Comcast rejected by small town, residents vote for municipal fiber instead

Post by nonce413 » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #34

epoch_100 wrote: post #2

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

The best way is to let the city provide the last mile infrastructure (the connection between nearest POP and your house), and then lease it to ISPs for a fee to maintain it. That way we once again can have competition like during the time DSL was popular (telcos were required to lease their wires, that's why there was so much choice of ISP for anyone who remembers early 2000)

Post by kodablah » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:31 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #107

bliblah wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that in this case because this is a more "local" power you, the consumer/voter, actually have the power to hold them liable. Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest and comcast screws you over, what are you going to do? They only answer to Stockholders and "big fish" markets. Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easi…

> Imagine living in a Town with less than 2.5k people living in rural midwest... And: > Elected officials care and respond to votes and the smaller the area of control, the easier it is to get your voice heard... I think either you haven't lived in such a town, or small towns in Wisconsin, where I'm from, are atypical in this regard. Not sure which, since I've never personally lived in any small town outside of Wisco…

Post by kodablah » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

quasse wrote: post #57

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution? Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.

That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.

Post by briandear » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #49

Shivetya wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do people assume a local government will be the end all to services? they can be likely just as bad and when they decided your neighborhood isn't a priority you will have little to no recourse. I do like the town's propose internet speeds and conditions compared to comcast but look at the extra money listed in the article. nearly a million had already been spend to map out the deployment and it will be another mi…

You realize the people who will be taxed over this agreed to it? > throw in that any project past a few years will see the costs explode and this will mean that many will never see their new internet any time soon. Speculation. > it will be interesting what protections are built into the system that prevent the government from tracking the habits of the residents using the service. The same protections you'd get from…

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:55 PM UTC

bronco21016 wrote: post #86

I hate Comcast with a passion and have always fantasized about living in a progressive municipality that provides fiber to the home. However, a few years ago I bought a home and it’s only been over the last 6 months or so I’ve realized how horribly corrupt and mismanaged small city governments can be. We’re being sucked dry by our mayor who hired her cousin as city manager for an exorbitant compensation package. They…