Net neutrality double-play: 38 Mayors urge the FCC to let them build muni broadband, and The Verge r - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.networkworld.com/article/2877268/lan-wan/mayors-of-boston-seattle-kc-others-no-more-muni-broadband-restrictions-please.html"]Mayors of Boston, Seattle, KC, others: No more muni broadband restrictions, please[/URL] [QUOTE]A group of 38 mayors and other elected officials from cities like Boston, Seattle, and Kansas City Thursday urged the FCC to strike down state laws that restrict the development of public high-speed Internet services and allow municipal networks to flourish. In an open letter to the FCC commissioners, the Next Century Cities group emphasized the importance of universal access to high-speed Internet services. "It is increasingly clear that ultra-fast, next-generation Internet networks are the key to building and sustaining thriving communities, as essential as good healthcare, great schools, and reliable public safety," the letter stated. "Providing high-quality Internet is inarguably essential to safeguarding the public interest in the years and decades to come." The ability to make that service generally available, according to Next Century Cities, requires that regulators give local governments a free hand in how they approach the problem - which includes, for many, the creation of municipal broadband networks. ... Unsurprisingly, major cable companies like [B]Comcast and TWC[/B] have been full-throated in their opposition to the development of public-sector alternatives to their service, and have spent large sums of money on helping to pass heavy restrictions on their development at every level. A 2013 Washington Post report detailed campaigns to unseat a Seattle mayor who supported the creation of a municipal fiber network, a lawsuit against the aforementioned municipal fiber deployment in Chattanooga, and a fierce campaign against a ballot initiative that would have approved such a network in the Colorado town of Longmont.[/QUOTE] The ISPs have actually lobbied to get multiple states to outright ban the ability for municipalities to deploy their own broadband networks. There's a legitimate concern for businesses that they might have to compete with the local government, and it [I]theoretically[/I] could be an anti-competitive situation. However, all too often, these laws are used to restrict municipalities from deploying networks [I]when the ISP has decided not to deploy broadband there because it's not worth the investment[/I]. No, we don't care about your little town, but no, you're not allowed to roll your own in case we change our mind a decade from now. How could this happen? Let's ask The Verge, who published this earlier this week: [URL="http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/26/7878239/comcast-twc-fcc-merger-letters-politicians-ghostwritten"]Exclusive: politicians are supporting Comcast's TWC merger with letters ghostwritten by Comcast[/URL] [QUOTE]On August 21st, 2014, Mayor Jere Wood of Roswell, Georgia, sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission expressing emphatic support for Comcast's controversial effort to merge with Time Warner Cable. Not only did the mayor's letter express personal excitement for the gargantuan deal - which critics say will create a monopoly that will harm millions of consumers - but [B]it also claimed that the entire town of Roswell adored Comcast[/B]. "When Comcast makes a promise to act, it is comforting to know that they will always follow through," Wood's letter explained. "This is the type of attitude that makes Roswell proud to be involved with such a company," the letter asserts, "our residents are happy with the services it has provided and continues to provide each day." Yet Wood's letter made one key omission: Neither Wood nor anyone representing Roswell's residents wrote his letter to the FCC. Instead, a vice president of external affairs at Comcast authored the missive word for word in Mayor Wood's voice. According to email correspondence obtained through a public records request, the Republican mayor's office apparently added one sign-off sentence and his signature to the corporate PR document, then sent it to federal regulators on the official letterhead of Roswell, Georgia. The letter was part of what Comcast called an [B]"outpouring of thoughtful and positive comments"[/B] in support of the proposed mega-merger, which is now entering the final stages of federal review. Comcast asserted that the numerous letters sent by local officials expressing support for the merger displayed its broad grassroots backing. "We are especially gratified for the support of mayors and other local officials," Comcast boasted in an August 25th release, "underscoring the powerful benefits of this transaction for their cities, constituents, and customers." Yet email records obtained by The Verge indicate that these letters are far from grassroots. For instance, a letter sent to the FCC by a town councilman from the small community of Jupiter, Florida, was in fact largely orchestrated by some of the biggest players in corporate telecom. Not only do records show that a Comcast official sent the councilman the exact wording of the letter he would submit to the FCC, but also that finishing touches were put on the letter by a former FCC official named Rosemary Harold, who is now a partner at one of the nation's foremost telecom law firms in Washington, DC. Comcast has enlisted Harold to help persuade her former agency to approve the proposed merger. ... If the FCC follows the recommendations of the letters and approves the merger, American consumers could see big changes to their broadband and cable TV services. Critics argue that the merger would give Comcast a dangerous grip on an estimated 50 percent of the United States' high-speed broadband market, which already lacks the sort of fierce market competition that helps drive down prices and ensure quality service. The merger would hand Comcast a level of market power, according to critics, that [B]would allow the company to jack up already-rising cable prices while making it a gatekeeper over which movies, news, and music Americans can access[/B]. Last month, a coalition of industry groups intensified opposition to the merger for fear that it will give Comcast too much leverage over things like programming choices and local advertising. And earlier this month, a conservative political action committee joined the anti-merger movement, which had hitherto been associated with more progressive-leaning figures like Senator Al Franken (D-MN).[/QUOTE] Click through to see PDFs of the letters and much much more info. The Verge's exposé is thorough. [QUOTE]it also claimed that the entire town of Roswell adored Comcast[/QUOTE] This should have been the tipoff. Everyone hates their telecom provider. :v: I hope the FCC investigates this thoroughly and uses it as a reason to deny the merger. Fuck Comcast. I merged these two stories into one thread because I'd already created [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1448769"]this thread[/URL] about the FCC and net neutrality and didn't want to spam up SH with similar threads.

