Washington Law Would Let Counties Sell Broadband Service When Comcast Won’t

[HardOCP News]

Recently proposed legislation in Washington state is trying to give counties the right to offer broadband service to residents when providers like Comcast refuse to.

In short, if your area has a dominant Internet service provider (meaning that it offers service to more than 51% of the municipality), but that ISP isn’t willing or is unable to provide service to certain residents, then the ban on retail sales would be lifted. To Rolfes, this “limited and prescribed” approach to retail county-owned broadband is a way to provide residents with a much-needed service without the government encroaching on the cable company’s business.

 

[Wrecked Em]

I live miles down the road from Microsoft, and it's hilarious how many homes in the area cannot get broadband. I'm looking at a cheaper house about 5 miles further out, but it's going to cost another $20-30k to get Comcast to run a cable out to it.

 

[J Macker]

I hope it passes!
Broadband should be classified as an essential utility.

 

[Jagger100]

I hope it passes!
Broadband should be classified as an essential utility.

You might be able to argue Dial-up level service is essential. But people can pay for their own broadband without me subsidizing it.

 

[somecallmeTim]

And in areas where Comcast it, they tend to have a legal monopoly. Our choices in the 'kan are Comcast or CenturyTel. That's it. There is miles of dark fiber in town - Comcast blocks any attempt to turn it on as they actually do have a legal monopoly in the city limits. <sigh>.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Government: You said you aren't going to offer the customers in XYZ service so we are putting in lines

Cable company: No WAIT. We are going to offer them service in six months, which we will then install by 2040. So you can't install cable. Those our are future customers and you are undermining our [monopoly] business

I've seen it happen many times

 

[Syran]

And in areas where Comcast it, they tend to have a legal monopoly. Our choices in the 'kan are Comcast or CenturyTel. That's it. There is miles of dark fiber in town - Comcast blocks any attempt to turn it on as they actually do have a legal monopoly in the city limits. <sigh>.

Sounds like Hinesville, GA to me, except most of the dark fiber in town in Centurylink's not Comcast. But where I live, my choices are even less, Centurylink & Satellite. We don't even have cable for TV (which is fine, since I was a Dish Customer before moving out to where I am now); but I would love better internet options, I also know, it simply isn't going to happen without some form of mandate.

 

[Exavior]

You might be able to argue Dial-up level service is essential. But people can pay for their own broadband without me subsidizing it.

But that is what is going to happen here and at a very hefty cost. Town north of me is getting bids for somebody to put in a 25 mile fiber ring for them. Current bids just to get it buried are around $33 a foot. So that is $4.4 million just to get the fiber in the ground going to just government buildings and a few larger companies. That doesn't include the splitters or equipment to actually turn it up. Or the company to manage everything. So by the time it is all done I think this is supposed to be about $15 million just to get their 25 miles done inside city limits. $15 million of tax payer money. Now you want to go into rural areas that the others have decided would cost too much to go into and do something. So instead of just building out your plant around that area you are looking at building out to the middle of nowhere then spending what the other did not want to.

Its nice that these counties want to try to help the people, but it will be at a very costly venture to the tax payers.

And in areas where Comcast it, they tend to have a legal monopoly. Our choices in the 'kan are Comcast or CenturyTel. That's it. There is miles of dark fiber in town - Comcast blocks any attempt to turn it on as they actually do have a legal monopoly in the city limits. <sigh>.

Problem with your statement is that Comcast can't be a monopoly for anything for cable tv service. The local telephone company (CenturyTel) would be the "monopoly" for phone and internet if you want to call it that. So they should have no say in somebody using fiber.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You might be able to argue Dial-up level service is essential. But people can pay for their own broadband without me subsidizing it.

Except everyone benefits when you bust the telecom monopolies, including you.

I tend to be a free market capitalist, but even I have to acknowledge that there are some industries in which the free market model has completely failed, (most notably telecommunications and healthcare) in which the government must step in for the public good and remedy the situation.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Problem with your statement is that Comcast can't be a monopoly for anything for cable tv service. The local telephone company (CenturyTel) would be the "monopoly" for phone and internet if you want to call it that. So they should have no say in somebody using fiber.

Well with a reclassification of what broadband is defined as, you could say Comcast has a monopoly on broadband, since the DSL service that telephone service employ (unless you're one of the rare ones that has the option of fiber) does not qualify as broadband.

