Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Utah Bill Would Prevent Regional Fiber Networks From Growing

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the stop-obstructing-my-internet dept.

Networking 111

symbolset writes "On the heels of the smackdown received by cable lobbyists in Kansas, Ars reports out of Utah that the cable companies aren't giving up hopes of preventing competition through legislation. The bill, called Interlocal Entity Service Prohibition, would prevent a regional fiber consortium from building infrastructure outside the boundaries of its member cities and towns — a direct attack on Google's work in Provo and the UTOPIA network. Utah is the third state to be involved in the Google Fiber rollout of gigabit fiber to the home."

cancel ×

111 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Protect Our Monopolies! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46167947)

Please, please Mr. Politician, can't you help our poor, poor monopolies protect our billions and prevent our customers from choosing a better service for a better price? It's just not fair!!

Think of the Free Market! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46167973)

It must be preserved at all costs!

Re:Think of the Free Market! (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46168065)

Apparently it must be AVOIDED at all costs.

Re:Think of the Free Market! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168163)

To save the free market, we must destroy the free market.

It is the only way. I do this with a heavy heart, knowing it is the right wrong thing.

Is this comment about "Fuck Beta"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46172807)

Is this comment about "Fuck Beta"? No? Then shut the fuck up, motherfucker.

Re:Think of the Free Market! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46169471)

it must be AVOIDED at all costs.

... like Slashdot BETA

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 8 months ago | (#46168267)

The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network, in turn generating income in the areas that have higher densities at the expense of the less dense areas. This effectively leaves those "unserved" still without service, despite all residents paying for the network via their property taxes.

Should the same thing be done by a new-comer into private industry, done without tax dollars, or would connect all those who wanted it there would not be a problem. Protecting monopolistic behavior is simply the knee-jerk reaction to the story.

Further, as Google's Provo offering is no longer a "public entity" offering, it isn't even subject to the bill.
However, at the same point Google would not have been able to enter the marketplace in Provo should the town not have done the initial heavy lifting.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (2)

Traze (1167415) | about 8 months ago | (#46168361)

Except that UTOPIA is basically publicly owned. They only build out when they get a contract with a city, and so far the cities more or less own the networks when they are finished.

Citation: I am a UTOPIA user, and have been an avid follower of their plans for over 10 years.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#46168933)

The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network

And that's bad because...?

Let's not BS about this "private network" you refer to. It's only "private" in as much as the profits are held privately. It exists in large part thanks to public subsidies, set-asides and tax abatement. It's built on public land and right-of-ways. It got "private" because government gave telecoms and cable television special protections and specifically limited competition on their behalf.

Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks actually start to obey the spirit of anti-trust laws and stop trying to become content providers and as long as they get on board with 100% net neutrality and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations, and as long as the market actually becomes competitive, then maybe we can talk about protecting their "private" network.

Until then, they need to take their scummy lobbyists and stop ripping people off or as far as I'm concerned, the whole network should be nationalized and turned into a public utility.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (2, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 8 months ago | (#46169545)

And that's bad because...?

The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...

Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks ...

Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.

and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations,

In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

That's why it is bad.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46170049)

But you can make it true competition even if the provider is part of the government by legislating a separate budget for the entity. What, the "efficient" private companies cannot compete on price with a bureaucratic non-profit even after all the special tax breaks, public subsidies and other carrots? Then they are charging too much.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46170125)

This is not a case of governments competing with a private company. Fast Internet is a valuable social good that private companies flat refuse to provide. Since they refuse to provide it, citizens are providing it for themselves through their governments. That this obsoletes the slow Internet cable companies want to provide does not mean they compete. They are substantially different things.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (4, Interesting)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 8 months ago | (#46170639)

Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

That's why it is bad.

But the problem with the current situation is since there is a natural barrier to competition because not every provider can be allowed to use easements to run their lines. The way cities handled this in the past was granting a single company a monopoly on providing a certain service. This doesn't work well in practice, particularly in industries that are not heavily regulated by the franchise authority like cable TV.

