Michigan Town Approves Fiber Internet Despite Intense Lobbying (upnorthlive.com) 121
Long-time Slashdot reader Proudrooster writes:
Fiber Internet is coming to Traverse City, Michigan in the hopes of attracting high tech startups and helping the city become a high-tech hub. Even in the face of intense lobbying by [commercial high-speed internet provider] Charter, The Mackinaw Center for Public Policy, and a barrage of pop up ads opposing it, the project is moving ahead into phase one.
It was more than apparent that Charter did everything it could to try and sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt to try and kill this project as other incumbent providers have done across the USA. [Citation needed -- though Traverse City officials did report high-powered anonymous lobbying.] Kudos to the board of Traverse City Light and Power and the residents of Traverse City for being brave and making this investment in their community. Even though the decision is not finalized, the network may be an open network, allowing customers to purchase from a variety of providers.
This project will undoubtedly be watched nationwide and possibly serve as a new model for other community fiber builds.
It was more than apparent that Charter did everything it could to try and sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt to try and kill this project as other incumbent providers have done across the USA. [Citation needed -- though Traverse City officials did report high-powered anonymous lobbying.] Kudos to the board of Traverse City Light and Power and the residents of Traverse City for being brave and making this investment in their community. Even though the decision is not finalized, the network may be an open network, allowing customers to purchase from a variety of providers.
This project will undoubtedly be watched nationwide and possibly serve as a new model for other community fiber builds.
I'll bet the lawsuits are already written (Score:5, Insightful)
and ready to file. The emergency injunction will be in place within 24 hours of the final decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like competition is chased by injunctions and other means instead of improving services.
Re:I'll bet the lawsuits are already written (Score:5, Interesting)
That's capitalism. Once big enough, it is more efficient to use the law to kill competitors then directly compete by improving.
Capitalism is blind and rewards efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
That's capitalism. .
Is it? Or is it just greed?
And, no, They are not the same thing. But human nature being what it is, the situation arises which you describe. This is why we need to regulate commerce, not let it become predominant.
Re: (Score:3)
Well capitalism is a pretty loose term which basically means using capital to produce more capital and does traditionally revolve around greed.
Re: (Score:3)
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy hit-piece is kind of funny, starting with
Traverse City Continuing Push for Government-Run Internet
and continuing with a bunch of weird propaganda, and ending with a bunch of commenters calling bullshit on the whole bit.
Huh. Traverse City has lower electricity costs than the townships that abut it, TCL&P seems very well operated, their network is reliable, and they have excellent cash reserves. In addition to providing low cost electricity they pay a significant sum to the general fund every year. Nationally municipal internet is much less expensive than private competitors. It's great that you guys have a philosophy, but it's a shame when it causes you to mis-state facts. We have more than enough of that at the national level.
What’s Groundhog Day is the Mackinac Center for Public policy continually advocating for monopolies on internet access.
Etc,
Hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
A large corporation using government regulations...
Quite right. It's an example of poorly regulated capitalism.
Re: I'll bet the lawsuits are already written (Score:2)
That's notncapitalism, it's legalized monopoly, and that means stagnation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's someone (or group) using their capital to buy a legal monopoly to increase their capital, which is capitalism. Don't confuse capitalism with a free market as they're at odds. Free market works for consumers, non-free market works for who has the most capital. Unluckily it seems to take government interaction to keep a market free and government is corruptible. In theory democracy allows changing government when it gets corrupt, but it has to be a healthy democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It means voters need to pay attention, and they usually don't. They're more concerned about exaggerated side issues that they vote for the people who end up doing them the most harm. The internet isn't high on their radar.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when politicians could stop this. Not often but it happened. These days though, the pols will kill the free market any which way they can as long as it gets them some campaign funds.
Re: (Score:3)
You win all your fights because you're fighting a stationary straw man. Try taking on the real arguments in favor of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
No, mercantilism isn't that, lots of similar definitions on the net, here's the first one that came up, https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
Yo
Re: (Score:1)
No, mercantilism isn't that, lots of similar definitions on the net, here's the first one that came up,
Academics use different definitions of terms like this, depending upon their background and intentions.
