Regardless of political team dynamics, here's an article from early in the year showing the states that prevent competition from municipalities, because reasons.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/
I typed in the same thing for my zip code:
http://broadbandnow.com/New-York/Brooklyn?zip=11218
Verizon DSL: available in my building, but DSL sucks. I don't consider it real broadband. (less than 1MB/second)
Cablevision: This is my provider.
FiOS: No service in my building.
TWC: No service in my building.
RCN: No service in my building.
So I have one real internet provider and one really shitty internet provider. Since I want real internet that I can stream movies, etc, over, I have only once choice. This has been the case for every building I've lived in in NYC, btw. A choice between shitty DSL and one cable provider.
I would have to say that Cablevision is light years better than TWC, but that's like saying being punched in the face once is better than being punched in the face twice.
and your city and state are controlled by dems, for years and years and years, and you have plenty of laws on the books about everything, and its still not enough to keep you happy.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
In your world the answer is always more government. some government not enough, more government better.
First, this has been a bipartisan problem for a very long time. It's not about party, it's about a shitty system that both parties have allowed to continue.
Is it actually because of the conservative bogeyman, or are you just assuming those laws are due to conservatives just because it's something you don't like? As we all know, Democrats would NEVER do anything to favor big business...
Chattanooga, Tenn., may not be the first place that springs to mind when it comes to cutting-edge technology. But thanks to its ultra-high-speed Internet, the city has established itself as a center for innovation -- and an encouraging example for those frustrated with slow speeds and high costs from private broadband providers.
Chattanooga rolled out a fiber-optic network a few years ago that now offers speeds of up to 1000 Megabits per second, or 1 gigabit, for just $70 a month. A cheaper 100 Megabit plan costs $58 per month. Even the slower plan is still light-years ahead of the average U.S. connection speed, which stood at 9.8 megabits per second as of late last year, according to Akamai Technologies.
Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and her love for large corporate ISPs was all over the telecommunications media this week. She attempted to kneecap the FCC as it explores options to restore local telecommunications authority to communities. Blackburn introduced an amendment attacking local options as the House took up general appropriations bill H.R. 5016.
The amendment passed 223-200, primarily along party lines, with most Republican Reps voting with Blackburn and all but two Democrats opposing the amendment.
Democrats voting to support the amendment included Georgia's 12th District's John Barrow and Jim Matheson from Utah's 4th District. If either of these gentlemen represent you, take a moment to call their offices and point out their voting mistake.
Republicans that voted No were Mike Rogers and Mo Brooks from Alabama's 3rd and 5th Districts. Charles Boustany from the 3rd District in Louisiana and Chuck Fleischmann from the 3rd District in Tennessee (includes Chattanooga) also opposed the restriction. If these elected officials represent you, please take a moment to contact them and thank them for breaking ranks to support local authority.
When the bill was passed in the legislature the Republican Party was in control.South Carolina has become the latest state in the union to pass a state-level bill that effectively makes it difficult, if not impossible, for municipalities to create their own publicly owned Internet service provider that could compete with private corporations. The bill passed the South Carolina General Assembly and Senate on Wednesday and awaits the signature of the state’s governor.
"It’s not an absolute ban, but it makes it pretty tough," Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, a digital advocacy group, told Ars on Thursday.
Oddly, the bill also defines broadband as being "not less than one hundred ninety kilobits per second," which is pretty laughable by any measure. Municipal broadband watchers like Phillip Dampier also say that the bill’s passage shows the effective lobbying of AT&T, the state’s largest telco, who has contributed thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.
Lobbying from AT&T and conservative policy groups
Dampier and others also allege that the bill was crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative think-tank that lobbies local, state, and federal representatives to push for bills and craft ideal draft legislation that are conducive to its values. On its website, ALEC says that cities should not be allowed to create broadband utilities in competition with private corporations.
Aug. 19 - Two Democratic lawmakers called on the Federal Communications Commission Aug. 19 to preempt state laws that seek to thwart municipal broadband networks.
