PDA

View Full Version : Congress Helping to Kill High Speed Internet



ccmanuals
12-15-2015, 11:10 AM
Congress working again on behalf of the people that give them campaign funds rather than the people they are supposed to be working for.


In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service.

Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services.

The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for slow, expensive internet access without competition.

In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as “The Gig,” a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second for less than $70 a month — a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.

AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing competition, have used their influence in state government to make an end-run around local municipalities. Through surrogates like the American Legislative Exchange Council, the industry gets states to pass laws that ban municipal broadband networks, despite the obvious benefits to both the municipalities and their residents.

That’s why the FCC has become involved. The agency stepped in to prevent states from crushing municipal broadband and released a rule this year that allows local cities to make the decision on their own.

As a result, telecom companies are furiously lobbying the FCC, litigating the rule in court, and leaning on GOP lawmakers to pressure the agency to back down. As the Daily Dot reported, the letter released by Rubio and other senators expresses “serious concern” about the FCC rule. “The FCC is promoting government-owned networks at the possible expense of private sector broadband providers … who have made strides to deploy networks throughout the country,” Rubio and seven other Republican senators wrote.

Rubio’s presidential campaign has relied heavily on AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, the public policy co-chair of Wiley Rein, a law firm that also is helping to litigate against the FCC’s effort to help municipal broadband. As one of Rubio’s three lobbyist-bundlers, Weaver raised $33,324 for Rubio’s presidential campaign, according to disclosures.

Rubio’s campaign fundraising apparatus is also managed in part by Cesar Conda, a lobbyist who previously served as Rubio’s chief of staff. Registration documents show that Conda now represents AT&T.


https://theintercept.com/2015/12/14/marco-rubio-pushes-to-block-low-cost-high-speed-broadband/

S.V. Airlie
12-15-2015, 11:12 AM
Really, do you expect me to be surprised by what they come up with to screw the people?

Norman Bernstein
12-15-2015, 11:19 AM
I recently re-installed internet service to my office.... and the best I could do was 25Mbps, via Verizon.... for $110/mo. Two towns away, Norwood, MA operates it's own Internet and cable distribution service... and the same 25 Mbps internet service, with basic cable TV, is $59.95/mo.

It's not like the town is getting any sort of unfair advantage, since the town has to pay for the backbone connection... it's simply more efficient at local distribution of internet services.

But President Rubio doesn't want municipalities to compete with Verizon, Comcast, ATT, etc..... I wonder why (snicker).

George Jung
12-15-2015, 11:29 AM
Partisans invariably vote against their own interests. Fascinating.

S.V. Airlie
12-15-2015, 11:33 AM
Here, I have tried to find other internet services to avoid all of the big ones, Verisin, Time Warner etc. Found one with/calling itself by another name but, Time Warner sends me the bill. There is no option here for anything but, signing up with the big companies.

Too Little Time
12-15-2015, 12:38 PM
a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.

We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

ccmanuals
12-15-2015, 12:40 PM
We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

Well, at least you admit you know nothing about the issue.

Norman Bernstein
12-15-2015, 12:52 PM
I don't understand the need for speed.

Undoubtedly because YOU don't need any additional speed. The fact that YOU don't understand it doesn't obviate the need, for other people.


But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

Possibly because, as can be seen in post #3, it's because municipal governments can provide the service for HALF THE PRICE? Only ideologues and idiots think that private enterprise is always the most efficient way of providing a service.

ccmanuals
12-15-2015, 12:56 PM
Further evidence that conservatives really don't care about small business or relegating power and decisions to the states and local governments.

Canoeyawl
12-15-2015, 01:22 PM
We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

Still driving your wagon and team to the market?
You don't need highways or speed for that.

skuthorp
12-15-2015, 03:00 PM
The luddites are still with us, but they are pushing it uphill and will loose out to newer and newer technology.

Chris Smith porter maine
12-15-2015, 03:19 PM
We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

Governments run lots of things, sewer systems, water systems, public works departments (plowing, paving, traffic lights) they must find they can do this cheaper than to sub it out, I see no reason that if they can provide a better service to there taxpayers for less, that they should be stopped from doing it.
Sheeash perfect example of republican over regulation at it's finest, and a great example of republicans taking away the local control they claim to stand for.

