Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition- Owning your own utility pole

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2016 9:38 PM GMT
    I am really sick and tired of this bullshit. I finally get Verizon Fios available in my area code. They have a great introductory price and plan. I go to call and order and they tell me their service is not available to MY APARTMENT UNIT.

    They continue to tell me that per local government regulation, that one cable and one fiber ISP is allowed per unit or dwelling. Im like WTF is this? Where is the competition? Shouldn't the customer be the one to choose the ISP? This means my neighbor across the street, in the same area code maybe able to get the better deal with Verizon because someone in the city decided that this building should have it and not that building. icon_eek.gif

    "Introductory offers" have both expired with the "assigned" ISP's to my building, namely Time Warner for cable and ATT for fiber. I now have to pay full price for either or reduce the coverage (less channels or less internet speed) in order to pay for the same I previously had. From what I have read here, I am LUCKY to have at least 2 ISP's to choose from while some people are still stuck with one icon_twisted.gif


    I just sent a bitchy email to the mayor of Los Angeles, requesting to open the god dam ISP market icon_twisted.gif


    End of rant..............


    http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

    Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.


    GAME OF KICKBACKS

    Deploying broadband infrastructure isn’t as simple as merely laying wires underground: that’s the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn’t happen — is the pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.

    Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2016 9:52 PM GMT
    Google Fiber plans expansion into Los Angeles but with these city restrictions, dwelling to dwelling, bringing Google Fiber to Los Angeles will be useless for most residents because most residential buildings are already "locked" into their ISP's. I assume, new residential housing such as downtown Los Angeles will be the first to get Google Fiber as an option. (and probably Charter after they buy Time Warner). But what about existing residents that are stuck with shit for ISP's?

    Who or whom within the city government, picks which ISP will be allowed in what neighborhood and its buildings?

    That my friend, is a whole lot of power icon_eek.gif

    https://fiber.google.com/about/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2016 1:49 AM GMT
    Cities allow cable companies to have monopolies. That's why there is only one cable provider in a given city or township. Verizon is able to offer DSL and Fiber within a cable company's territory because they are technically considered a telecom provider, and not a "cable tv" provider.

    As for your situation, blame your landlord. He probably has a sweet deal with the local cable company. If you absolutely must have Fios, move into a smaller apartment owned be a person and not a corporation. Last place I lived in was a triplex and was able to get Fios hooked up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2016 2:36 AM GMT
    xrichx saidCities allow cable companies to have monopolies. That's why there is only one cable provider in a given city or township. Verizon is able to offer DSL and Fiber within a cable company's territory because they are technically considered a telecom provider, and not a "cable tv" provider.

    As for your situation, blame your landlord. He probably has a sweet deal with the local cable company. If you absolutely must have Fios, move into a smaller apartment owned be a person and not a corporation. Last place I lived in was a triplex and was able to get Fios hooked up.




    You know the story, the building owner will just blame city government, that "he doesn't have a choice" in the matter and from what I have read, that is probably true (mostly).

    If the building owner was say, an civil rights activist, he/she could probably attend those city-public meetings and demand that city counsel pass or change these laws that restrict residential ISP choices. But this would take entire neighborhoods to revolt and or property owners gathering to change laws for the good of all people.

    But how many property owners really care enough about the people they rent or lease too? The percentage is probably really low. Meanwhile, I am sure property owners themselves have no problem getting any ISP they want, within their own luxury communities. Because we know, money talks.

    The city government seems to be the one controlling ISP's, where they go and who gets what. But if you got enough money, sounds like you can get just about any ISP you want, but then again, if you have enough money, you don't care how much you have to pay for an ISP, its always the little guy who gets screwed icon_confused.gif
  • SargeKO