 

[Litfod]

Its nice that these counties want to try to help the people, but it will be at a very costly venture to the tax payers.

As if government isn't perfectly capable of pissing away that sort of money on much more corrupt and worthless shit in the blink of an eye. If you believe that every tax dollar must benefit you, and you alone, I can think of countless things I would be less happy about my money going towards than this, but unfortunately it's not an a-la-carte system.

Anyway, I don't expect the lobbyists for the likes of Comcast are going to let it happen.

 

[TwistedAegis]

More efficient infrastructure - roads, rail, telecom, internet - enable people to work and live more efficiently, which has the potential to be a net positive for everyone.

So $4.4M over the ~20-25 years the cabling is good for works out to ~$220,000/year in today's dollars, less if you factor in the value of said dollars over time. Is that $220k per year likely to be repaid in efficiency of the users of the broadband (remote work, remote learning, etc) and quality of life?

Just because you can go joyriding in your convertible on a road, doesn't mean said road isn't valuable to the economy for people to drive to work, ship goods, etc.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Its nice that these counties want to try to help the people, but it will be at a very costly venture to the tax payers.

That hasn't been the experience where community internet service has been implemented.

Typically after an initial investment to get them up and running, they have been self sustaining based on subscription income, while producing better quality service, and happier customers than for-profit ISP's.

It's amazing what you can do when your primary goal is to provide good internet service, not provide return on investment to a shareholder.

The for-profit model only works in the consumers advantage in fiercely competitive markets. because of a combination of large barriers to entry, and local monopolies, broadband service is barely competitive at all, and thus the for-profit model works against the consumer.

 

[somecallmeTim]

Problem with your statement is that Comcast can't be a monopoly for anything for cable tv service. The local telephone company (CenturyTel) would be the "monopoly" for phone and internet if you want to call it that. So they should have no say in somebody using fiber.

The TelCo (currently CentruryLink) was grandfathered in since they own the copper. There is an actual city ordnance on the books that Comcast has sole broadband and wired TV service within the city limits. Nobody can come in and provide either service. It sucks. The dark fiber was laid by third party, the TeclCo (which has changed names so many time it's hard to keep up) doesn't own it. Several local ISPs have access to it, but they can not offer broadband service.

Nit pick all you want... If you think that DSL is even remotely a comparable to cable.... then we need to do some math . Yah, I used the term "monopoly" -- it is. I live here, and I have to do deal with it. Sure... "two providers" neither of which is worth what you pay for it.

There is such a good-ol-boy network around here...

 

[SparkedFire]

But that is what is going to happen here and at a very hefty cost. Town north of me is getting bids for somebody to put in a 25 mile fiber ring for them. Current bids just to get it buried are around $33 a foot. So that is $4.4 million just to get the fiber in the ground going to just government buildings and a few larger companies. That doesn't include the splitters or equipment to actually turn it up. Or the company to manage everything. So by the time it is all done I think this is supposed to be about $15 million just to get their 25 miles done inside city limits. $15 million of tax payer money. Now you want to go into rural areas that the others have decided would cost too much to go into and do something. So instead of just building out your plant around that area you are looking at building out to the middle of nowhere then spending what the other did not want to.

Its nice that these counties want to try to help the people, but it will be at a very costly venture to the tax payers.

We need to do something on the scale of the interstate system but everyone is so focused on pleasing themselves, nothing meaningful and proactive gets done anymore. It's always reactive.

 

[Nolan7689]

Nit pick all you want... If you think that DSL is even remotely a comparable to cable.... then we need to do some math . Yah, I used the term "monopoly" -- it is. I live here, and I have to do deal with it. Sure... "two providers" neither of which is worth what you pay for it.

In all fairness as slow as DSL is it is still light years ahead of 56k. I grew up on dialup at my parents house until 2008-9 when they were finally offered DSL (someone crashed their truck into Verizon's equipment so they decided might as well upgrade to DSL compatibility) the difference was night and day. A simple 3Mbps connection but it allows them to do all the normal internet tasks. Though downloading still takes quite a while but it's possible now. No way my dad could have downloaded Fallout 4 over 56K.

 

[nutzo]

I tend to be a free market capitalist, but even I have to acknowledge that there are some industries in which the free market model has completely failed, (most notably telecommunications and healthcare) in which the government must step in for the public good and remedy the situation.

Except a big part of the problem with cable is government granted local monopolies, and with healthcare it's that 60% is already government paid and the rest is highly government regulated.

Don't see much free market capitalism in either.

 

[kbrickley]

I fail to see how this is a government responsibility ... water is a necessity too but that doesn't mean they will run connections out to isolated rural customers (they require you to provide your own service at your own expense) ... electricity is generally a necessity too but the homeowner can be charged to connect them to the grid ... I agree that allowing the homeowner to connect to an internet infrastructure should be required ... however, that connection should be made at the homeowner's expense and not the expense of the State or ISP

 

[MavericK]

Comcast is pretty much the only game in town where I live (technically Frontier has service but it's 1.5mb DSL I believe, so...not competitive).

I've heard they are in the first stages of installing a municipal fiber network, though, which is expected to be 100 Mbps for $30/mo and 1 Gbps for $60-70/mo. Definitely getting gigabit if that comes to fruition.

 

[MavericK]

In all fairness as slow as DSL is it is still light years ahead of 56k. I grew up on dialup at my parents house until 2008-9 when they were finally offered DSL (someone crashed their truck into Verizon's equipment so they decided might as well upgrade to DSL compatibility) the difference was night and day. A simple 3Mbps connection but it allows them to do all the normal internet tasks. Though downloading still takes quite a while but it's possible now. No way my dad could have downloaded Fallout 4 over 56K.

Technically, DSL that slow doesn't even fall under the current definition of "broadband".

 

[Exavior]

The TelCo (currently CentruryLink) was grandfathered in since they own the copper. There is an actual city ordnance on the books that Comcast has sole broadband and wired TV service within the city limits. Nobody can come in and provide either service. It sucks. The dark fiber was laid by third party, the TeclCo (which has changed names so many time it's hard to keep up) doesn't own it. Several local ISPs have access to it, but they can not offer broadband service.

Nit pick all you want... If you think that DSL is even remotely a comparable to cable.... then we need to do some math . Yah, I used the term "monopoly" -- it is. I live here, and I have to do deal with it. Sure... "two providers" neither of which is worth what you pay for it.

There is such a good-ol-boy network around here...

DSL won't get you to the same speeds. But personally I am fine with my 35 down / 5 up DSL connection. My coworker is fine with his 75/15.

For the average normal family 35 - 50 is going to cut it. up will be the killer in most cases.

 

[0ptional]

I'm in a community built originally with the intent for microsoft contractors from overseas to live in temporarily; MSFT never built the location they planned for this land and now it's just regular residential stuff but we have a municipal fiber ISP which is amazing and cheap. Gigabit symetrical for $70/mo.

 

[midnightfrolic]

It's unfathomable why any government entity allow this sort of ISP monopoly to continue.

Oh wait, money talks apparently....

 

[otherweeb]

Used to be small cable companies outside Seattle proper. Comcast gobbles them up....

 

[lcpiper]

And in areas where Comcast it, they tend to have a legal monopoly. Our choices in the 'kan are Comcast or CenturyTel. That's it. There is miles of dark fiber in town - Comcast blocks any attempt to turn it on as they actually do have a legal monopoly in the city limits. <sigh>.

Umm, you can't get satellite service?

http://www.bestsatelliteproviders.com/satellite-internet-providers/

I'm not saying this is as good as cable or even DSL, but it's a damn site better then 56K and it meats needs just fine. As long as your gaming and streaming isn't a need, and it actually probably would support streaming anyway.

 

[kbrickley]

It's unfathomable why any government entity allow this sort of ISP monopoly to continue.

Oh wait, money talks apparently....

It's perfectly fathomable since most cities and states haven't figured out how to manage the process like Texas does Electricity choice ... you should have one private company who owns the infrastructure and maintains it (they are paid a fixed fee from every connected user as part of their monthly bill) ... you then have all the companies who wish to use the infrastructure to offer ISP services (they would charge whatever they think is competitive to get the types of subscribers they find desirable)

Unfortunately, most places treat their ISP market like their water services but without the price controls ... water and sewer are generally monopolies but they have built in price controls (in most places) ... until they figure out how to split off the infrastructure from the ISPs they probably need to treat ISPs like a regulated monopoly (equivalent to water, power, and gas in many locations)