The solution to this problem is for the city to own a fiber network and any company that wants to provide IP services (TV, phone, internet) over this network is free to do so. This gives a level playing field for all competitors who want to provide this kind of service. The existing monopoly system does not work for anyone but the monopoly holder, it certainly does not work for the consumer.

Full disclosure, I am a subscriber of one of the fiber networks mentioned in the summary and so I might be biased.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#46172101)

Yes, exactly when Cox cable has minimum packages in San Diego that run $135 a month for basic and the only sports package. It's just ridiculous that these "public" granted monopolies continue to bend the consumer over.

Re: Protect Our Monopolies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46171073)

Yes and the money paid come right from the subscriber. You know like a tax.
Cable vision in NY has a better deal exclusive contracts. Aka a monopoly.
There is no other cable company possible. $50 a month for Internet.
You can get verizon in some places.
Government internet would worth a shot

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#46172925)

In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

Wow, you really have a middle-school social studies level of understanding how stuff works.

Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.

You better tell Comcast that they're wasting tons of money on those lobbyists because everything is fair and above-board and there's no need for them to dedicate so much money and effort to making it a non-free market.

Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has

Here's a little story. Once there were two satellite radio companies. And there would be no more licenses for satellite radio companies, because their lobbyists said, "there should be no more licenses because the fact that there are two companies means there will be competition." Then, one company bought the other. Now, the lobbyists say, "If there are any more licenses, then our business won't be viable!"

Now, cable television is a more mature sector, so the effect is not as blatant. But it is absolutely the same mechanism. And remember, the point of this story is the lobbyists are writing the laws.

Did you get that last? The lobbyists are the ones who are fucking writing the laws.

Free markets because impossible the day after free markets were invented. And rest assured, they were invented. Free markets do not exist in nature.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46173255)

The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...

Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

You dont have an understanding of the history of the cable companies do you? They used the same method that google and utopia used to get their network off the ground, tax payer funded subsidies and deals, now it is somehow bad if someone else does it?

If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

No we are apparently supposed to allow an artificial market to run at above market pricing, still supported by taxpayer subsidies.

Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.

The government allowed them to get the monopoly, to the detriment of the tax payers. In these cases the government is allowing another player to enter the market to compete, not competing itself.

In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

Incorrect, they pay a 5% free on gross revenue. It is not a fee per user, but should I mention they still get billions in subsidies from the government every year as well?

Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.

You mean besides that pesky access to public right of ways which is required to lay the cables, which the incumbents were granted typically free, but now want to prevent the competitors from having access to it in the same way?

If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

That's why it is bad.

The rest of this is just false propaganda from someone who seems to love the monopolistic nature of the "free market" system of cable, without an actual understanding of how it works.

RE:Protect our Monopolies! (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 8 months ago | (#46174521)

The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

Competition works great, until you get into the category of utilities. If the majority of the population decides that the free market isn't serving its needs, it can decide to create a utility. The reason why companies may not be entering a market is because the only way to give the product a reasonable cost (such has ones involving infrastructure) is to have everybody pay for it. Is there a free market where you get your water from or your electricity from? I highly doubt it. A company competes for a contract with the municipality, and then because the municipality is creating a monopoly for that company, it heavily regulates it to ensure that its citizens are receiving a reasonable deal. Why would municipalities do that? Perhaps because it's beneficial to that municipality to have all of the buildings in its borders to have that service. There are some cities still in first world countries that don't have power and water as utilities, but most do because it is a positive return on investment for them to do so.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46171329)

Until then, they need to take their scummy lobbyists and stop ripping people off or as far as I'm concerned, the whole network should be nationalized and turned into a public utility.

Communist!

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46170899)

The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network,

Seriously? Like some communities build their own water and sewage treatment systems (except for the overbuilding part)? Or their own electrical or telephone networks? Why is a fiber optic network so vastly different? Because they'd compete with Verizon and Comcast?

in turn generating income in the areas that have higher densities at the expense of the less dense areas.

So you're implying that private network would service less dense (less profitable) areas while a public network wouldn't? Why?

