CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 07, 2010 07:34 PM UTC
11 Comments
I’m not sure I get the title, but I agree that this is an important issue, and it would be better if it was solved legislatively rather than judicially–though it does seem like the courts end up solving this kind of matter more often than not.
I would add another issue to this, especially related to Comcast, of whom I am a subscriber for both internet and cable TV: we need to get better regulation of rates that companies like Comcast charge their customers. Currently, I am getting utterly screwed by Comcast, and I will be calling them in the next few weeks to try to haggle my rate down. The way that they do things right now is that they offer a cheap introductory rate, and then over the course of your time as a customer, your rates go up and up and up. I am full convinced that if they had it their way, they would be charging me hundreds of dollars a month for basic cable and internet.
To combat this, I can call Comcast and say, “hey, you guys are charging me ridiculous amounts of money, I’m switching to one of your competitors,” and supposedly they’ll offer me a cheaper rate. The only reason I haven’t done it already is that I’m swamped with work–and I need Comcast’s services to do that work.
With Comcast getting ready to merge with NBC, JO you’re exactly right that net neutrality is an even bigger issue than it’s been before. We need to keep the pressure on our elected officials, because you know Comcast is doing the same.
Not to get off the subject, but “a partnership between government and privately-financed technological expansion” would fit at least some definitions of “socialism.” The last quarter of the 19th century might seem to some as the heyday of unbridled capitalism, but much of it–most notably expansion of the railroads–wouldn’t have happened without the active participation of government.
That makes sense. I think a better definition of socialism is where the Government IS the industry, but I think I see where you’re getting at.
If your definition is correct, though, then Eisenhower is one of the great socialists of the 20th century because of his desire to fund private R&D with government money. Of course, the marginal tax rate on top earners under Ike was something in the realm of 90%+, so maybe it’s more true than I thought it was.
…and the Really Big One: Defense Spending (or, to quote Ike: “the military-industrial complex”).
Some variation of “democratic socialism” has been the norm for 2 or 3 generations, here and in W. Europe. “Socialism” doesn’t mean “communism.” Nut cases who accuse Obama of “leading the country into socialism” merely display their profound ignorance–of the meaning of “socialism” and of American history.
HOWEVER, let us not wander too far from the main point: government oversight of key infrastructure has always been critical. It seems to be missing in the case of broadband Internet (as well as 3G broadcast Internet to handheld devices, i.e. cellphones), in part because “cable TV” sounds like a branch of entertainment (like, say, “movie theaters”), whereas it has evolved into something much more fundamental.
In my view, government has seriously lagged in this regard, possibly because both parties have been dominated for the past 30 years by corporatist interests. The innovation is still there (Google and Apple to name two…is there any comparable Asian company? European?). What’s seriously lacking is the participation of government to assure the successful and rapid deployment of the requisite infrastructure to virtually everyone. Comcast–a company of zero innovations, even in their own sphere–ain’t gonna accomplish that!
NOT! Another Bubba Myth, “We’re number, um, mayb 20?”
Speaking of which, “20” is the mb/sec for download speeds in Japan. Finland has rolled out a cellular data system capable of that, too.
It’s also much, much cheaper in most of the world.
American providers only move after others have, and then charge way too much. SMS text messages cost essentially nothing to transmit; they fit between the voice packets. But what a profit center. T-Mobile used to charge a nickel. OK, I can live with that. Then a dime. Now, 20 cents. The alternative is to buy a package of some number or unlimited for up to $10/mo.
Actually, there is another alternative: Don’t use it. I don’t.
that’s not the only option.
You could move to Finland or Japan.
No.
No. Not unless they want to become a regulated utility like water. Sure, water is more basic to biological existence, but information is crucial to opportunity and creativity.
No. Imagine MIT putting every course they offer on-line for free (they have) but no one could get to it?
More or less, yes.
See Aurora, CO (we don’t need no stinkin’ libraries)
Is this something municipalities could tackle through franchise agreements? Has anyone anywhere?
You are 100% correct that because it is self-defined and often mistakenly perceived as “entertainment” it has been unaddressed or under addressed. In fact, it is as much like the interstate highway system as public libraries.
…there is no organized resistance to the current arrangement, or citizens’ lobby for change, whereas the cable companies are well endowed w/ lobbyists.
Such a citizen’s group could easily come up with three planks for their platform: Net Neutrality; Greater Bandwidth; Regulated Costs within Reach of All. The first plank would probably start by separating content providers from the network, lest someone like Comcast feel its pay-streaming-video service via cable was threatened by Internet-based services such as Netflix, Amazon, and a growing number of others. (Actually, there is a court case on this topic pending; see below.)
In any case, it is a classic example of the shortcomings of the federal government as the protector of the national interest as it has evolved in the era of PACs. The only options of which I’m aware are alternative technologies (such as fiber optic access via telcos–limited in coverage, limited bandwidth, and also fairly expensive–or over-the-air 3G networks–expensive). I’ve thought to organizing a neighborhood shared-access to a dedicated T1 or T2 line–an expensive, complicated process that seems more daunting than it’s worth and that, in any case, doesn’t address the larger social need for a comprehensive, up-to-date digital communications network that reaches every household, urban, suburban, and rural.
I believe, btw — and I welcome any better informed comments — that localities, such as counties, may have granted the original cable franchises two or three decades ago, but that regulation of cable companies is now the exclusive domain of the FCC, based on the television side of their business and without regard to the Internet (although the FCC has tried, and been challenged in court by Comcast, to enforce net neutrality; an important case that is pending and could well point towards future directions in this area). In any case my efforts to identify anyone in county government responsible for my local cable provider, Comcast, turned up no one.
sounds interesting
I’m guessing T1 ould be $250=$300/mo.
So how would it perform with 10 households sharing it?
How would you do it?
Basic thought was: bring the line into one house likely to remain in the same hands indefinitely, then to a splitter with ethernet lines going to adjacent houses/apartments. How feasible, in terms of stringing ethernet, distance, number of simultaneous users, multiple uses within other households… not my area of expertise at all! At first glance, seems like it might work better in an apartment or condo complex, controlled by the property manager, than in a suburban neighborhood. I’ve seen hotel rooms with ethernet connections (rather than WiFi), so I suppose that might be the model.
JO, you have absolutely nailed it.
This is one area that is vital to our nations’s (meaning our kids’) future.
Ubiquitous access to the internet for information is the most vital strategic initiative we could pursue. Much to our surprise at this stage in our lives, both my wife’s and my livelihood now depend on it.
As both a Qwest (internet) and Comcast (TV) user, I can attest to the (lack of) service, reliability (internet – yes, cable – who are you kidding?) and pricing (internet – pretty decent, cable? – yeah, right).
I’m no expert, but it seems that a metro-area WI-FI infrastructure would be pretty cheap to establish.
That’s around 54mbits with current technology, and it is rapidly getting faster and cheaper.
Wired technology is not really needed, and the startup costs are pretty steep.
Overcoming the duopoly of Qwest/Comcast (apologies to Dish Network – not a player here) to get our state and local governments to strike out and establish this key infrastructure should be the first priority.
I know federal monies were allocated in the stimulus bill. Where is the money and how can we get our share?