George Jung
12-15-2015, 03:22 PM
Governments run lots of things, sewer systems, water systems, public works departments (plowing, paving, traffic lights) they must find they can do this cheaper than to sub it out, I see no GOOD reason that if they can provide a better service to there taxpayers for less, that they should be stopped from doing it.
Sheeash perfect example of republican over regulation at it's finest, and a great example of republicans taking away the local control they claim to stand for.


fIXED IT

Too Little Time
12-15-2015, 07:59 PM
Undoubtedly because YOU don't need any additional speed. The fact that YOU don't understand it doesn't obviate the need, for other people.

Possibly because, as can be seen in post #3, it's because municipal governments can provide the service for HALF THE PRICE? Only ideologues and idiots think that private enterprise is always the most efficient way of providing a service.


Still driving your wagon and team to the market?
You don't need highways or speed for that.

I look at schools. Many people make the claim that schools are doing a poor job. I look at roads. Many people make the claim that roads are poorly maintained. I look at the deals made to attract businesses to locate. I could go on.

I am sure that municipal government can provide some services well and for lower cost than private enterprise, but I don't see that as desirable.

mariner2k
12-15-2015, 09:31 PM
Dial up???

Canoeyawl
12-15-2015, 11:40 PM
Many people make the claim that schools are doing a poor job. I look at roads. Many people make the claim that roads are poorly maintained.

Do you believe everything you hear? Many do...

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 12:53 AM
Do you believe everything you hear? Many do...

No. But I agree to some extent with the things I say I have read or heard.

I did read some comments that providing high speed internet for individual homes was not a good economic endeavor. It seems most people find what they have is sufficient. My wife gets calls every couple months to upgrade to faster internet. I say "I don't need it, but I am in favor of it." Then she turns it down the offer to upgrade.

Our cost for internet access is immaterial. We can let the business pay for it and get a tax deduction.

epoxyboy
12-16-2015, 02:01 AM
I am sure that municipal government can provide some services well and for lower cost than private enterprise, but I don't see that as desirable.

Why is this undesirable? Are you concerned that as the local stakeholders get better service for less money, it will erode traditional telco shareholder value or something?
Isn't this the free market in operation, and actually delivering the result it's supposed to? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me, with the big boys getting their asses handed to them on a plate with a bit of real competition.

Pete

Tom Hunter
12-16-2015, 06:50 AM
A free market includes goods and services provided by government. Anything else would be less free. I'm in favor of small, efficient government, and local internet can be a part of that. So far, all the local networks have been more efficient than the cable companies.

So, why advocate for a less free, higher cost, lower efficiency internet? That's not really a conservative position, its more a crony capitalist position.

Garret
12-16-2015, 07:19 AM
Vermont has been encouraging local initiatives to provide internet services - whether by businesses, local gov't or a citizen's group. Why? Because the existing carriers a) will not provide service to many rural areas & b) will not provide fast service. These new groups are doing it & providing faster service for less money. Here, very few have been by local gov't - so this really is competition - which the phone/cable companies (& now Mr. Rubio) hate.

Slug's "3MB is fine" comment simply shows that he has little understanding of how the world works today. Will 3MB do it for a couple that doesn't work from home? Yep. A family? Nope, not with a couple of kids doing research online & someone wanting to watch a movie. For people who work from home? Definitely not if you have to do any sort of work where files have to be transferred or work done remotely. This last example is the worst: 3MB is the download speed. Generally, 3MB down means about 0.4 or less upload. Copying files to another location or running remote desktop for access to a remote computer becomes very frustrating - at the least. Connections that slow often will not copy files at all. If you get a 1 second hiccup while watching a movie - no big deal. If you get one while copying a file, you have to start all over.

Kinda hard to compete globally when you pay $50/month for 3MB & you're competing with say Denmark where you get 1GB for $60.

George Jung
12-16-2015, 09:50 AM
The numbers I saw - for Korea and Japan - were more skewed - along the lines of 10 times faster, for less than half our cost. Funny (not) how folks don't look at the info, but only who's saying it. If it's a Republican, they're 'for' it (what is it? Beats me!). If it's a Democrat, it's 'lalala... I can't hear you!'

