Bill to ban muni broadband

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by teh603

Is the infrastructure provider allowed to charge the service providers for access and maintenance?

I have no idea, I'm afraid. I don't know of any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to make such charges, if they are reasonable.

The point is, though, that the infrastructure provider is required to make the SAME charges to other companies as they do to themselves. Thus, BT Wholesale is not allowed to charge any more for, say, a 1GB broadband "pipe" to another ISP than they charge BT Broadband for it.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Also in the UK, the national telephone company, British Telecom, provides the ADSL broadband infrastructure, but, although they are an ISP themselves (the biggest ISP in the country, in fact), they are also required by law to act as a wholesaler and sell Internet bandwidth to all other ISPs at the same price they sell it to themselves at (ie "BT Wholesale" is legally a separate company from "BT Broadband").

It's very easy to separate the infrastructure provider from the service provider.

So what about people who live too far from the switching station to use DSL? Does Britain have any other type of High Speed Internet available? Or do those people just do without Internet Access?

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

So what about people who live too far from the switching station to use DSL? Does Britain have any other type of High Speed Internet available? Or do those people just do without Internet Access?

Shari

Over 99.9% of the UK population is connected to an ADSL-enabled exchange. There are indeed rural communities which are too far from the telephone exchange to get ADSL. They either use old-fashioned dial-up, use satellite internet (VERY expensive), or, in a few cases, communities have got together to install their own internet backbone, often fibre-based, and very high speed.

Cable is available to some, but generally only to people in larger towns (it's not available where I live).

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Over 99.9% of the UK population is connected to an ADSL-enabled exchange. There are indeed rural communities which are too far from the telephone exchange to get ADSL. They either use old-fashioned dial-up, use satellite internet (VERY expensive), or, in a few cases, communities have got together to install their own internet backbone, often fibre-based, and very high speed.

Cable is available to some, but generally only to people in larger towns (it's not available where I live).

So do you use a satellite dish for your television? Or an antenna on the roof?

Shari

[HarryT]

I personally stick with the free terrestrial broadcast TV (ie through an aerial on the roof) which, since the switch to digital transmissions a few years ago, gets me around 50 or so channels. There's a very big and extremely successful satellite TV operator in the UK, called "Sky", which is a subscription service. Very good for films and sport.

[tubemonkey]

TV = Netflix, Hulu Plus, YouTube, etc

[shalym]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

TV = Netflix, Hulu Plus, YouTube, etc

That only works for people who do have access to unmetered broadband. The problem that this thread is discussing are the people who don't have that access, and unlike in Great Britain, it's a much higher number than .01% in the US that couldn't get high speed internet access (other than satellite, which I don't even really consider to count as "high speed") no matter how much they want to pay. There are quite a few towns in New England that don't have access to High Speed Internet or Cable television, and New England is a pretty highly-populated area. It's even worse in other parts of the country. These are the areas where the mayors and town councils want to bring in their own wires and provide the internet access, but the other providers are trying to pass a law to make this illegal.

Shari

[forgottenbooks]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Why not ban municipal water and sewer while we are at it?

LOL

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It is an essential service because in a world where so much is being done via the internet, people who don't have it are at a disadvantage.

Well said!
It's kind of like publicly funding Libraries to promote universal literacy. I guess you could call it "universal computer literacy", in this case.

What may have started out as a luxury good has now become a public utility. Expect to hear screams from the companies losing their old government-granted monopolies! Of course they'll do what they can to suppress their competition, and scream "creeping socialism", since it's publicly-funded.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I personally stick with the free terrestrial broadcast TV (ie through an aerial on the roof) which, since the switch to digital transmissions a few years ago, gets me around 50 or so channels. There's a very big and extremely successful satellite TV operator in the UK, called "Sky", which is a subscription service. Very good for films and sport.

FreeSat also gives you the free terrestrial channels (plus a few more) but using a satellite dish instead of an arial if you are in a poor reception area (or you just want more HD).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

FreeSat also gives you the free terrestrial channels (plus a few more) but using a satellite dish instead of an arial if you are in a poor reception area (or you just want more HD).

Yes, indeed. I'm just a cheapskate .

[koland]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Because those are essential services with respect to public health. You cannot say the same about Internet service.

That said, I do believe that the citizen's within a municipality should determine whether or not municipal broadband goes ahead. Claiming otherwise would be denying democracy in preference of far more dangerous ideologies. Municipal broadband also has several advantages, ranging from lowering the digital divide to providing the foundations for economic development.

Actually, according to several govt regulations, it is an essential service.

Now that kids must have internet access to do schoolwork, they get added to the groups where it is a right (many of those on govt assistance, I suspect, along with their taxpayer paid cell phones they get now).

After all, cable tv is now a basic civil right for those in jail.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by koland

Now that kids must have internet access to do schoolwork, they get added to the groups where it is a right (many of those on govt assistance, I suspect, along with their taxpayer paid cell phones they get now).

I'd trust the government with our kids' education before I would a big business. Remember the joke about the guy who was born in a railroad town?

There's the good probability that a company "providing" education would charge a lot more than even a christian school, and would probably focus on math and science at the cost of the humanities and social scientists. It might even try to find a way to make sure that whatever skills the children learn can only be used working at that company. Instead of vendor lock-in, think employer lock-in.

As for taxpayer-paid cell phones, not a chance. The kids I see at work all have iPhones or something running Android.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by teh603

I'd trust the government with our kids' education before I would a big business. Remember the joke about the guy who was born in a railroad town?

There's the good probability that a company "providing" education would charge a lot more than even a christian school, and would probably focus on math and science at the cost
of the humanities and social scientists. It might even try to find a way to make sure that whatever skills the children learn can only be used working at that company. Instead of vendor lock-in, think employer lock-in.

As for taxpayer-paid cell phones, not a chance. The kids I see at work all have iPhones or something running Android.

No I don't remember a joke like that, is that something you would hear in a
teacher's lounge or union rally? If so that's probably why I never heard it.

If the "company's" business is providing an education and the parents are
paying (or using their voucher) at the school that they select, based on
their own criteria, what are you afraid of? You are aware that "Charter
School" companies receive less per pupil (and have better test results)
than the public/union/government schools receive per pupil? [See the
latest version of John Stossel's "Stupid In America" (the Fox version not
the ABC 20/20 version] The Fox version spends more time on this topic.

I would also certainly expect that there would be schools offering a more
practical curriculum that would "focus on math and science at the cost of
the humanities and social scientists", and that many would choose those,
over an education that provided little or nothing to support a technological
work environment.

The problem with having the government do it, is that they (at least here
in the USA) don't allow competition, and they have and use plenty of tools
to prevent any. (There are also politicians that can be persuaded to use
those tools to prevent or restrict any competition that a connected/favored
company may face, which is what this "Bill to ban muni broadband" sounds
like.)

Luck;
Ken