Should the same thing be done by a new-comer into private industry, done without tax dollars, or would connect all those who wanted it there would not be a problem.

Why? I'm having a lot of trouble picturing a new-comer to the fiber-optic internet industry going up against Verizon or Comcast without deep, deep pockets like Google.

Re:Protect Our Monopolies! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#46174529)

When will those Conservative Republicans realize, that Government shouldn't interfere with the natural progression of free enterprise?

i thought ya'll niggas was capitalist (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46167955)

this don't seem too free market to me man

Re:i thought ya'll niggas was capitalist (3, Funny)

quonsar (61695) | about 8 months ago | (#46168261)

oh, but it is! the fiber consortium's are free to buy more/better politicians as the cable companies and pass their own laws, yes? the competition in the graft market is healthy and vigorous!

Re:i thought ya'll niggas was capitalist (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#46172107)

Exactly. Why must the only acceptable answer be more corruption?

Only in the US (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46167969)

(I hope)

Campaign Contributions (4, Interesting)

Delarth799 (1839672) | about 8 months ago | (#46167985)

With another election year here it's time to roll out the bribe.... I mean campaign contributions to those who are willing to support the legislation being presented before them. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if most of those opposed to this had the big telcos or any PAC they setup start rolling out attack ads against them shortly.

Re:Campaign Contributions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168131)

Hey cats! See that nice banner about Beta on the front page today?

Bam! I totally called it! [slashdot.org]

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Campaign Contributions (0)

buswolley (591500) | about 8 months ago | (#46168145)

Just submitted a story to the Firehose: Once Slashdot beta has been foisted on me, what site should I use? Why don't you take a drink and plus it. http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

Re:Campaign Contributions (0)

Zynder (2773551) | about 8 months ago | (#46168183)

I threw ya a bone. Thanks for taking point.

eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168143)

Not really, since local politicians gotta keep the voters happy bribes won't help this bill get passed. not til after the elections end at least.

Re:Campaign Contributions (1, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46168155)

Yep

Bought out for just $250. [arstechnica.com] I guess that is what integrity costs nowdays.

Instead of ranting like we do on tech forums like slashdot I am wondering something instead? Is it possible to run with no campaign contributions at all? How stupid are American voters who buy things based on TV ads?

I am dead serious too. Perhaps if less people really vote based on flashy ads on TV we can get some R's and D's on pledge to not take any corporate donations? Ya ya both parties are the same I am about to get, but here is the truth. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Only same in being corrupt.

A true R is a libertarian and a true D is a green party person. With no influence they can push their ideologies.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168009)

The corruption is strong in the US, how about fixing that already?

Re:Seriously? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168659)

The corruption is strong in the US, how about fixing that already?

If you think it's bad here, you should look at the rest of the planet. We don't have shit on the UK, China, Russia, Mexico, India, or pretty much anywhere.

Like the old saying goes : (4, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about 8 months ago | (#46168019)

If you can't beat them, legislate them.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 8 months ago | (#46169595)

If you can't beat them, legislate them.

No private company can compete with a government operated one. People who don't want to be customers of the private company because they charge too much, or don't provide good enough service, or for whatever reason, don't have to pay anything. People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46171621)

You stupid libertarian fuck. You really think that the government is going to seize your house if you don't sign up for Google Fiber. The only choice you have with cable monopolies is to take it or leave it. God forbid a municipality eases up on the red tape and allows another company to serve the area and bring in some competition. Stupid little shits like yourself throw a panic attack thinking the jack booted thugs from the government are going to come to your door and make you sign up for it.

Funny thing happens in areas where fiber optic broadband pops up. The incumbent monopoly suddenly starts dropping prices and increasing speeds. You'd really think that AT&T would have announced their own gigabit fiber in Austin if Google Fiber had not shown up? So the monopolies really can compete if they wanted to, they just don't feel like it if there is no competition. You know... The textbook definition of a monopoly.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 months ago | (#46172629)

And people who don't want to be customers of a private monopoly have to do without service at all. And for something which involves laying cable in the ground a monopoly is how it will always end up simply due to the cost and stupidity of having lots of competing cables down every street (or none at all in unprofitable areas).