Can't cure stupid.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 09:52 AM
Why is this undesirable? Are you concerned that as the local stakeholders get better service for less money, it will erode traditional telco shareholder value or something?
Isn't this the free market in operation, and actually delivering the result it's supposed to? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me, with the big boys getting their asses handed to them on a plate with a bit of real competition.

Pete

You are making the unsupportable claim that there will be better service for less money. Often that is not what happens. I believe that local government is not very good at running businesses.

George Jung
12-16-2015, 09:56 AM
Except all the evidence is to the contrary. Other than that - you're 'spot on'.

Norman Bernstein
12-16-2015, 10:04 AM
Except all the evidence is to the contrary. Other than that - you're 'spot on'.

Some people are immune to evidence to the contrary, George. Notwithstanding the fact that if I lived two towns away from here, I could have identically fast internet service, PLUS basic cable, for half the price I'm paying here, without any cable TV service... by living/working in a town with a municipal cable company.

Ideology trumps reality, for a lot of people.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 10:07 AM
Slug's "3MB is fine" comment simply shows that he has little understanding of how the world works today. Will 3MB do it for a couple that doesn't work from home? Yep. A family? Nope, not with a couple of kids doing research online & someone wanting to watch a movie. For people who work from home? Definitely not if you have to do any sort of work where files have to be transferred or work done remotely.

Kinda hard to compete globally when you pay $50/month for 3MB & you're competing with say Denmark where you get 1GB for $60.
Nothing stops a business from paying for the speed they need. But there are people who run businesses with a bunch of computers tethered to a cell phone - you really want an unlimited data plan. Our business finds 3Mb sufficient. Most residential users are light users and it does not pay to provide all residential users with faster service. But government can make that choice without regard to economics.



The numbers I saw - for Korea and Japan - were more skewed - along the lines of 10 times faster, for less than half our cost. Funny (not) how folks don't look at the info, but only who's saying it. If it's a Republican, they're 'for' it (what is it? Beats me!). If it's a Democrat, it's 'lalala... I can't hear you!'

Can't cure stupid.

Actually it is a timing issue. If a provider wired an area with 3Mb wiring, going back and installing Giga bit technology makes the first investment unprofitable. Unprofitable even if the government is doing it. Google is having trouble finding enough users of giga bit to make a profit. They don't even want in the business. They just want to force current providers to spend the money. Google is content to deliver ads faster.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 10:08 AM
Some people are immune to evidence to the contrary, George. Notwithstanding the fact that if I lived two towns away from here, I could have identically fast internet service, PLUS basic cable, for half the price I'm paying here, without any cable TV service... by living/working in a town with a municipal cable company.

Ideology trumps reality, for a lot of people.

The solution for you is very easy: move two towns over. But for you ideology trumps reality.

oznabrag
12-16-2015, 11:20 AM
Dial up???

I am on Hughes.net, and I think dialup might be an improvement.

My satelite connection is slow to non-existent depending on cloud cover both here AND where the flip ever the server is.

I am stuck with Hughes.

There is no other provider.

I can't even GET dialup.

Land of the free, my a$$.

oznabrag
12-16-2015, 11:29 AM
I look at schools. Many people make the claim that schools are doing a poor job. I look at roads. Many people make the claim that roads are poorly maintained. I look at the deals made to attract businesses to locate. I could go on.

I am sure that municipal government can provide some services well and for lower cost than private enterprise, but I don't see that as desirable.

That's just weird.

If the municipal service is better and cheaper than the corporate service, then allowing the municipal service is the only, ideologically-pure thing to do from the perspective of the market-worshipper.

Using government to shut down competition is EXACTLY what the Reds howl against. . . until it is their own company that needs government protection.

oznabrag
12-16-2015, 11:32 AM
Nothing stops a business from paying for the speed they need. . . .

If I needed anything faster than 15mbs down/6mbsup, it would cost me the better part of 100 million.

The lies one tells oneself are the easiest to believe.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-16-2015, 12:13 PM
I look at schools. Many people make the claim that schools are doing a poor job. I look at roads. Many people make the claim that roads are poorly maintained. I look at the deals made to attract businesses to locate. I could go on.

I am sure that municipal government can provide some services well and for lower cost than private enterprise, but I don't see that as desirable.


So you believe that letting the private sector perform these services, adding yet another level of profit to the scenario, is in the best interest of American taxpayers. Fascinating.... perhaps you might look at your healthcare system and how that has worked out for your country.

Garret
12-16-2015, 12:40 PM
Nothing stops a business from paying for the speed they need.

Ummm.... Not having anything faster available will stop them every time. Where I am, there is nothing faster available.


Our business finds 3Mb sufficient. Most residential users are light users and it does not pay to provide all residential users with faster service. But government can make that choice without regard to economics

So - because it works for your business, it will work for all businesses? If a business doesn't need a phone, no businesses need phone service? Heck, a farrier friend doesn't need electricity for his business, so I guess you don't need it for yours.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 12:58 PM
That's just weird.

If the municipal service is better and cheaper than the corporate service, then allowing the municipal service is the only, ideologically-pure thing to do from the perspective of the market-worshipper.

Using government to shut down competition is EXACTLY what the Reds howl against. . . until it is their own company that needs government protection.
You seem to think my position is either political or capitalist. My belief is that most people don't need faster internet. Which why it is not being installed.


If I needed anything faster than 15mbs down/6mbsup, it would cost me the better part of 100 million.

The lies one tells oneself are the easiest to believe.
100 million what? And you want the government to pay that to provide you with internet? And what are you willing to pay for this service? Life is about choices. When you think you need faster internet, make the choice of living where you are or moving to a place with faster internet.


So you believe that letting the private sector perform these services, adding yet another level of profit to the scenario, is in the best interest of American taxpayers. Fascinating.... perhaps you might look at your healthcare system and how that has worked out for your country.

You used a number of modifiers to confuse the situation. And then you tossed in the unrelated health care system.

For you I will restate my position. For most local governments to install 1Gb/s fiber to all residents will cost the consumers more in the aggregate than the current system.

Norman Bernstein
12-16-2015, 01:04 PM
My belief is that most people don't need faster internet.

Once again, putting the entire world in the context of YOUR personal experience.


For you I will restate my position. For most local governments to install 1Gb/s fiber to all residents will cost the consumers more in the aggregate than the current system.

Try backing up this claim with some facts, rather than prejudice. Internet speed are increasing because people demand better speed, and newer technologies require it. 25 years ago, a 9600 baud acoustic modem was state-of-the-art.... imagine what things would be like if we never got past that, into faster technologies.

Regardless, you've already been given examples of municipalities that can provide faster internet access for less money than commercial competitors... and, at least, in the example I gave, the town's internet operation is a money maker.

No matter how much you protest, there are circumstances where government does a better job, for less, than private enterprise... especially in monopolistic situations, and internet access is one such example.

epoxyboy
12-16-2015, 01:32 PM
You are making the unsupportable claim that there will be better service for less money. Often that is not what happens. I believe that local government is not very good at running businesses.
Unsupportable? You did read the article linked in the OP, didn't you - they ARE delivering better service for less money.
And we are talking specifically about one service, which it appears some local goverments are extremely good at running. So good, the big telcos are lobbying hard out to get legislation passed to ban it.

Unsupportable, my a$$.

Pete

Garret
12-16-2015, 01:51 PM
Unsupportable? You did read the article linked in the OP, didn't you - they ARE delivering better service for less money.
And we are talking specifically about one service, which it appears some local goverments are extremely good at running. So good, the big telcos are lobbying hard out to get legislation passed to ban it.

Unsupportable, my a$$.

Pete

It's classic RW I'll mind your business, but don't you dare mind mine.

ccmanuals
12-16-2015, 03:01 PM
TLT earlier in the thread admitted that he basically knew nothing about the subject. I find it odd he had to prove this lack of knowledge with his subsequent threads.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 07:30 PM
TLT earlier in the thread admitted that he basically knew nothing about the subject. I find it odd he had to prove this lack of knowledge with his subsequent threads.

That is the second time you have made that comment. It is no more correct now than previously.

