FRINGE posted:

A big flaming stink posted:

correct me if I'm wrong fishmech, but the main thrust of your argument is that telecoms' lovely behavior is not notably lovely, but rather lovely in the banal way that almost all corporations in a capitalistic system are, right?

sort of a redux of the monsanto argument

Valhawk posted:

I don't get it. If you're arguing they're acting lovely like company's in capitalist systems do then why are you opposed to strong regulation, aka the only thing that can rein in capitalist excesses. It seems like the most logical outcome of your argument is that they should be subjected to full Title II rules with no Forbearance, and probably broken up in anti-trust actions as well.

Kalman posted:

One reason - because they don't want to have to submit service changes (including adding service lines) for approval by the FCC ahead of time, like they would if Title II applied.

Second reason - unlike most companies, common carriers have to pay attorneys fees whenever they're found in violation of title II.

Third reason - common carriers have to file all their charges/fees with the commission four months prior to changing those fees. The FCC can approve or reject those charges. If anyone complains, the FCC can suspend the change until they finish a hearing. (FCC hearings are not fast.)

The whole "regulatory burden" argument you hear from Republicans is usually bullshit - but common carriers actually do operate under significant regulatory burdens that do affect their ability to offer competitive services.

Valhawk posted:

I don't get it. If you're arguing they're acting lovely like company's in capitalist systems do then why are you opposed to strong regulation, aka the only thing that can rein in capitalist excesses. It seems like the most logical outcome of your argument is that they should be subjected to full Title II rules with no Forbearance, and probably broken up in anti-trust actions as well.

down with slavery posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-own-broadband/

Shame Comcast is spending millions here on elections when they could have just upgraded their networks.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Cite your "never upgraded networks" allegation.

down with slavery posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-own-broadband/

Shame Comcast is spending millions here on elections when they could have just upgraded their networks.

quote:

Comcast, the state's largest cable provider, did not fight the referendum

down with slavery posted:

I never said they didn't upgrade the networks. Vote's over, all I'm saying is they(CenturyLink/Comcast) would have been better off spending their political contributions over the past decade on their networks instead. Maybe they'd still have the contract.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Well they didn't spend it on the thing you're whining at so...

ayn rand hand job posted:

down with slavery posted:

I never said they didn't upgrade the networks. Vote's over, all I'm saying is they(CenturyLink/Comcast) would have been better off spending their political contributions over the past decade on their networks instead. Maybe they'd still have the contract.

down with slavery posted:

Whining at? It's awesome, we're kicking them out to bring in locally run fiber. No whining here, just celebration.



Local politics kinda owns tbqh, way more fun than national level bullshit.

Nintendo Kid posted:

You're not kicking them out, moron. You will eventually have a fiber provider in the towns but Comcast isn't going anywhere.

quote:

NextLight will be available at a Charter Member rate for residential users who sign up within three months of NextLight reaching their neighborhood. Charter Members will get 1 Gbps service for $49.95 a month; the normal rate would be $99.95. Customers who become Charter Members will keep that status for as long as they subscribe, and will even be able to sell their home with the Charter Subscription.

Nintendo Kid posted:

So yeah you were wrong about everything from "comcast fought this" to "comcast is out". Thanks for confirming!

quote:

In an email, Comcast Vice President for Public Relations Cindy Parsons said the cable and Internet provider does not believe broadband service is a good use of municipal resources.

"Comcast does not believe that government-owned networks are a good use of municipal funds in areas where the private market is already providing services," she wrote. "To the extent such deployments occur, they should be targeted to unserved areas and managed as a commercial enterprise without subsidization and subject to the same rules as a private provider.

"Government entry into direct ownership of broadband facilities is risky and costly— especially at a time when other priorities, like transportation infrastructure, desperately need public funds," she added. "Building, maintaining, and upgrading a broadband network is a complex endeavor requiring enormous funds and experience."

quote:

Telecommunications companies spent $245,000 to defeat Longmont's first attempt to get voter approval for citywide fiber optic in 2009, making it the city's most expensive election ever at the time. In 2011, opponents spent $420,000, but voters approved the measure by 61 percent.

down with slavery posted:

This actually isn't the first bill regarding this issue, whether or not you want to believe they haven't fought this is up to you, my mailbox says otherwise. Either way, Comcast is effectively out of the internet game once reasonable competition shows up. Much like the rest of America.

CommieGIR posted:

Its not like they won't run any competition out of the market before that happens.

....oh wait...

quote:

Katie Fleming Dahl, associate director of Colorado Common Cause and a member of the Yes on 2C steering committee, said her organization sees Internet service as a utility to which people have a right and an important tool for participation in the democratic process.

Common Cause is a liberal advocacy group that focuses on government transparency. The organization has made equitable internet access and net neutrality among its key issues. Net neutrality means that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. For example, a telecommunications company could not set up a competitor service to Netflix and deliberately slow down Netflix content. Community groups organizing around political causes would have the same ability to move data as private companies.

"We think Inernet is a utility, and we think it is critical to participate in democracy," Dahl said. "We think everyone should have high-speed access, and we think it should be the highest speeds at the lowest cost. We don't care who is providing it as long as it is there. It could be public, private or a public-private partnership."

down with slavery posted:

How exactly do they run the city out of competing? Like I said, it's working in other local markets.

The answer isn't to wait for Google to show up and save they day, get politically active locally and work towards building your own fiber network. The big companies simply aren't going to do it without being absolutely forced to (and in the case here, they don't even try to compete with local fiber)

This lady gets it (too bad the editors for the camera suck so bad, misspelled her quote):

CommieGIR posted:

Aw, someone who still doesn't understand Citizens United.