The only real solution would be a non profit to operate the physical infrastructure, on the basis of providing the same service everywhere to anyone at the same cost... Any company can rent the physical lines from the non profit at the same cost and provide service to end users, and the non profit uses all revenue from doing so to maintain and upgrade the network.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46172729)

People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.

You just made up what imaginary scenario now?

A government run company does not need to be a monopoly. It is typically more efficient than the alternative of course, private roads are not particularly popular.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46173361)

Again with the false propaganda. First this is not about a government owned monopoly, it is about the government helping other companies the same way they helped the incumbents in most cases. Second if I dont want water service from my local government I can dig a well and not have to pay a dime, no sheriff will come to my door. Same with most government untilities. The only time that will happen is if I use the service and not pay, or fail to pay my taxes.

Re:Like the old saying goes : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46174777)

No private company can compete with one having a government granted monopoly.

Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (4, Informative)

buswolley (591500) | about 8 months ago | (#46168023)

bye

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168211)

Those of us who read and post as AC have experienced this for a while.

Given that you are logged in, are you saying that logged in users are now getting hit with Slashdot Beta ?

Is there any other good places online where we can have the same detailed and informative discussions about the range of topics present on Slashdot ?

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168273)

I'd prefer it if there were places that did not delete comments. That's one of the things I like about Slashdot (other than that time they deleted one due to a DMCA request or something).

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (0)

Tailhook (98486) | about 8 months ago | (#46168505)

It was the Scientologists [slashdot.org] .

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (0)

sconeu (64226) | about 8 months ago | (#46168759)

That was when Cmdr Taco was running things. Dice probably will pull comments just at the threat of a lawsuit.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (5, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 8 months ago | (#46168377)

Yes, they're forcing logged in users over to Beta. Not all of us at once, but in waves.

If you find an alternative site, I'm all ears.

Or if you set up an alternative site, since older versions of SlashCode are open source.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168567)

I'm the same AC above. Thanks for the confirmation that logged in users are not getting hit as well.

I've read Slashdot daily for over a decade, but there's no way I'm going to suffer trying to read Slashdot using that horrible design when the Beta goes live.

There wasn't even a way in Beta to directly link to a specific comment within a thread the last time I checked.

I also don't know of any other viable sites unfortunately. Other sites I read like the Register don't have a suitable comments system and their news articles don't match the range of topics seen here on Slashdot.

I assume Javascript will also become mandatory on the new Slashdot as well. :-(

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168639)

Damn. I even proof read it before posting. :-(

Make that "Thanks for the confirmation that logged in users _are_ getting hit as well."

Sorry.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46170529)

I recall the first time I saw the Beta, a few weeks ago. My immediate response was to think that my DNS had been hijacked. I just closed the window. I still do, when I see the Beta. It's fucking awful. It's like they want to be purty, like OSX, but with the functionality of GNOME.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 8 months ago | (#46172453)

I'm using the old-old layout. the no ajax replies one. it's still on non-beta.

the beta is everything whats wrong with modern web design. might just as well use a fucking rss reader.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Thanosius (3519547) | about 8 months ago | (#46168497)

Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/) is considered a rather good source of tech news and discussion. It has a slight Apple bias since most of its contributors use Macs, and the level of discussion over Linux topics is relatively minor compared to Slashdot, but on the other hand there's far more balance in terms of user comments.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

SiChemist (575005) | about 8 months ago | (#46175253)

Maybe someone can create a subreddit for slashdot refugees.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (3)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 8 months ago | (#46168517)

I've tried it a few times and really do not like it... there is a lot of whitespace... comments don't stretch across horizontally from side to side so there's a big white empty column on the right side. Increasing the font size doesn't really do much except squeeze comments closer together in a weird way. It's not for me.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168979)

If you are on the beta, how are you posting? I call BS.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46170419)

The new layout is fugly.