    Posts: 42

    Mar 05, 2016 1:14 PM GMT
    Local governments aren't the problem. The Federal Communications Commission is the culprit. It is another autonomous element of the ever-growing encroachment that is our Federal Government. Don't worry. The Government will give you everything you need. They know what that is, and how best to provide you those services. Bigger Government will make you happier and safer. Right.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Mar 05, 2016 2:57 PM GMT
    SargeFight saidLocal governments aren't the problem. The Federal Communications Commission is the culprit. It is another autonomous element of the ever-growing encroachment that is our Federal Government. Don't worry. The Government will give you everything you need. They know what that is, and how best to provide you those services. Bigger Government will make you happier and safer. Right.
    Dont forget some of the state governments as well especially the "blue wall" states like New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. they all regulate and tax every damned thing to death because state politicians like their local, regional, and federal counterparts, they cannot get their goddamned fill of money.icon_evil.gif
  • jjguy05

    Posts: 459

    Mar 07, 2016 7:38 AM GMT
    SargeFight saidLocal governments aren't the problem. The Federal Communications Commission is the culprit.


    How?
  • jjguy05

    Posts: 459

    Mar 07, 2016 7:40 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidDont forget some of the state governments as well especially the "blue wall" states like New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. they all regulate and tax every damned thing to death because they have to make up for the gaping holes left in their budgets after heavily subsidizing the poorer red states.icon_evil.gif


    ^^ Fixed your quote.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2016 4:05 PM GMT
    A thought on 'competition' in the market bringing down prices.

    Multiple choice:

    Major corporations grow in size by:
    a: lobbying their legislature (local, state or federal) for tax incentives and public support.
    b: offering better products/services through their own-funded R&D
    c: buy other businesses so as to increase their market share
    d: all of the above
    e: none of the above

    Can you name a corporation that has gained its current market share through solely being more competitive and offering better products/services than its competitors? Or did it reach its current market share via acquisition and buying up existing competitors (thereby decreasing competition)?

    Though the mantra of US propaganda is 'competition', and that the 'monopoly' of state-run enterprises (i.e., communism) is bad for an economy, isn't it ironic that America has nothing but businesses that want to monopolize an industry or market segment, and our elected officials seem all too eager to assist them to that end? So much for practicing what is preached. If we truly practiced what we preached, no banks would be 'too large to fail', meaning our elected officials won't let them fail, and if the banks get into financial straits, the taxpayer will bail them out (yet again). So much for free enterprise and market-based business solutions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2016 5:13 PM GMT
    SargeFight saidLocal governments aren't the problem. The Federal Communications Commission is the culprit. It is another autonomous element of the ever-growing encroachment that is our Federal Government. Don't worry. The Government will give you everything you need. They know what that is, and how best to provide you those services. Bigger Government will make you happier and safer. Right.


    Government is yet another legal monopoly with a mediocre product.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2016 4:46 PM GMT
    'Government' - does it mean only that entity which is associated with administering a society's legal structure? Or does in include all possible entities which 'govern' something, i.e., Board of Directors of a corporation, Trustees of a non-profit, the local soccer association, etc.?

    In all of the above scenarios, if we don't have 'government' then nothing gets done. I'm not arguing for 'government' the way most nations of the world currently experience being governed. But if you want to get rid of 'government', with what will you replace it? Anarchy? Free will? Mob justice?

    It should be obvious to see, after you take only a few minutes to read about corporate failings from financial to product development, that any group of people who have come together to 'govern' something most likely end up becoming an ineffective bureaucracy - it doesn't matter if the group is 'private' and for profit, a non-profit, or an elected body to deal with political structures. GM definitely springs to mind as an ineffective bureaucracy, or Enron, or GE, or Boeing, or Kodak, or VW, or Trump Enterprises (3 bankruptcies), or Bear Sterns, or AIG, or ..... (add your list of failed corporations, or corporations which have had to be bailed out by the taxpayer).

    When you criticize 'government', offer what will replace it as a means to handle/deal with the duties/responsibilities which are put under that groups' 'control'.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Mar 08, 2016 4:55 PM GMT
    jjguy05 said
    roadbikeRob saidDont forget some of the state governments as well especially the "blue wall" states like New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. they all regulate and tax every damned thing to death because they have to make up for the gaping holes left in their budgets after heavily subsidizing the poorer red states.icon_evil.gif


    ^^ Fixed your quote.


