From: John Cuccia 

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:51:55 -0400, "Gary Britt"
 wrote:

>
>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:63cu91t7cj6rmr6a8mmslj190fjo7ir6ca{at}4ax.com...
>>
>> The heart of the matter is this: if the local citizenry decides via
>> referendum that it is the "proper province of the local tax
base" then
>> who are the Feds to say otherwise?
>
>I think the Fed's interest should be limited to making sure that competition
>on the wires, pipes, whatever coming into each home survives.  In other
>words the city should be treated just like a for profit business and be
>required to allow competitors to sell service on their wires and pipes.

That would have been true until last October when the FCC decided that
incumbent providers don't have to sell service on *their* wires and pipes
to competitors
(http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.pdf).

Quite simply put, Bellsouth and SureWest were not going to install FTTC
(fiber-to-the-curb) networks until they were assured that they would not
have to sell parts of the resulting bandwith availability to competitors. 
Since the FCC agreed and decided to further strengthen the monopoly hold of
incumbent providerss, they can't do otherwise for municipal systems,
without revealing the extent to which they are beholden to those
incumbents.

>Without competition John, the day will come when you will be subsidizing the
>internet and telephone usage of those who choose not to work, and as a
>result you will get lousy service for a high price.

There is no competition now, Gary.  Small markets are underserved by the
Baby Bells and cable television providers and without competition from
somewhere, they will never upgrade services to small markets. Since the FCC
has decided that the incumbents do not need to sell bandwidth to
competitors, that leaves local governments as the only entities capable of
providing that service.

The Congressman from SBC isn't interested in competition, he's interested
in preserving the existing monopoly.

Here's today's example of corporate obstructionism (such examples abound,
by the way).  Qwest has no plans to provide more than 1.5mbps service to
these communities, so they decided to do something about it.  In your
world, Qwest would rise to the competitive challenge by offering more
service for less money.  In the real world Qwest's answer is a lawsuit.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/64156
Dubbed Utopia, 14 Utah cities have bonded together to deploy fiber to homes
and businesses. The project offers users 10Mbps fiber connections for $40,
with symmetrical 50 and 100Mbps (planners claim for less than $100) tiers
planned. According to the Deseret News, Qwest is now suing the project for
dodging taxes, cutting Qwest lines, endangering the public welfare, and
unfair competitive practices. Qwest, unlike the other bells, has no real
next-gen network plans, other than running the occasional fiber to
developments, then capping it at 1.5Mbps.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5