Too Little Time
12-16-2015, 07:47 PM
Unsupportable? You did read the article linked in the OP, didn't you - they ARE delivering better service for less money.
And we are talking specifically about one service, which it appears some local goverments are extremely good at running. So good, the big telcos are lobbying hard out to get legislation passed to ban it.

Unsupportable, my a$$.

Pete

I read the article. The lowest cost service is $58/month. I pay under $30. So my rate would double. And the cost seems to be substantial.


The infrastructure necessary to get EPB, the city-owned electric utility previously known as the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, in the cable, telephone and Internet business will ultimately cost federal taxpayer and local electric customers a total in excess of half a billion dollars.

That is almost $10K/residence.

But the good news is that 10Gb/sec is now available for $300/month.


I read a bit more than just the articles linked to.

epoxyboy
12-16-2015, 09:23 PM
We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

This is why you only pay $30/month - Noah had this on the Ark!
And regardless of who puts in the infrastructure (govt or private enterprise), the consumer pays - either via taxes or a utility bill, or both. The difference is that govt doesn't operate under a profit motive, so the benefits are socialised rather than privatised.

Pete

ccmanuals
12-16-2015, 09:36 PM
That is the second time you have made that comment. It is no more correct now than previously.

I guess you forgot you said this.


We have 3Mbps. It is fast enough for our business and our household. I don't understand the need for speed.

But then I don't understand the need for governments to run businesses either.

ccmanuals
12-16-2015, 09:39 PM
This is why you only pay $30/month - Noah had this on the Ark!
And regardless of who puts in the infrastructure (govt or private enterprise), the consumer pays - either via taxes or a utility bill, or both. The difference is that govt doesn't operate under a profit motive, so the benefits are socialised rather than privatised.

Pete

Which allows gov't to provide cheaper and faster access. The evidence can be found in not only the US but in numerous countries and cities abroad.

Too Little Time
12-17-2015, 04:03 PM
I guess you forgot you said this.
But that is not the same as not knowing anything about the subject.

The most important thing I said was: I am happy with the speed I get paying $30/month. And that based on Chattanooga I would be paying $60/month for speed I do not need. So Hardly a good economic decision.

I have also made the claim that most residential users don't need that much speed. The following seems to support for my claim.


Bernstein Research conducted a door-to-door survey in five Kansas City neighborhoods where Google has deployed. In one of these neighborhoods, Wornall Homestead, Bernstein found an 83% penetration for Google Fiber. About 15% subscribed to Google’s double play of broadband and TV, priced at $120/month (to start), and 52% opted for the 1 gig broadband-only option, priced at $70/month. An additional 15% opted for the ‘free’ Google 5 Mbps broadband offer.

Wornall Homestead is a high income neighborhood, which contrasted with lower income neighborhood performance, where Google saw 27% penetration, which is still quite reasonable for an overbuilder.

Not knowing what other options were available, it difficult to know how much speed is needed. But 15% of high income people are happy with little more speed than I have. Considering 73% of low income people will not even take the "free" option provides support that much of internet usage is discretionary.

* just we understand the same thing: 73% (100% - 27%) of people in the low income neighborhood are for whatever reason unwilling to have Google fiber installed. I think "free" means an installation charge but no monthly charge, but I am sure someone knows better. I am just not that interested in that detail.

oznabrag
12-17-2015, 07:07 PM
But that is not the same as not knowing anything about the subject.

The most important thing I said was: I am happy with the speed I get paying $30/month. And that based on Chattanooga I would be paying $60/month for speed I do not need. So Hardly a good economic decision.

I have also made the claim that most residential users don't need that much speed. The following seems to support for my claim.



Not knowing what other options were available, it difficult to know how much speed is needed. But 15% of high income people are happy with little more speed than I have. Considering 73% of low income people will even take the "free" option provides support that much of internet usage is discretionary.

* just we understand the same thing: 73% (100% - 27%) of people in the low income neighborhood are for whatever reason unwilling to have Google fiber installed. I think "free" means an installation charge but no monthly charge, but I am sure someone knows better. I am just not that interested in that detail.

I would be simply ecstatic to get a google fiber subscription.