    Your fixing is dead wrong. It is the mismanagement in these blue states along with all their free handouts that is causing the excessively high tax burden. The poorer red republican states have absolutely nothing to do with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2016 6:19 AM GMT
    If a rural/less populated state or part of a state has federal highways or state highways going through it, who pays for those miles of blacktop in rural/lightly populated counties? The rural citizens or the urban citizens? Take WA state as a great example - the west side of the Cascades has about 1/2 the land but 3 times the population. So the west side has roughly 24,000 sq miles and 5.1 million people. The east side has about 48,000 sq miles and 1.7 million people. Who pays for all the roads in that 48,000 sq miles? Conversely, where do the 5.1 million get a lot of their food from? Both sides of the state or dependent on the other. Another example of how the two sides are connected, about 40% of Seattle's electricity comes from a dam in the northeast corner of the state - so over 300 miles of line carry it from the dam to the Seattle City Light customers. For all the rural cries of self-dependence, much of their ability to live as they do comes from the tax support of the urban/industrial areas. Another fun fact - WA is currently the third most populated state west of the Mississippi.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 09, 2016 3:32 PM GMT
    My bad - I didn't stick to topic of OP. But, easily tied in to the above comments - who pays to connect rural America on fiber optic, cellular, etc.? The rural citizens, or do the urban populations pay a higher fee to cover the cost of the rural installation?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14335

    Mar 09, 2016 11:55 PM GMT
    CrabNebula saidIf a rural/less populated state or part of a state has federal highways or state highways going through it, who pays for those miles of blacktop in rural/lightly populated counties? The rural citizens or the urban citizens? Take WA state as a great example - the west side of the Cascades has about 1/2 the land but 3 times the population. So the west side has roughly 24,000 sq miles and 5.1 million people. The east side has about 48,000 sq miles and 1.7 million people. Who pays for all the roads in that 48,000 sq miles? Conversely, where do the 5.1 million get a lot of their food from? Both sides of the state or dependent on the other. Another example of how the two sides are connected, about 40% of Seattle's electricity comes from a dam in the northeast corner of the state - so over 300 miles of line carry it from the dam to the Seattle City Light customers. For all the rural cries of self-dependence, much of their ability to live as they do comes from the tax support of the urban/industrial areas. Another fun fact - WA is currently the third most populated state west of the Mississippi.
    That still doesn't change the true fact that the blue democratic states are much more mismanaged and overtaxed with a lot more political chicanery than most of the red republican states. I live in a horribly mismanaged blue democratic state, New York one of the nation's worst in terms of corruption and taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 12, 2016 1:00 AM GMT

    This is why I have limited ISP choice, fighting over utility poles? Are the poles numbered to show ownership? What the hell is a privately owned utility pole, can I buy one for myself? icon_eek.gif




    Google fights AT&T, Comcast over Bay Area Google Fiber service
    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29625647/google-fights-at-t-comcast-over-google-fiber

    Mountain View-based Google has been fighting before the California Public Utilities Commission for the right to use publicly and privately owned utility poles because burying fiber cables is expensive and in places impossible. AT&T and the cable TV association representing Comcast and Time Warner Cable have told state regulators that Google has no such right. And Google contends that a group that controls many Bay Area utility poles, and includes Google competitors as members, also has been blocking access to the poles.

    In San Francisco, the only California city where Google has committed to providing blazing fast Internet, the company will lease a small fiber network, eliminating the pole problem -- for now. In the five other Silicon Valley cities where Google is working with officials on plans to install its own fiber, pole access appears secure in Palo Alto and Santa Clara, but shaky in San Jose, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Expansion beyond the small initial project in San Francisco -- which bested San Jose in the race to be the first in the state to get Google Fiber -- appears problematic.

    An array of laws gives telecommunications companies and cable-TV firms the right to use publicly and privately owned utility poles, typically with per-pole fees. Google sells a TV-Internet Google Fiber package and claims status as a cable TV company. The PUC agrees.

    Time Warner Cable declined to comment on the pole conflict. AT&T has also argued before state regulators that Google isn't a cable-TV company. But AT&T has a 2014 agreement with Google that allows the Internet giant to access AT&T poles anywhere in the U.S., and the companies have specific licensing agreements covering Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Mountain View, said AT&T spokesperson Dan Conway.