How Cable Companies Are Stopping You From Getting Fiber — Even Though It's Already Installed In Many Cities
the giant telecom companies — including Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and Comcast — are involved here. These are the same companies trying to bully the FCC into creating an “internet fast lane” so web-based companies can pay them more for better service.
For the most part, the cable companies have been offering incentives to local governments (mainly just better service) in exchange for noncompete clauses, which disallow those communities from adopting fiber networks that might rival their own services. MuniNetworks, a site that tracks local broadband efforts, said these “incumbent and monopolistic providers use the term ‘level playing field’ as code for ensuring communities are unable to build their own networks. They do not actually want a ‘level playing field,’ they want more advantages for their businesses.”
First, the city agreed not to lease or sell the fiber. Second, the contract required that the city not "engage in any activities or outcomes that would result in business competition between the District and Comcast or that may result in loss of business opportunity for Comcast."
In other words, D.C. is sitting on a robust fiber network, but limitations from its 1999 agreement with Comcast render that network unavailable to residents and businesses. Further, nonprofits that want to use the network are forced to pay significantly more than what they’d pay with “incumbent products” from the cable companies.
The agreement between Comcast and D.C. is not uncommon, unfortunately. At least 20 states have laws or regulatory barriers that make it extremely difficult, if not illegal, for cities and communities to offer fiber access to their residents...
(Yahoo)
the giant telecom companies — including Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and Comcast — are involved here. These are the same companies trying to bully the FCC into creating an “internet fast lane” so web-based companies can pay them more for better service.
For the most part, the cable companies have been offering incentives to local governments (mainly just better service) in exchange for noncompete clauses, which disallow those communities from adopting fiber networks that might rival their own services. MuniNetworks, a site that tracks local broadband efforts, said these “incumbent and monopolistic providers use the term ‘level playing field’ as code for ensuring communities are unable to build their own networks. They do not actually want a ‘level playing field,’ they want more advantages for their businesses.”
* * * *
First, the city agreed not to lease or sell the fiber. Second, the contract required that the city not "engage in any activities or outcomes that would result in business competition between the District and Comcast or that may result in loss of business opportunity for Comcast."
In other words, D.C. is sitting on a robust fiber network, but limitations from its 1999 agreement with Comcast render that network unavailable to residents and businesses. Further, nonprofits that want to use the network are forced to pay significantly more than what they’d pay with “incumbent products” from the cable companies.
The agreement between Comcast and D.C. is not uncommon, unfortunately. At least 20 states have laws or regulatory barriers that make it extremely difficult, if not illegal, for cities and communities to offer fiber access to their residents...
(Yahoo)
via ehMac.ca http://ift.tt/1qkm6sY
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire