each speed category are as follows: $52.60 for speeds less than 25Mbps; $74.05 for plans from 25Mbps to 99Mbps; $108.52 for plans of least 100Mbps but less than 1Gbps; and $165.63 for speeds of at least 1Gbps.


http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploade...ember_2016.pdf

Expect Repugs to approve any and all consolidations of BigNetworkCorp, because Repugs HATE compe ion and free markets.

[DMC]

immoral?

in business?

profit seeking, capital ac ulation are totally immune to, indifferent to ethics, morality.

Ethics and morality.. lol

As if you wouldn't stomp a kitten to death for 20 dollars.

[spurraider21]

As if you wouldn't stomp a kitten to death for 20 dollars.

it's fine if you're a piece of , no need to project it onto others to justify your being a piece of though

[DMC]

it's fine if you're a piece of , no need to project it onto others to justify your being a piece of though

You follow me around like a scorned thot trying to sniff the sex.

[Will Hunting]

I forget the exact numbers, but I believe Comcast made an annual profit of about $0.85 per share, and paid over $1.00/share in taxes. At about $65/share, does anyone think the profit is excessive?

Comcast's trailing 12 month earnings per share is $3.41.

You're a ing idiot, as usual.

[DMC]

Comcast's trailing 12 month earnings per share is $3.41.

You're a ing idiot, as usual.

Pretty sure Wild is looking at diluted EPS for a quarter and saw enough to make him use the "I forget the exact numbers" as if he read it in the WSJ many months ago. He just Googled it and played that "interesting man" card again, that fools no one.