Fuck off comcast fucking piece of shits

ISP's here in the US are like little selfish kids that cant share or play nice with others

[QUOTE=AJ10017;47036674]ISP's here in the US are like little selfish kids that cant share or play nice with others[/QUOTE] That's Capitalism.

wow, the Verge actually investigating and doing real reporting? now THAT is a miracle

Ha, they know municipalities could provide better service for a fraction of the cost of Comcast. It's capitalism, guys. It's only fair that you compete to be cheaper and better. :v:

I'd email Duncan Hunter about it, but it's not like he's gonna make any difference.

of course there not going to make it easy because as soon as this law pass there will be third parties to go to and Combast knows this and Comcast would be fucked.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;47037032]of course there not going to make it easy because as soon as this law pass there will be third parties to go to and Combast knows this and Comcast would be fucked.[/QUOTE] Comcast would be fine, if only because their armies of 'retention specialists' make it such a hell to actually stop buying their service that most people just grin and bear it.

[QUOTE=AJ10017;47036674]ISP's here in the US are like little selfish kids that cant share or play nice with others[/QUOTE] You mean ISPs everywhere. At least in the states you have some choice, and the hope you get a good fibre ISP rolling into town. In Canada you essentially get to choose the red telecom, the purple/green telecom, or the blue telecom, and they all price fix like crazy. Most places have even less.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47037277]You mean ISPs everywhere. At least in the states you have some choice, and the hope you get a good fibre ISP rolling into town. In Canada you essentially get to choose the red telecom or the blue telecom, and both price fix like crazy.[/QUOTE] Most places don't have a choice here either. Here, we have Comcast, and, oh yeah that's it. They actively prevent anyone else from coming into the ISP business here too because they "own" all the infrastructure.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47037277]You mean ISPs everywhere. At least in the states you have some choice, and the hope you get a good fibre ISP rolling into town. In Canada you essentially get to choose the red telecom, the purple/green telecom, or the blue telecom, and they all price fix like crazy. Most places have even less.[/QUOTE] what part of canada.?