It pisses me off when websites redesign their entire layout just to cater for the mobile users - fuck them, I still use desktop/laptop sized screens to view those sites and they look utter shite after the redesign.

Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot (2)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 8 months ago | (#46170491)

The beta doesn't add any useful new features. All it does is remove them and severely fucks up the best part of this site: the commenting and moderation system. If the commenting system goes out the window, why would I come here? The stories are always several days or a week old, the editors are terrible at their job, and all of the actual articles are on other sites I could browse instead.

What the hell, Dice?

Smackdown?!? (1)

tqk (413719) | about 8 months ago | (#46168033)

"On the heels of the smackdown received by cable lobbyists in Kansas ...

I don't think that word means what you think it means (if it's even a real word). From what I've read on the subject, it's more like, "Oopsie! We went a little too fast and didn't have all our ducks in a row. We'll iron out a few wrinkles first, then go live again soon. Sorry for any inconvenience this may've caused you."

Re:Smackdown?!? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46168099)

"I don't think that word means what you think it means (if it's even a real word)"

Its a real word - it means a wrestling match.

I think its on the SyFy channel

BTW just to keep on topic, (which is the Slashdot Beta) I haven't been to the beta site, but it sounds like crap to me.

Re:Smackdown?!? (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46173395)

Maybe it is you who does not know all the definitions of the word..

smackdown

smakdoun/

nouninformal

1. a bitter contest or confrontation.

"the age-old man versus Nature smackdown"

2. a decisive or humiliating defeat or setback.

Comcast tithes more than Google apparently ... (1)

citab (1677284) | about 8 months ago | (#46168051)

The state is good example of money talks ... I hope Google fights this hard!

Maybe the one democrat in the state senate can help .... doubt it. (I didn't fact check that, but in the past there have been times when there was only one)

Pay per bill Politics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168073)

For a small fee, you to can buy a Republican that will be willing to write up regulatory legislation that goes against their core values of free capitalism, free market and freedom.

Re:Pay per bill Politics (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46168091)

No. For a small fee, you can get a Republican to do unspeakable things to you in a public washroom. It takes a bit more money to give up the rest of their "core values".

Re:Pay per bill Politics (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#46171131)

and for a fraction of that fee, you can get TWO russians to do unspeakable things in the public restroom. our republicans look like amateurs compared to the sochi russians.

(gotta laugh at the 'double toilet' concept russia has come up with.)

Re:Pay per bill Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46173385)

For a small fee, you to can buy a Republican that will be willing to write up regulatory legislation that goes against their core values of free capitalism, free market and freedom.

These are not Republican values anymore. Just listen to any tea partier...

Politicians in the payrolls (2)

misosoup7 (1673306) | about 8 months ago | (#46168075)

And this is why we can't have nice network infrastructures.

Free market is dead (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46168087)

We're in a post-free market. One where buying and selling goods is a secondary market, ruled by the laws of buying and selling laws and regulations.

Re:Free market is dead (1)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46168435)

Haha, awesome. "Post-free market", indeed.

When will this end (2)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about 8 months ago | (#46168097)

It seems that every state legislature or local municipality is now entertaining the idea of limiting ISP competition and enabling packet discrimination. Can we please label all ISP's as common carriers and eliminate all of these monopoly protections.

Doesn't prevent fiber networks from growing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168119)

It just specifies that the networks cannot gay marry each other. The border gateways must swing the proper way.

Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (1, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 8 months ago | (#46168179)

The rich & powerful are going to use gov't whether you like it or not. If there is no gov't they'll use their wealth to create institutions that might as well be. I've yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

So if they're going to use the tool that is gov't, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't. The worst that'll happen is the jack boot in my neck is a public one instead of a private. And at least with a strong central gov't I can vote against Jack Boots...

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (2)

BoberFett (127537) | about 8 months ago | (#46168473)

So you're going to ensure that the government the rich and powerful have to use against you is even bigger and more powerful? Interesting logic.

