backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on Sep 22 at 9:17 AM


EPB is delivering the nation's fastest consumer internet connection by the end of the year -- a 1 Gbps service.

Only a few cities worldwide -- like Hong Kong -- have 1 gbps connections.  (Source: TropicalIsland.de)

Small-scale socialized internet offerings have been trampling the rates and service of commercial competitors like Comcast. These competitors have responded by trying to outlaw municipal Wi-Fi.  (Source: Comcast)
Socialized municipal offering handily beats out local commercial competitors

Despite the criticism of mild socialism -- including government-owned utilities -- thus far commercial cable offerings in the U.S. have fallen grossly short of successful municipal offerings.  Services like the municipal effort of Wilson, N.C. have offered faster, cheaper internet than commercial offerings.  Cable companies have responded by pouring millions into lobbying local, state, and federal governments to enact proposals to ban municipal internet services.  To date, they have seemed unable to stamp out this pesky brand of community socialism.

Now Chattanooga, Tennessee is preparing to launch a new municipal service which will offer speeds up to an incredible 1 Gbps.  The service, to be deployed by the end of the year, will be the fastest household internet connection available in America today.

Ron Littlefield, the city’s mayor, cheers, "This makes Chattanooga — a midsized city in the South — one of the leading cities in the world in its digital capabilities."

The service will be managed by city-owned utility EPB.  It will join just a handful of consumer 1 Gbps offerings worldwide, including the fastest connections in the city of Hong Kong.  The service is almost 200 times faster than the average U.S. broadband speed according to analysts.

There are some downsides of the super-fast service.  One is the ability to fully utilize the ultra-wide line.  While transmission speeds are somewhat dependent on what speed the downstream party can receive data at, they are also dependent on how fast upstream parties can serve the data at.  So while you may be able to get a 25 GB Blu-Ray movie in about three and a half minutes, in theory, few data providers will be able to serve the movie that fast.

Another obstacle is the price – a whopping $350 a month.  While the city is also offering more affordable bundles that should beat the rates of competitive commercial offerings, its top-tier option is undeniably pricey.  At that rate it may appeal more to businesses than the majority of individual buyers.

Comments Harold DePriest, chief executive of EPB, "We don’t know how to price a gig.  We’re experimenting. We’ll learn."

The new service will reach 170,000 homes and businesses in the area and help add a bit more bang to citizens' buck, in a region that 
Forbes magazine already rates as one of "America's Best Bang-For-The-Buck Cities.

If President Obama has his way, a national socialized internet offering will also soon arrive.  The President's FCC appointees are pushing plans to cover 100 million homes with 100 Mbps by 2020.  That connection would be one-tenth the speed of Chattanooga's. 

Despite the sluggish performance of cable giants like Comcast and Time Warner, some commercial players are also looking to deploy high-speed offerings.  Google announced plans to cover up to 500,000 people with 1 Gbps internet.  The service received 1,100 applications from communities and Google will announce its pick(s) by the end of the year.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:06:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
pesky government regulations, next time we will just have Comcast roll that trunk line right through your house.


I would not mind that one bit since Comcast would have to under LAW compensate me for my property at fair market values or are you saying they would just do it with out asking, well then I can sue them under the LAW for damages, either way I would be more then justly compensated for my property. So really go ahead and run that trunk line.

The only way I could get screwed in your scenario is if GOVT stepped in with imminent domain laws and seized my property from me, once again it's Govt that is the problem not the Corporation, the Corporation exist solely to make money for it's shareholders and if we the people are stupid enough to surrender our rights through our Govt to them then so be it, don't blame them for taking advantage of our stupidity.

Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you are a vegetarian. - Rabbi Harold Kushner


RE: Just great!
By ValorMorghulis on 9/14/2010 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 5
Okay I hate to be this guy... but seriously when will people get it straight? Its not Imminent domain its Eminent domain. I don't mind misspellings but that's not the right word.


RE: Just great!
By Fritzr on 9/14/2010 12:20:46 PM , Rating: 1
In addition to the corrected wording. Eminent domain is not legalized theft. It is a forced sale.

Just as he says he would not get screwed by Comcast destroying his home because they would pay for it. An eminent domain siezure also pays the "Fair Market Value" of the property.

I don't know why he thinks it's ok for a private corporation to pay, but getting the shaft if the gov't pays instead. With eminent domain he doesn't even have the hassle of taking the offender to court unless he wants to haggle over the price :P


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:53:44 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, for the spelling error auto correct did that before I noticed it, my bad.

quote:
I don't know why he thinks it's ok for a private corporation to pay, but getting the shaft if the gov't pays instead. With eminent domain he doesn't even have the hassle of taking the offender to court unless he wants to haggle over the price :P


The difference is one I can CHOOSE to sell it to the Corporation and with Eminent domain it is legalized theft because I'm forced to sell it at the price the Govt determines is fair market value.