Their action came in response to a letter from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that maintained that the agency has the authority to intervene where states enact laws seen as anti-municipal broadband.
Regardless of political team dynamics, here's an article from early in the year showing the states that prevent competition from municipalities, because reasons.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/
I understand that, but that's a separate issue. If you want to end that, you need to Nationalize the Infrastructure. Create an agency in charge of Maintaining and Upgrading the lines. Fund them through usage fees of the ISPs and the selling of Licenses to all who want to Compete.
what would this tax be? a flat 1-3% on something that would allow for more diversity and choice, greater speeds and greater service, overall cheaper bills because there is actually competition?
I mean, what does it mean: cheaper bills, better service, even after a tax?
or is it enough to just scream: TAX!OMGTAX! to incite rage and bile and drool from the knuckledraggers?
seriously: that article doesn't say anything, plus this info comes from an FCC that pretty much wants to scare everyone away from Net Neutrality.
FCC official warns Obama-backed net neutrality plan would bring 'immediate' Internet tax
I'm shocked...shocked to find that a tax would be implemented. Why, it almost seems like the whole plan is a tax grab. But that couldn't be now, could it?
"...O'Reilly, a Republican on the five-member commission..."
Enough said. Yeah, trust Republicans...
Ooh goody! Youtube links because written words are hard!!
Haven't seen you lately, Stewox, did you have to get another job because Russia's economy is in the shiter?
You don't need to create a tax to push for actual competition. In fact thatt idea that you have to create a tax just to open up the market to more competitors is pretty ludicrous in its own right.
Especially considering that it is local and state governments which are holding back competition at the behest of the ISP giants in their respective states via regulatory, licensing and permitting processes that are design to dissuade or hinder competition from actually entering the market.
The solution is to attack the monopolies head on. The incumbent ISPs obviously have a huge advantage over any putative challengers: they've laid hundreds of thousands of miles of copper, coaxial cable, and fiber to homes and businesses across the country. This last mile network would cost many billions of dollars to replicate, not to mention causing substantial disruption every time a road has to be dug up.
But the solution to this is well-known and practiced in a number of countries around the world—including, at one time, the US: decouple Internet service provision from the last mile network. This is perhaps most abundant in the EU, where it goes by the name Local Loop Unbundling. The wired telecommunications market in Europe was largely dominated by a series of national monopoly phone companies. In order to promote competition, the EU required that these incumbent operators provide third parties access to parts of its infrastructure, in particular the "last mile."
A Jinnie McManus
Goddammit, stop making my party look like morons and look up net neutrality. It doesn't mean what you and your speechwriters think it means.
294 · Nov 10
Keith French
Ted, I am as conservative as they come.... I want government out of just about everything... and I hate to say it, really hate to say it, but Obama is right on this one. I do not want my access and internet speed controlled by my ISP. It will be. The internet has been an open forum with little to no restrictions, that will change and not for the better. Bottom line, do not go against freedom of the net just because Obama is for it. Even an old blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
1,074 · Nov 10
Ed Piper
As a Republican who works in the tech industry I can say that this statement shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are bought and paid for by the American Cable monopoly. This is amazingly an stupid statement and is disheartening.
Edited · 2,318 · Nov 10
I'm glad for you that you live in such a simple world of your own making."...O'Reilly, a Republican on the five-member commission..."
Enough said. Yeah, trust Republicans...
I'm glad for you that you live in such a simple world of your own making.
Ah, well excuse me all to hell. I evidently missed the nuance in your post that was the telltale that you had a hard-on for both major parties.Actually it's the Republicans who have made it simple for me. As a small "i" independent voter (no party affiliation) I actually would like to have two political parties who compete on ideas. Instead we get one party that has no fucking idea of what they stand for and the other knows exactly what it stands for and lies all day about it. Go right ahead, you can embrace the lies all you want. Keep trusting them as I'm sure that they have your best interests at heart.
Really.
Ah, well excuse me all to hell. I evidently missed the nuance in your post that was the telltale that you had a hard-on for both major parties.