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 8 months ago | (#46170633)

a weak government is ran by outside forces.
a strong government is ran by the elected people.

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (0)

BoberFett (127537) | about 8 months ago | (#46170869)

That's an adorable opinion. *pats gl4ss on the head*

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 8 months ago | (#46171209)

We can always go back to when one private security company (Pinkertons) out of many was bigger then the US armed forces. The government at the time was just strong enough to legitimize the private security companies who amongst other functions, did a lot of the work keeping the common worker in their place.
Actually we are going back there, as long as the government is capable of deputizing the private security the rich and powerful can fuck people over without a powerful government. Many other things are the same, big industry just needs the government to be powerful enough to legitimize them, which just takes a law, regulation or executive order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The private prison industry is another interesting expansion of private power.

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | about 8 months ago | (#46168881)

How odd that the more socialist this government becomes, the more things like this occur. There's always a ruling class and a subjugated class, no matter the form of government. Some are just more transparent about it than others.

Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46170559)

Only a fucking brainwashed moron would call your government socialist.

HB60 Pulled (4, Informative)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 8 months ago | (#46168181)

HB60 was pulled [utah.gov] from the scheduled Feb 4 committee meeting. I wonder if someone got cold feet?

Re:HB60 Pulled (3, Interesting)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 8 months ago | (#46168425)

It's an election year. Begging for attack ads from one of the world's largest advertising companies is a losing proposition.

"Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."

Google practically INVENTED 'ink' as it's used today. If they ever decide to really earnestly get down in the muck with the SuperPACs, it'll be a fun time in the old town.

Beta is shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168187)

Fuck this beta. This is no good.

Slashdot Beta (0)

McGruber (1417641) | about 8 months ago | (#46168201)

February 2014 will be forever known as Snuff February, when Dice Killed Slashdot.

Re:Slashdot Beta (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 8 months ago | (#46168461)

February 2014 will be forever known as Snuff February, when Dice Killed Slashdot.

I haven't heard such negative response to a new product since the first Windows 8 previews without the start menu!

Not thing ONE you can do about BETA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168221)

I've been on here for over 10 years. I'm resigned to fate. I only post AC now. I thought this [slashdot.org] would be a fitting end to my Slashdot "career".

The signs were all too familiar. I was getting the same feeling I got with Flickr. The people who pull the strings are locked in a vortex of sunk costs and spreadsheets.

New Slashdot Sucks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168269)

New Slashdot sucks!

Old Reddit is looking better and better.

how can Obama be blamed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168367)

somehow?

Re:how can Obama be blamed? (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | about 8 months ago | (#46168901)

Easy: with his executive hard on^H^H^H^H^H^H^Horder that he is ever so fond of.

In the spirit of anti-trust laws... (2)

mi (197448) | about 8 months ago | (#46168569)

a direct attack on Google's work in Provo and the UTOPIA network

Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?

Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?

At least, I can switch from FiOS to a coax-cable provider today...

Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 8 months ago | (#46170511)

What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however?

How could they? Is all that cable in the ground going to dry up and blow away? Is the cost of electricity going to overwhelm these poor benighted cable companies? Is the American public going to stop paying for all the media these incestuous content+transport companies produce? Are you not going to be able to choose AT&T or Comcast?

Maybe not. Throughout history, when a monopolist's power is broken and a real market happens, the monopolist takes their toys and goes home, after discovering they're a terribly inefficient dinosaur completely incapable of competing against a real contender.

On the other hand, three providers is still not a market. It takes a minimum of four competitors before a sector begins to behave like an actual market, instead of an oligopoly. Widespread deployment of Google fiber would bring the number of providers all the way up to two, in some areas, and one, in plenty of others.

AT&T may have some leaner years ahead, but Ma Bell isn't going away any time this century.

Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... (1)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about 8 months ago | (#46170689)

Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?

Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?

The UTOPIA network is owned by the member cities. If Google would like to provide ISP services to people on that network they are free to do so, the same as any other ISP. Provider lock-in is why networks should stay the property of the people and not the corporations, hopefully UTOPIA won't go the way of iProvo and get gifted to Google.

Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46171691)

What happens if Comcast decides to "boycott" a site? What happens if a municipal broadband provider decides to filter out adult websites? Censorship is a possibility with any service provider unless we have network neutrality.

Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... (2)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#46172673)

We already have that with other providers. You cannot have a server service on home service for Cox or Time Warner in San Diego. You cannot use more than a phone account's worth of data without being hounded. If your family downloads more than 50GB a month Cox wants you to get a $100/month business account; which I did. Then when they introduced distributed service over other TCP products (tablets, phones, etc) I could not get that service without paying an additional $50 a month to have the home Internet service again, essentially requiring me to purchase home Internet and business Internet service for a household of six to simply use the Internet. Reality is that the moment something like Google gets here with that type of throughput the decisions the government monopoly is forcing on me to have nominal content will push me towards Google immediately.

Nobody wants gigabit internet! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46168667)

But, we better legislate against it just in case.

brb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46169319)

Writing my state rep....

More cynical than most (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46169333)

A lot of this is just politicians putting out trail balloons to get money from both sides. The most attractive legislation legislation to politicians is one that pits deep pocket antagonists against each other. The government can write but not pass bills and study the issue to death all the while getting contributions from lobbyists on each side.

I'd care if it wasn't Utah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46169833)

They'd just use the bandwidth ti meddle in the affairs of other states.

How to protect a service from commoditization (1)

saintory (944644) | about 8 months ago | (#46172445)

It's my opinion that if it weren't for these regional monopolies, internet service pricing would be much much lower.

If a good or service becomes a commodity, and the price of that commodity levels out at a sufficiently low cost, why wouldn't a municipality take out a bond and develop its own fiber service. How is it unlike a water and sewer department?

Re:How to protect a service from commoditization (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 8 months ago | (#46173387)

Definition.

Water and Sewer are utilities, and thereby regulated.
Internet is an entertainment service, and thereby unregulated.

Telephone service providers are pushing to move their equipment entirely to IP, gaining the "service" classification as it would no longer fit the present definition of a telecommunications network.

SCOTUS (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#46172549)

Really needs to step in and stamp this nonsense out since the FCC is clearly inept ( or corrupt ).

Its are very rare cases where a state protected monopoly is appropriate, where fractured markets and incompatibility will harm consumers, but physical internet access is NOT one of them.

Seems badly worded, but a fair compromise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46173241)

It appears to be purposfully hard to understand.
      (Perhaps both a lawyer's relief fund and a sneek it by the public act.)

That aside, it appears to say if a group (Interlocal entity) of cities (members) wants to get together and do municipal broadband, that's ok.
Ok includes creating a fiber, regional network to serve the folks in those municipalities.

Ok would not include competing to provide services to others outside that group of cities.

It's a big leap to go from the gobbldy gook wording to that interpretation, but if it's correct then:
it seems like a fair compromise to allow municpal broadband but put that limit on it.
(Assuming other areas in the region can goin the group in the future.)

A city providing utility service has some advantages over a private entity doing the same thing.
    (Like already owning the rights of way.)

The folks in the city certainly have a right to use those rights or way how i t best serves them,
      not how it best serves the phone company.

I'm not sure why those rights should extend outside the city.
So maybe it's ok to limit a community's broadband efforts to the area of the community.
(The folks in a city would not be able to collect revenue from subscribers in the surrounding county,
unless they were willing to give those folks ownership in the service.)

Again, a big jump in understanding. Perhaps there is someone here who understands those words?

(( It's interesting that it only applies to fiber. I guess that makes wireless ok. An easy work around for adjacent members of different groups would be to get to the adjoing edge with fiber, and then go wireless or wired over the gap?))

Rep Curt Webb (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about 8 months ago | (#46173839)

The representative for HB060 [utah.gov] is Curt Webb from Logan UT. Seems odd as his area is not remotely close to UTOPIA or Google Fiber. Looks like someone someone found a disinterested politician who doesn't know any better to push this bill?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>