Eminent domain and it's use is an abortion of the very reason we founded this country.


RE: Just great!
By theapparition on 9/14/2010 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Eminent domain and it's use is an abortion of the very reason we founded this country.

This country was founded based on freedom from sometimes oppressive lords and the promise of land ownership.

Land ownership is now a distant dream. Not one person owns land in this country. Stop paying taxes on it (dues to the Lords), and you'll see how quickly you "own" anything.


RE: Just great!
By JonB on 9/15/2010 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Eminent Domain is a tool. Like any tool, it can be abused.

Good uses: purchasing right of ways for highways at a reasonable market price instead of having to route the highway around "grandma's little plot of land" because she won't sell at any price or paying an exorbitant price charged by an overzealous land-grabber who may have had insider information about the highway route.

Bad uses: condemning the land where grandma still lives, evicting her and paying below market value for a "municipal project" only to have the city turn around and resell the property one year later to a commercial developer for 20 times what the city paid.


RE: Just great!
By AntDX316 on 9/15/2010 5:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
======================

Gotta hate how people living in country areas get better internet service, it used to be where the only thing they could get was Satellite Broadband!


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/15/2010 6:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good uses: purchasing right of ways for highways at a reasonable market price instead of having to route the highway around "grandma's little plot of land" because she won't sell at any price or paying an exorbitant price charged by an overzealous land-grabber who may have had insider information about the highway route.


Wrong, there is no good use..so let me get this straight according to you Grandma has less rights then other people simply because others decided they wanted a Highway? Also how is any different from the land grabber you mentioned. He has the same rights as everyone else if they can't make the deal happen then they change the highway.

Eminent Domain is bad tool and it should be abolished.


RE: Just great!
By Integral9 on 9/22/2010 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
1) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So if granda's house or Joe the plumber's house has to make way for the highway, then so be it.

2) Fair Market Value is not determined by the government. An licensed appraiser working for a private company does that. Generally that is determined by the recent sale of comparable properties in the area.

3) The promise of land and property was easy to make when the country was founded because it was 3000 miles to the other coast line and there was very little claim to the land between. So you could just go out and put a stake in the ground and claim land as yours. Now all the land is owned by someone so the government needs tools like Eminent Domain to be able to further development. Without it, building bridges, highways, expanding roads, installing utilities and even building schools and libraries in existing neighborhoods wouldn't be possible.


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:27:34 AM , Rating: 2
Try saying that with a straight face to a Native American.


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
This entire country was founded on the basis of eminent domain. Europeans saw a need for this land to found a new nation, so they took it. But at least they were generous enough to bring their own free labor from Africa.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just as he says he would not get screwed by Comcast destroying his home because they would pay for it. An eminent domain seizure also pays the "Fair Market Value" of the property.


Also because I can sue for well more then the actual fair market value. I could sue for the damage done to the home and make them repair it to it's original condition removing their trunk line and compensate me for pain and suffering as well.


RE: Just great!
By callmeroy on 9/14/2010 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in this case, you mean you could fake it to claim pain and suffering....

By itself you being forced out of your house doesn't meet the legal qualification of pain and suffering...

In fact "pain and suffering" is one of the most misunderstood legal terms among the majority of citizens.. Everyone thinks its that easy -- "just claim pain and suffering"...nope doesn't work that way.


RE: Just great!
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/14/2010 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
You make me sick. All I hear from your "camp" is complaints about regulation and also complaints about attorneys ruining this country. I know not you, specifically, but I always hear it together. Sounds like you'd need attorneys to protect your interests here...

Also, regulation is absolutely necessary. I dont want my family eating poison aspirin so that I can watch them die and then go sue Bayer and get their $$ worth. I want drug companies to have regulation of their production and testing standards.

You anti-regulation people never take into consideration the start-up company that makes a product that is EXTREMELY harmful to the users... and then goes bankrupt after the first couple of lawsuits. What about the thousands of others who, now, have no one to sue? Where is the invisible hand of the market to correct that atrocity? I'd rather it didnt happen in the first place. Regulation is a necessary evil.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/14/2010 7:32:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You make me sick. All I hear from your "camp" is complaints about regulation and also complaints about attorneys ruining this country.


Well, there is difference between having the law protect you and having abusive attorney's with frivolous law suits, I agree we need some tort reform to some extent.

quote:
Also, regulation is absolutely necessary. I don't want my family eating poison aspirin so that I can watch them die and then go sue Bayer and get their $$ worth. I want drug companies to have regulation of their production and testing standards.