$60/month is about half of what I pay for inadequate service. It is the ONLY service available.

The 'free' thing may not be taking off, but it will.

Just as someone remarked earlier, 20 years ago a gig of data would be a year's supply.

The amount of electronic information being used to convey even the simplest thoughts these days is staggering, and the only way to use it is through staggering speed.

Otherwise, you wait a month for your machine to load a 90 minute movie.

Too Little Time
12-18-2015, 10:00 AM
I would be simply ecstatic to get a google fiber subscription.

$60/month is about half of what I pay for inadequate service. It is the ONLY service available.

The 'free' thing may not be taking off, but it will.

Just as someone remarked earlier, 20 years ago a gig of data would be a year's supply.

The amount of electronic information being used to convey even the simplest thoughts these days is staggering, and the only way to use it is through staggering speed.

Otherwise, you wait a month for your machine to load a 90 minute movie.
I am sure some residential users want faster internet and some want it cheaper. But facts are different than wants. I am just trying to correct the factual errors others are making.

As the Google numbers shows the majority of residential users are turning down "free" 3Mb/s. The just don't need it. The infrastructure costs for higher speeds is wasted on the majority. ("Free" is a $300 installation fee payable over 12 months and $0/month guaranteed for 7 years.)

As the Chattanooga numbers show users with low data requirements may be required to pay more for the lowest tier of service than they currently are paying.

Finally the Google and Chattanooga numbers show that municipal systems are not always cheaper. It is hard to beat free.


I am happy with my internet speed and price. While I can afford $130/month for Google fiber or more if needed, I am willing to look at how the entire plan affects everyone.

Norman Bernstein
12-18-2015, 10:37 AM
As the Google numbers shows the majority of residential users are turning down "free" 3Mb/s. The just don't need it. The infrastructure costs for higher speeds is wasted on the majority. ("Free" is a $300 installation fee payable over 12 months and $0/month guaranteed for 7 years.)

Your assumption that 'they just don't need it' is bankrupt. WHY are they turning it down? Because they're using dial-up?

There are MANY possible reasons why a consumer would reject the deal... I'm sure that for many, 3Mbps is simply too slow, so 'free' isn't an incentive, if what they really want is something to support multiple household users of streaming services, etc. Once again, when placing this issue outside of the limited context of what YOU think is adequate to support YOUR needs, the rest of the world views things differently. Even for my limited home use (just my wife and I), 3Mbps simply wouldn't cut it, so 'free' is NOT any sort of bargain, if what I'm getting for 'free' doesn't meet my needs and expectations.


Finally the Google and Chattanooga numbers show that municipal systems are not always cheaper. It is hard to beat free.

But sometimes, they ARE cheaper, as my example of Norwood, MA provides: same level of service, half the price.

The point of the legislation under discussion is to prevent municipalities from offering better deals than commercial suppliers.... is that what you call a free market and open competition? Or is it just really a monopoly, supported by legislators beholden to the cable companies?


I am happy with my internet speed and price.

There you go again.... I'm glad YOU are happy. What does that have to do with anyone else?

leikec
12-18-2015, 10:43 AM
Your assumption that 'they just don't need it' is bankrupt. WHY are they turning it down? Because they're using dial-up?

There are MANY possible reasons why a consumer would reject the deal... I'm sure that for many, 3Mbps is simply too slow, so 'free' isn't an incentive, if what they really want is something to support multiple household users of streaming services, etc. Once again, when placing this issue outside of the limited context of what YOU think is adequate to support YOUR needs, the rest of the world views things differently. Even for my limited home use (just my wife and I), 3Mbps simply wouldn't cut it, so 'free' is NOT any sort of bargain, if what I'm getting for 'free' doesn't meet my needs and expectations.



But sometimes, they ARE cheaper, as my example of Norwood, MA provides: same level of service, half the price.

The point of the legislation under discussion is to prevent municipalities from offering better deals than commercial suppliers.... is that what you call a free market and open competition? Or is it just really a monopoly, supported by legislators beholden to the cable companies?



There you go again.... I'm glad YOU are happy. What does that have to do with anyone else?

Wrasselling with a pig, Norman. He's not worth the effort.

Jeff C