Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–289 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#281

Post by seanp2k2 »

broadband432 wrote: post #245
pgrote wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. Whe…

If you give me your zip code or a surrounding zip code, I can assure you that I'll find more than 1 residential broadband provider in your area.

Ooh, that's funny. I guess you've never lived in apartments where your choice is between up-to-100mbit Comcast or 768K DSL from ATT. I guess LTE is also a choice for high speed if you want to use less than 5GB per month.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#282

Post by seanp2k2 »

broadband432 wrote: post #244
jeffbush wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my ZIP, four of the entries are cell phone providers (don't count), AT&T DSL which is listed as 10Mbps+ (I had it; it was only 900kbps), one that is business only (dedicated lines), and a "fixed wireless" provider that is pretty slow and expensive ...and Comcast, which is what I have because it's the only >5Mbps solution available to customers in my neighborhood. I live 15 minutes away from Google's main campus, s…

Why don't they count? AT&T and Verizon are also broadband providers. They're not dial up services. Isn't that the definition of broadband? The cell providers are listed under "Advertised Speeds Above 3 Mbps Data" or above. Just because Comcast has the fastest service doesn't mean it has a monopoly on broadband services. The vast majority of the American population don't need 100Mbps+ anyway. If they did, there would…

>"Why don't they count?" 900kbps from ADSL is not a choice against 30-100+ from DOCSIS

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#283

Post by seanp2k2 »

broadband432 wrote: post #241
FireBeyond wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh... For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers: 1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing) 2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried s…

For Olympia, WA, http://www.broadbandmap.gov/internet-service-providers/olymp... There's Comcast, Verizon, ATT, T-Mobile and a host of others. EDIT: Facts deserve downvotes?

I don't think anyone on HN is fooled into thinking there is much real competition between ISPs in the US because we've lived it and we know better.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#285

Post by shmerl »

tormeh wrote: post #260
jdmichal wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That site has... Interesting data. It seems to be granulated based on zip code. It shows, for mine: 1 cable provider 2 ADSL providers It shows FiOS also, but I can almost guarantee that there is no residence within this zip code that can get it. So, the real question is, how much do you consider ADSL "broadband"?

Considering most urban ADSL runs at 15/1Mbps standard it very much is broadband. I guess American providers just like having larger distances and thus lower speed on their wires, but there's nothing wrong with ADSL.

No. A lot of it can't go above 3 Mbps download. 15 is available only if you are very close to the box. So it's definitely not most.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#286

Post by duncan_bayne »

orthecreedence wrote: post #205
duncan_bayne wrote: post #107

From the perspective of a non-American, it's sad to see you taking _another_ step away from laissez-faire capitalism. In what world is it reasonable to take money from people by force and use it to compete with private business? If people want municipal broadband, let them form non-profits to provide it through voluntary donations. That should be legal, and if it's not, that'd be something to fix.

Wow, so much wrong with your statement. Obama isn't trying to rally all the states to create broadband that competes with the big telecoms, he's proposing we strike down laws that telecoms lobbied for that forces people not to form their own local broadband. So what we have currently is citizens being forced NOT to exercise the democratic process thanks to the efforts of large companies. That is laissez-faire capital…

You're wrong. The laws Obama is planning to strike down are entirely reasonable; they prevent people from being _compelled_ to fund municipal broadband. That is, there is a difference between:

a) some people setting up a non-profit to offer broadband, provided by voluntary donations, sponsorship, whatever

and

b) local Government taxing people to offer same

The former is as I understand it entirely legal, and entirely compatible with a free market.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#287

Post by whoisthemachine »

dang wrote: post #85
whoisthemachine wrote: post #17

That title is a little (may I say intentionally?) misleading, by leaving important context out. He is not proposing his government runs a high-speed internet project, he is proposing local municipalities be allowed to run high-speed internet projects, or rather, states be banned from banning them (confused yet?).

We changed the title to the more accurate and neutral one suggested by the article's URL.

Thanks!

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#288

Post by danans »

derekp7 wrote: post #261
danans wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tax-funded road built with the explicit the purpose of giving access to all three of these? Did the places exist there before the road, and if so, how did people get to them? Are the places located very close to each other or just coincidentally on the same road that stretches a long distance?

So I take it that you are agreeing that there is no fundamental difference between a road and the internet, when it comes to people complaining about the government using tax dollars to facilitate access to undesirable places?

Not sure what the downvotes were for. What I asked were honest questions about the road that was described. I think that are many similarities and differences between a road and the internet with regard to whether they should be tax funded.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#289

Post by swombat »

vidarh wrote: post #236
swombat wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of how it works in the UK, with BT being that last-mile provider for every UK ISP. Let me tell you: BT sucks. They are technically a private company, but operating with all the ills that a large governmental monolith has accumulated over decades. With the system you're proposing, you're basically creating a BT. Hopefully it's a small, city-specific BT so at least if one city has a very shitty infrastructu…

BT is not the last-mile provider for every UK ISP. For starters there's Virgin (cable), but there are also a growing number of smaller providers that bypass BT/OpenReach to provide both fibre and wireless services (LTE in particular) without it. And while I agree with about BT as a whole, OpenReach - the subsidiary of BT that handles the last-mile network - is very different from BT as a whole even though they certai…

4 out of 5 of the places I've lived in London had DSL but no cable, so for 80% of my experience in London BT was the onyl last mile provider available.

And yes, there are some new developments, there is some hope in the horizon.

Meanwhile, I regularly see tweets from people in, say, Norway, with gigabit internet access.

Post reply on HN