Here's the first definition I found with google:
Mercantilism: the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.
A key phrase here is "by means of protectionism".
Problems with government granted monopoly were documented even as early as the Elizabethan Era. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth o
Re: (Score:2)
We're not really disagreeing, just at odds with terminology mostly, along with the confusion that capitalism equals free market.
My point is that the capitalist will try to subvert the free market, often by corrupting government and that's what has happened here. The free market has failed as the capitalist intended and that is a better use of his capital to do this, from his viewpoint.
The fix in a democracy is to remove the corrupt government and replace it with a non-corrupt government but the choices seem
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. That's a straw man. If you use government to stiffle your competitors it's called "mercantilism."
I thought buying the government for the purposes of rent seeking was an aspect of fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest enemy of capitalism is successful capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much you wanna bet they'll pull a TDS and build their own network under the city's nose while their hands are tied in court?
Re: (Score:2)
And losing the lawsuit is only a tactical loss. If the municipal internet project is delayed long enough, then it is still a strategic win for the ISP.
Seems like lobbying is irrelevant in these cases (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I've seen a similar headline a few times now, where a town votes to install high speed lines despite "intense lobbying".
I can't see where such lobbying would ever work no matter how intense. How can anyone possibly argue agains more and better internet coming to a city?
What would "intense" even mean beyond spending a boatload of money, which would just serve to anger citizens further as the company lobbying could have spent that money putting in high speed lines as well.
Good luck small Michigan town, I hope the strategy works out for you!
Re: (Score:1)
This is where the big guys spend big bucks on hookers and blow(H&B) at the state leg level. See Texas and efforts by cities to control ride sharing. Uber/lyft failed at the city level (too much transparency at the local level for H&B) so you retarget at the state legislator to overturn city decisions. At the state level you just need to find the right legislators that can be swayed by H&B. Married christians are the number one target.
H&B has lost its hold (Score:2)
This is where the big guys spend big bucks on hookers and blow(H&B) at the state leg level.
That used to be the case but these days anyone can find H&B at reasonable prices thanks to the internet, so why risk getting substandard H&B from a corporation trying to influence you?
If Charter can't even provide half decent cable service, would you honestly snort coke they gave you? Seems like it would be closer to draino than some pure Columbian.
Re: (Score:1)
Once again, your feelings have betrayed you.
If the lobbying doesn't turn them to the dark side, maybe the lawsuits will...
Re: (Score:1)
It worked in Seattle [dslreports.com]. The arguments against municipal broadband were some combination of complaining it would be too expensive and that the commercial ISPs started offering gigabit (in some very limited areas). Of course, despite Seattle's reputation, progressive politicians don't really get elected at the city level, so the pro-corporate Democrat becoming mayor wasn't a big surprise. But they did so with a fair amount of Comcast/CenturyLink money and followed through on their promise to kill the municipal
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, good point - interesting case, I had not seen that about Seattle.
Seems a little different than lobbying against the idea with an existing government, and takes longer term thinking to promote mayors that are in alignment with blocking state competition to your monopoly...
However I would still argue that pouring a bunch of money into a candidate is no longer a a guarantee you'll win. More and more we are seeing political upsets where a candidate that spends a lot of money is still beaten by a financial
Re:Seems like lobbying is irrelevant in these case (Score:4)
I can't see where such lobbying would ever work no matter how intense. How can anyone possibly argue agains more and better internet coming to a city?
Why do you think so many cities/states have prohibited municipal ISPs? Do you honestly think they aren't being bought off?
You seem to be unaware of even the most simplistic lobbying techniques. Company A agrees provides state facilities with free internet service for B years so that politician(s) C can now put $D toward pet project E.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see where such lobbying would ever work no matter how intense. How can anyone possibly argue agains more and better internet coming to a city?