LoL..this one always makes me laugh, so I wonder how all that regulation in the drug industry is working. Prescription Drugs are ranked among the third leading cause of deaths in America and lawsuits due to side effects rank among the highest pay outs in the legal system. The FDA is one of biggest failures next to Social Security and Medicare out there. Vioxx, Bextra,Zelnorm,Tysabri, NeutroSpec, Cylert, Permax, Baycol, & Palladone, just to name a few. Yeah, you keep trusting in bureaucrats that have no interest in your real protection and get their funding from the very same companies they are to police. All of this of course this is just covering the Drug aspect of their protection, I haven't even mentioned how ineffective they are in monitoring Food safety, due to corporate giants like ADM and Monsanto who have more money then God and buy off any petty little bureaucrat who might cause a problem on the food issues.

According to the FDA, if you think a prescription drug you took for headaches caused your heart attack, you cannot sue the manufacturer if the drug met agency standards. Similarly, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission says you can't sue a mattress maker if your mattress meets CPSC standards -- even if it bursts into flame. The principle could be extended to apply to any product meeting federal safety standards, such as cars and trucks.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are calling this increasingly common claim "silent tort reform." It could place new limits on the rights of those who buy or use products -- and save billions of dollars for companies insulated from lawsuits.

Consumer groups point out that these assertions mean the federal agency rules override state product liability laws. But when has the Federal Govt known any limits to it's power.

quote:
You anti-regulation people never take into consideration the start-up company that makes a product that is EXTREMELY harmful to the users... and then goes bankrupt after the first couple of lawsuits. What about the thousands of others who, now, have no one to sue? Where is the invisible hand of the market to correct that atrocity? I'd rather it didnt happen in the first place. Regulation is a necessary evil.


I do...it's called responsibility...try having some...if a company starts up and tries to sell you something do some research yourself first and figure out if they are worth trusting. I mean most people do more research on what car or phone they buy then the stuff they put in their bodies.


RE: Just great!
By tastyratz on 9/18/2010 1:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Your comments on the failures of the system in place now are duly noted. While the system in place is corrupt, full of holes, and in dire need of reform - it's still a system in place. It certainly beats the wild west of nothing at all.

Does it need change? of course. As long as the government is overseen by men and men are corrupt you will see it in every form of government here to eternity.

Your comment on responsibility only carries so much weight. An educated consumer can make a purchased based on research at their disposal but is in no way a subject matter on each individual product purchased. We rely on these regulations and safeguards to help weed out the market and leave us with more appropriate choices than not. It might not eliminate all problems but it certainly does eliminate many.

As far as this being government run?

We have 2 options:
1 privatize and tax the crap out of it to make money or
2. remain government operated and keep the proceeds.

Given the current state of broadband I think a government run operation will give the private companies a run for their money. The market is not a free market. If exclusive rights were outlawed and competition could exist we would see far better broadband adoption and pricing. This at least is another option second to that, and competition.

If government run 100 meg wifi across the us existed at a reasonable price then private companies would have to either offer faster cheaper internet or roll over and give up - I think they will pick option 1. In the end, the consumer wins here much more than they do now.


RE: Just great!
By AEvangel on 9/21/2010 8:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your comment on responsibility only carries so much weight. An educated consumer can make a purchased based on research at their disposal but is in no way a subject matter on each individual product purchased. We rely on these regulations and safeguards to help weed out the market and leave us with more appropriate choices than not. It might not eliminate all problems but it certainly does eliminate many.


I disagree, you can effectively have other private entities provide the needed regulatory function that Govt provides with less corruption then our current system, which is mainly geared to protect the corporation. In fact if you were to allow private industry to create regulatory bodies that would be funded by consumers who CHOOSE to subscribe to this service. Then the company would then publish their reviews on products something like Good Housekeeping or Consumer Reports does now. If they were corrupt and published misleading or fraudulent information then no one would buy their services, they would go out of business and some other more trust worthy company would step up. This is similar to most of your review sites out on the internet today, while some are funded by companies they are quickly discovered as corporate shills and not given any credence.

I still stand by my statement that this is about personal responsibility and if you give away your right to personal ownership of your actions and decisions expecting some other group to protect you then you are nothing more then a slave to them and their whims.

The core of the issue here is that everyone has been educated, mainly by Govt and the media to believe that all businesses are out solely for profit with no concern for the consumer. This concept is inherently flawed since any company with this mentality would soon find it self with out a consumer to survive off of since their product would have either killed them all or been proven so deadly no one would buy it.

While this has nothing to do with the original article it is interesting to talk about.

In regards to Local City run internet, as long as the Federal Govt and State Govt protect these corporations from competition then what other choice do we have.


RE: Just great!
By marvdmartian on 9/14/2010 2:28:02 PM , Rating: 4
What about if it's Imminent Eminent Domain?? ;)

Oh, and I'm sure that the MPAA and RIAA will be standing by with their lawyers, to start suing all the illegal file sharers in Chatanooga, with their ludicrous speed internet!!


RE: Just great!
By dxf2891 on 9/16/2010 9:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
Did you pay CURRENT fair value for your house? Nah, I didn't think so. So, you're okay with receiving $30,000.00 for a house which you're paying $180,000.00? I think this government push will do nothing but increase competition.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki