- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Proposed Virginia Bill - Ban Municipal Broadband Ownership
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:08 am
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:08 am
LINK
HB2108:
The biggest issue is that this is typically the only way for rural cities to get true broadband, as companies are reluctant to build networks only to compete with other ISPs, limiting the infrastructure they are willing to put into place. Municipal-built networks, like current generation fiber, can provide gigabit speeds in rural areas because the municipality has the ability and public support to build these.
In other words, corporations don't want rural citizens to own a part of their own internet service.
HB2108:
quote:
Virginia Broadband Deployment Act. Provides that a locality or a locality's affiliate may own and operate a broadband or Internet communications system, including ownership or lease of fiber optic or other communications lines and facilities, to provide broadband expansion services if a variety of conditions are met, including a report or study by an independent consulting firm knowledgeable and experienced in analyzing broadband deployment, such as the Center for Innovative Technology, which report or study specifically identifies any unserved areas. An unserved area is an area in which broadband speeds are not generally available from any provider. The bill defines "broadband speeds" as average Internet speeds of both 10 Mbps or more download and 1 Mbps or more upload. A locality or a locality's affiliate that seeks or desires to provide "overbuild broadband services," shall not do so unless it complies with various operating requirements. The bill defines "overbuild broadband services" as broadband or Internet services offered by a locality or its affiliate in exchange for compensation that do not qualify as internal government services or broadband expansion services. The bill also repeals several disclosure exclusions related to local telecommunications services that currently exist under the Freedom of Information Act (§ 2.2-3700 et seq.).
The biggest issue is that this is typically the only way for rural cities to get true broadband, as companies are reluctant to build networks only to compete with other ISPs, limiting the infrastructure they are willing to put into place. Municipal-built networks, like current generation fiber, can provide gigabit speeds in rural areas because the municipality has the ability and public support to build these.
In other words, corporations don't want rural citizens to own a part of their own internet service.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:13 am to skrayper
I don't think they should regulate if it's the only thing in the market. Make or incintiviz others to invest in the rural areas and create competition.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:14 am to skrayper
It is sad that our government on every level is compromised by corporations
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:14 am to skrayper
I'm not normally for government owning things, but if a locality can run an ISP like Lafy runs LSUS then I've got no problem with it (especially if they are being run as a business and get weened off tax dollars so that they are fiscally independent). It's not always going to be so good, but I think being able to take it in a case-by-case basis (especially in very rural areas where private companies don't want to go) is better than waiting for a company that's probably never going to service your area.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 9:16 am
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:15 am to skrayper
These bills are a very interesting discussion on several levels...
- State govs telling locals what they can/can't do
- Government competing with Businesses
- Businesses lobbying for/getting protection that ultimately cost consumers
- Consumers getting stuck with shitty utilities
- State govs telling locals what they can/can't do
- Government competing with Businesses
- Businesses lobbying for/getting protection that ultimately cost consumers
- Consumers getting stuck with shitty utilities
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:21 am to Bard
quote:why not? The government is run by the people for the people. If people in any community desire it than the should be able to acquire it. No corporation should have any influence on anything
I'm not normally for government owning things,
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:25 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
why not? The government is run by the people for the people.
Because the government can easily create a monopoly situation and squeeze out any competition that would otherwise exist.
They create the laws and then run the business... what could possibly go wrong?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:35 am to skrayper
Does it have to be municipal? Why can't there be a co-op like many of the electric cooperatives formed in the 1930's?
And many of the electric cooperatives also provide internet service, or could.
And many of the electric cooperatives also provide internet service, or could.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:37 am to Bard
quote:This isn't a thing in rural towns where private companies wouldn't turn a profit laying fiber
any competition that would otherwise exist
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:39 am to Iosh
Isn't not turning a profit a signal that resources are being wasted?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:44 am to Bard
Corporate influence on government does the same for them. It has created far more advantages for a select few than it has for the masses. It goes both ways
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:44 am to skrayper
to be fair, most of these muni-internet programs are Yuge disasters
also, this is one of those "states rights" issues, if a discussion on government overreach begins
also, this is one of those "states rights" issues, if a discussion on government overreach begins
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:46 am to Quidam65
Coop would be so much more efficient but this Virginia bill is the ATT/Comcast sponsored bill to help create a monopoly again.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:48 am to SlowFlowPro
This post was edited on 3/5/21 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:52 am to graychef
well even programs like the one in Lafayette, last time i read anything on it, was a shite show
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:53 am to skrayper
As I was saying yesterday, this is more evidence that republicans are in bed with big telecoms who hate local competition.
It's why net neutrality is needed.
It's why net neutrality is needed.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 9:54 am
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:54 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Value is subjective. They would be wasted from the outside ISPs perspective. Obviously the residents of the town may feel differently which is why they should be permitted to start their own ISP.
Isn't not turning a profit a signal that resources are being wasted?
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Many rural areas have cooperative and municipal utilities like for water and electric and those work fine. No reason why they can't for broadband.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 9:58 am to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Many rural areas have cooperative and municipal utilities like for water and electric and those work fine. No reason why they can't for broadband.
theoretically? yes
but the track record for muni-broadband isn't that good
Posted on 1/24/17 at 10:01 am to skrayper
Rural electric co-ops were formed to supply electricity to rural areas that big utilities did not want to serve.
I don't see why the same model can't be used for internet communication.
I don't see why the same model can't be used for internet communication.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News