The argument is about not wanting government to participate in free enterprise, tax money being used to fund it, etc. Kind of pro-capitalism argument. Mind you I don't AGREE with it, but that is the only argument I have seen.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is about preserving free enterprise by enabling competition even if the government has to step in. The free market on its own is not self regulating, it has shown time and time again to favor monopolies and trusts. But you just have to whisper "that's what the commies would do" and suddenly people who don't like to think get up in arms about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is about preserving free enterprise by enabling competition even if the government has to step in. The free market on its own is not self regulating, it has shown time and time again to favor monopolies and trusts.
How exactly does that work when the most effective way to stifle competition is to buy the government?
Re: (Score:2)
There is something here that evades the non-article reader: why is Charter opposing the plan to build the dark fiber when they can offer services like cable TV and internet on top of it? They wouldn't even have to build their own fiber. Of course, maybe they fear competition that can offer the same services much cheaper.
Right now Charter has a natural monopoly. Nobody except the government can afford to install a competing fiber system. So Charter has no interest in allowing such a system to be installed when it will only create competition at the expense of Charter.
Re: Seems like lobbying is irrelevant in these cas (Score:2)
How can anyone possibly argue agains more and better internet coming to a city?
They can, and some are, arguing against public utilities targeting what has been private industry.
The public utility is choosing to borrow $3.5M to offer 2,200 residents the ability to sign up for municipal internet service. If adoption rates are low, the utility will be forced to raise rates to cover the loan payments and operating expenses. So what that means is the entire community is responsible for millions borrowed to offer high-speed internet to a small fraction of the town... "how can anyone possibl
Re: (Score:2)
Because it might not work, you're willing to be a slave to Charter, Comcast, or whoever your provider is? Why not let the community make up their own minds instead of butting in.
Lobbying is very effective (Score:4, Informative)
I can't see where such lobbying would ever work no matter how intense. How can anyone possibly argue agains more and better internet coming to a city?
It works all the time and big telecoms routinely drop large sums [fortune.com] fighting against municipal broadband often with some very shady tactics. Something like 27 states have laws limiting or prohibiting municipal broadband. Their arguments including but are not limited to:
1) It hurts free speech [latimes.com]
2) Various false propaganda [vice.com] (no they aren't honest in their arguments
3) Support from the corrupt Ajit Pai at the FCC
4) Pandering to the dumber republicans who knee-jerk oppose anything that smells like government services regardless of its merits.
5) Ensuring that the definition of broadband is such that they don't have to provide it in rural or economically challenged locations
6) Payoffs to local, state, and federal officials
Basically the big telecoms don't want the expense of providing service to economically disadvantaged areas because it isn't profitable to them to do so. It's cheaper for them to lobby against it and they tend to have far better resources and coordination and connections than the small towns they typically fight over the issue.
What would "intense" even mean beyond spending a boatload of money, which would just serve to anger citizens further as the company lobbying could have spent that money putting in high speed lines as well.
Most citizens aren't terribly aware of the lobbying or the consequences and their anger (when it exists) tends to not really matter much since the battle tends to be fought in the courts and state legislatures. These are big companies with deep pockets and flesh eating lawyers and government sanctioned monopolies fueling their profits. Not an easy fight to win even when the cause is just.
Good luck small Michigan town, I hope the strategy works out for you!
Traverse City isn't really a small town like you are probably thinking. The city itself is small (around 14K citizens) but the metro area around it has a population of about 145K. It's a fairly posh and popular tourist destination in Michigan and the city is fairly well off economically. Lot of wineries and festivals and it's pretty close to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore [wikipedia.org].
Brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of a fucked-up country do you guys have if a city has to fear a goddamn corporation?
The proper order should be, by decreasing importance: people, governments, corporations.
You misunderstand, fear of the work, not company (Score:3)
What kind of a fucked-up country do you guys have if a city has to fear a goddamn corporation?
The bravery is fear of spending money not sure if it will work, not fear of an inept cooperation that can't convince a populace they can handle the task to be done...
It's all to easy to just sit back and let some local monopoly handle everything and just hope someday they deliver high-speed internet. Far more brave to take the wheel and do all the work to actually make it happen when the government handling that t
Re: (Score:1)
the most weak minded of fools - federal politicians.
No, the politicians are clever and astute. The people that reelect them are the weak minded fools.
Regardless, the private company can buy and rent out access to the "government tube". If they provide secure reliable service at a reasonable price, they will make a healthy profit and free advertising from loyal customers. Everybody wins! Isn't that amazing?
Re: (Score:2)
Those that don't have a healthy fear of the multinational corporations that control our country are either ignorant or fools. The hope is people wake up & take back the power (money should not be free speech & corporations are should not be considered people). Mild disdain? Please.
Re: (Score:1)
What kind of a fucked-up country do you guys have if a city has to fear a goddamn corporation?
Depending on the relative sizes of the parties involved, many corporations would have larger legal budgets than many towns. Traverse City has a population of 15,000:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traverse_City,_Michigan
Their total revenues are US$ 17M:
* http://www.traversecitymi.gov/budget.asp
Re: (Score:2)
This was the beginning of the end.
In the real world... (Score:2)
What kind of a fucked-up country do you guys have if a city has to fear a goddamn corporation?
You are aware that these corporations are multi-national entities with more money than a lot of nation-states, right? They tend to be vastly more powerful and more connected than your typical city no matter what country you live in. They have flesh eating lawyers, deep pockets, paid off politicians, and they have a hand in writing the state and federal laws governing all this stuff, often through regulatory capture. Heck they even have one of their cronies as the current head of the FCC - Ajit Pai used
Not A New Model (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a new model for fiber builds. This is following the tried and true model first popularized by Ammon, Idaho. Slashdot even covered in only three years ago:
Read the article [slashdot.org].
Love the reasoning against this (Score:5, Insightful)
"Concerns ranged from a public utility competing with private companies to what will happen if not enough Light and Power customers subscribe to fiber optic internet. If they aren't able to recover that investment what's going to happen is they're going to have to find some way to recover that money," said Gerald Degrazia, a concerned citizen about fiber optic internet. "Really the only way they can recover that money is to raise the rates for the electric customers."
So this guy, presuming he isn't a shill for Comcast, is implicitly arguing that he prefers the certainty of Comcast's regular broadband price increases over the uncertainty of imaginary electrical rate increases.
Re: (Score:1)
The Macinaw center is a Billionaire funded shill for all Republican causes. The DeVos family philosophy and their causes have been a scourge upon Michigan. For those that don't live here, across the State:
-Our voting districts are gerrymandered
-Our roads are abysmal
-Our water is poisoned in many counties
-Our public schools are in shambles
-Our publicly funded charter schools are under-performing and unaccountable to the taxpayers
-Our cities have been de-funded and taken over by emergency managers.
-Our popu
Re: Love the reasoning against this (Score:3)
In 2016 there were eight states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, where the population declined. [usatoday.com]
Michigan is not the only state to see their population decrease, nor is it the only state with bad roads, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was still affiliated with a political party that matched that of the DeVos clan, and my mom dove in head first into Amway, I know those people were idiotic nuballs. They'll try to sell you inferior household items by claiming how patriotic it all is, and so many people bought that lie and joined the pyramid scheme.
(I still feel terrible about bringing home that Amway literature)
Re: (Score:2)
So this guy, presuming he isn't a shill for Comcast, is implicitly arguing that he prefers the certainty of Comcast's regular broadband price increases over the uncertainty of imaginary electrical rate increases.
You never know, he might not have internet. Or may be satisfied with dialup. AOL internet is still a thing.
Re: Love the reasoning against this (Score:3)
Maybe he doesn't want his electric bill to go up if too few people sign up for municipal internet access and the operation loses money.
Maybe he's part of the 12,800 traverse city residents that won't be served by phase one, yet still on the hook for the expense if it fails.
Re: (Score:2)
What if they don't get enough customers to pay for the roads we build? What if they don't get enough customers to pay for the bridges we build? What if no one signs up for electricity after we string the wires? It's best just to stay in our caves and play things safe!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Traverse City is served by Charter. And "Gerald DeGrazia is a TCL&P customer and was a division president at Time Warner Cable until 2005." [michiganca...ential.com]
So see, it's a sincere, objective belief. Ignore his background as a cable executive and that his former employer was purchased by Charter. That was
Charter. Grrrrrr! (Score:2)
Aaaand the state-wide ban (Score:1)
Is coming in 3.. 2.. 1.... AC
Just nationalize already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want the Federal Reserve to nationalize muni broadband. Do you even realize what the Federal Reserve is?
Hopefully it's just last mile... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best model for city internet is if they don't provide the internet but rather just last mile connectivity and rackmount space that any company can move into. They truly become the utility that they are. And they are not tempted to filter the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_premises_by_country#New_Zealand
New Zealand[edit]
In 2009, the Government announced a NZ$1.35 billion public-private Ultra-Fast Broadband partnership with four companies to roll out fibre-to-the-home connection in all main towns and cities with population over 10,000. The programme aims to deliver ultra-fast broadband capable of at least 50 Mbit/s upload and 100Mbit/s download to 75% of New Zealanders by 2019. FTTH will also be rolled out to large users (including ho
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need a citation?
I live in NZ, and the internet here is fantastic. I get gigabit fibre for around $60 USD a month, with no caps, no throttling, no limits, no fair use policies, a static IP and IPv6 - and I actually get gigabit speed.
They came and installed the fibre line for free, 3 days after I signed up - that cost me nothing, even though I live 100 meters down a long driveway. They put the ONT exactly where I wanted it, even though that meant crawling around underneath the house for an hour.
Re: New Zealand (Score:2)
"Public/private" - great, but this is "public", with the citizenry, at least those that rely on Traverse City Power and Light on the hook for any losses.
That's a fundamental difference from your successful examples from New Zealand.
Re: (Score:2)
When public/private fails the public often bails out the private side of the contract. Seen this many, many times.
There is nothing magically better about private, public/private, or public. It's all about how the project is managed and how realistic the costs are when the project is initially scoped.
The advantage of public is that it only needs to cover costs verses making a monetary return for investors. The returns to the public come in reduced costs rather that cheques every 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watched nationwide (Score:2)
This project will undoubtedly be watched nationwide and possibly serve as a new model for other community fiber builds.
This sentence suggests no other public network was ever created in the US. Is it the case?
hehehe (Score:3)
Seems expensive (Score:1)
$3.5 million for 2,200 potential subscribers in Phase One, $16M for the whole city.
Kudos to the board of Traverse City Light and Power and the residents of Traverse City for being brave and making this investment in their community.
Correction - all the money, every dime, comes from the customers of Traverse City Power and Light, the utility company has no money of it's own, so it's not accurate to say the utility made an investment.
So for phase one, $3.5M will be borrowed and spent, and hopefully the revenues collected from the 2,200 potential subscribers will cover both the initial loan AND cover the on-going operating expenses of the fiber network.
If
Enough profit? (Score:1)
$1.35M annually, on a $3.5M investment? That's easily enough money.
They should learn more about tech companies first (Score:2)
I hear no one stays in Traverse City.. (Score:4, Funny)
5g and starlink (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hopefully 5g and starlink will start to put the large inet providers to bed. 5g means no wires and telephone poles, starlink means no last mile problem for rural areas
Starlink might have some effect but 5G provided by the phone company? Because you are so funny, I will kill you last.
Several Cities in Idaho have done this model (Score:2)
City builds out fiber network to every home and business in the Community
City operates it as an open network, City provides a web page that you can choose your ISP from. Takes about five minutes to change ISPs and the process is automatic from the end-user standpoint.
ISPs pay a fee to the City to access the network, based on the number of active subscribers.
Ammon, ID was the first one http://b.ci.ammon.id.us/fiber-... [ammon.id.us]
Re: (Score:2)
City builds out fiber network to every home and business in the Community
City operates it as an open network, City provides a web page that you can choose your ISP from. Takes about five minutes to change ISPs and the process is automatic from the end-user standpoint.
ISPs pay a fee to the City to access the network, based on the number of active subscribers.
Ammon, ID was the first one http://b.ci.ammon.id.us/fiber-... [ammon.id.us]
Um, how does Charter make money from that?
Background Information (Score:2)