All of eastern canada is controlled by Eastlink Rogers and Bell

Out west I get to choose from Shaw Cable and Telus. And Telus can't give me a semi-static IP without charging me $$$ extra. My IP with Shaw isn't "static" in the sense that they can change it anytime they want, but it changes once every 3 years or so; Telus cycles them on the order of days or faster, last I heard. Bell cycled them every 90 seconds as of 4 years ago, and I know that one for a fact because I was briefly employed by them (before our entire section got pink-slipped when they decided to take the contract in-house).

I get my internet through Teksavvy, who rent their lines from Cogeco. I'm paying $80 a month for 20mbps unlimited bandwidth, which isn't all too bad but $80 a month sucks ass.

It's actually ridiculous; the shit that ISP's get away with, and the fact that it still hasn't all been corrected by now.

[QUOTE=residntevl;47037703]I get my internet through Teksavvy, who rent their lines from Cogeco. I'm paying $80 a month for 20mbps unlimited bandwidth, which isn't all too bad but $80 a month sucks ass.[/QUOTE] Look at the bright side, you're not paying 60 bucks for 1.5 Mbits with a 250GB cap. (Fuck you AT&T)

We used to until last year. Now we pay ~$100 for 20mbps [editline]30th January 2015[/editline] [URL="http://www.eastlink.ca/bundles.aspx?B=ST"]That's also without tv[/URL]

get out of here commie cast this is america

[QUOTE=nagachief;47037749]Look at the bright side, you're not paying 60 bucks for 1.5 Mbits with a 250GB cap. (Fuck you AT&T)[/QUOTE] Can you even hit that cap with a speed that stupid?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;47040002]Can you even hit that cap with a speed that stupid?[/QUOTE] Barely. 1.5mbps constantly is 495GB.

[QUOTE=nagachief;47037749]Look at the bright side, you're not paying 60 bucks for 1.5 Mbits with a 250GB cap. (Fuck you AT&T)[/QUOTE] Jesus shit how do you even live with 1.5Mbit, I genuinely feel bad for you Americans having to put up with this. I don't know or care much about american politics/whatever but I hope whoever is responsible for this gets their shit slapped and soon, even the ISS has a better internet connection

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47037277]You mean ISPs everywhere. At least in the states you have some choice, and the hope you get a good fibre ISP rolling into town. In Canada you essentially get to choose the red telecom, the purple/green telecom, or the blue telecom, and they all price fix like crazy. Most places have even less.[/QUOTE] In my neck of the Tennessee woods we have the option of ATT Fast Access DSL(Fastest choice, no data cap, it's shit but it's the least rank pile of shit on the plate), we have ATT Dialup, and we have Hughes' Net satellite internet(5gb data cap, speeds on par with the DSL, expensive as hell).

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;47040655]Jesus shit how do you even live with 1.5Mbit, I genuinely feel bad for you Americans having to put up with this. I don't know or care much about american politics/whatever but I hope whoever is responsible for this gets their shit slapped and soon, even the ISS has a better internet connection[/QUOTE] 240p(or 144p) Youtube when possible, just canceled my Netflix sub because I can't watch it when anyone is home (since I get yelled at), and I base my purchases on "Will I be able to download this in my lifetime?" so I miss out on a [I]LOT[/I] of games. I stream music from Spotify Premium on the lowest quality because its actually less demanding than downloading full albums from Amazon (yes, I buy my music). I actually haven't gotten to play my x-mas present because its nearly 50. FUCKING. GIGABYTES. (Wolfenstine:TNO) On the flipside, because I've always had 'inferior and unplayable' 80+ms ping, I have apparently gained the ability to predict the future in online games.

I'd never switch to commiecast. I get 50 kilobytes a second with no cap, for like 60 bucks a month. My brother goes through like 80 gigs a month according to his computer, and that's just 1 computer out of 3 and a ps4. Seriously, I really wouldn't care about this if comcast improved their fucking services

[QUOTE=nagachief;47047361] On the flipside, because I've always had 'inferior and unplayable' 80+ms ping, I have apparently gained the ability to predict the future in online games.[/QUOTE] I've never had any problem lagging in multiplayer until I crest 125-150ms ping.