Cox Blames 'Misinformation' For Kansas Broadband Bill Troubles The cable industry's recent attempt to pass protectionist new laws in Kansas that could potentially hamstring towns, cities and even Google Fiber ran into a bit of a wall the last few weeks as people started asking why a cable company was dictating local infrastructure rights. While there's 22 states that have these kinds of ISP-written laws now on the books (most recently the Carolinas), the Kansas effort appears to have received attention because of the interest in Google Fiber. notes that because of press coverage and resident attention, the cable industry appears to have hit a few approval delays. In a statement sent to Ars, Cox claims that the problems facing the cable industry's bill were due to "misinformation," though they fail to get specific: quote: "With approximately 22 other states having some type of restriction on the use of taxpayer dollars for these kinds of facilities, we thought it a relevant topic worthy of our involvement given our significant investment in the communities we serve and our public-private partnerships. There was enough misinformation regarding the legislation that made it appropriate for the committee to defer action at this time. We look forward to a continued discussion with all parties on this issue." As it's always worth noting when these bills surface, towns and cities in Kansas wouldn't be trying to wire themselves for broadband (or turning all their hopes toward a search engine) if the ISPs themselves were delivering the kind of speeds at the kind of prices consumers want. Ars Technica notes that because of press coverage and resident attention, the cable industry appears to have hit a few approval delays. In a statement sent to Ars, Cox claims that the problems facing the cable industry's bill were due to "misinformation," though they fail to get specific:As it's always worth noting when these bills surface, towns and cities in Kansas wouldn't be trying to wire themselves for broadband (or turning all their hopes toward a search engine) if the ISPs themselves were delivering the kind of speeds at the kind of prices consumers want.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 biochemistry Premium Member Not needed We don't need any bills sponsored by a cable company no matter what that bill is. Corporations should not be writing our laws. xenophon

join:2007-09-17 xenophon Member Re: Not needed And they try to be clever by posing as a local org, "Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association". openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to biochemistry

Premium Member to biochemistry

Supporting is different than writing. Your legislators are writing the laws. Blame them.

anonname

@199.85.76.x anonname Anon Re: Not needed These bills are being written by the corporations and literally handed over to their purchased representative. I blame both. xenophon

join:2007-09-17 xenophon Member Re: Not needed Right, the bill was 100% written by lobbyists. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to anonname

Premium Member to anonname

I disagree. Our elected representatives are wholly to blame. Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 1 recommendation Bengie25 Member Random claims Cigarettes are good for you, these anti-smokers are spreading miss-information. Please support our "every child needs a smoke" initiative.



Why is it that the companies with the lowest prices, tend to have the fastest Internet, while talking about how cheap it is? Then you have these other companies that offer crap speeds for high prices and complain 24/7 about how bad things are.

bmccoy

join:2013-03-18

Port Orchard, WA bmccoy Member Re: Random claims Unfortunately, the majority of ISPs out there have bad speeds and high prices. Comcast, Charter, Verizon, etc., have high speeds, but high prices, that's the power of a monopoly. There are still a few good local ISPs out there, and I'm fortunate enough to have one.



CenturyLink, Frontier, and AT&T are the different ones of the bunch. Low speeds and high prices, in almost all of their locations. mob (banned)

On the next level..

join:2000-10-07

San Jose, CA mob (banned) Member Good ol' spin... Of course it's "misinformation". They were caught trying to rape the public, got caught and now are trying to say "the public wanted it".



Good Guy Google saves the day for freedom. I bet the right wing nut jobs that populate the statehouse in Topeka are livid at the idea of not being able to screw the public for the benefit of their paymasters. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member It will be back I am sure the same bill with maybe a slight variance on wording will be back once the dust settles and they think they can sneak it through again.

newview

Ex .. Ex .. Exactly

Premium Member

join:2001-10-01

Parsonsburg, MD newview Premium Member It never fails ... Once again, the Cable Mafia spin machine powers up ... ericthered26

join:2011-09-29

Hamilton, OH ericthered26 Member Misinformation I like how every time consumers don't want something (like Time Warner Cable caps a few years ago) it's just the public being misinformed.



We're all dummies and if Cox, TWC, etc want to "give" us something and we don't like it, then it's just our dumb hillbilly ignorant brains who are too stupid to see what's good for us.



Die Cox... die. nutcr0cker

join:2003-04-02

Chandler, AZ nutcr0cker Member If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist. Yhe Job creators need tax breaks.

KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2

Zoom 5341J

KrK Premium Member Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist



Guess I'm a socialist then.



The reality is this is a socialist economy. There are ZERO 100% Capitalism (Total anarchy) or 100% Communist (Government owns everything) economies in the world. Therefore everything is a mix, with the vast majority being more capitalist then a few tending to be more communist.



Every country on earth that has a functioning Government is a socialist economy. I think a lot of people in the US need some education in economics. Guess I'm a socialist then.The reality is this is a socialist economy. There are ZERO 100% Capitalism (Total anarchy) or 100% Communist (Government owns everything) economies in the world. Therefore everything is a mix, with the vast majority being more capitalist then a few tending to be more communist.Every country on earth that has a functioning Government is a socialist economy. I think a lot of people in the US need some education in economics.

Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16

Bronx, NY Eddy120876 Member Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist Trust me if this so call Tea party folks learn real economic they would all jump of a cliff after knowing that socialism is whats keeping then alive LOL openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to KrK

Premium Member to KrK

said by KrK: Therefore everything is a mix, with the vast majority being more capitalist then a few tending to be more communist. Extremes don't often work; witness our government for the last few years. Compromise and meeting in the middle is what accomplishes things and moves us forward as a society. Nobody wins, but everyone gets something is how society prospers.

Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16

Bronx, NY Eddy120876 Member Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist True and the sad part is this new GOP/Tea party/Libertarians don't give a damn about compromise for then is a dirty word. A year ago the Gop came up with a plan they ask the president to back the agreement and as soon as he did they torpedo it saying it shouldn't be created. Also being extremely liberal doesn't work. Being in the middle is the right thing. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist said by Eddy120876: the sad part is this new GOP/Tea party/Libertarians don't give a damn about compromise said by Eddy120876: A year ago the Gop came up with a plan they ask the president to back the agreement and as soon as he did they torpedo it saying it shouldn't be created. Neither do the ultraliberals.

Eddy120876

join:2009-02-16

Bronx, NY Eddy120876 Member Re: If you are against corporations dictating laws you are a socialist Hence why i said "Also being extremely liberal doesn't work" I believe it was a tax reform but i could be wrong but the issue is that they ask the president to sit and chat he does ask for a compromise they agree and as soon as word goes out they automatically torpedo the idea. Is a common tactic for this new GOP bree. No matter what the President does they will never compromise. elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member A Level playing field, not protectionism Telco and Cableco weren't afforded the sweetheart deals that Google enjoys, nor are they given a pass for cherry-picking neighborhoods like Fiberhood and Sonic.



Just because consumers "want" a given speed and price-point, doesn't make corruption, self-dealing, unlawful takings, cross-subsidization, or selling below cost legal.



These bills are an attempt to deliberately state restrictions and make city hall play fair, without having to wait a decade for narrow rulings on unlawful takings and anti-trust. Doonz (banned)

join:2010-11-27

Beaumont, AB Doonz (banned) Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism said by elray: ... you don't actually believe what you wrote?

mr sean

Professional Infidel



join:2001-04-03

N. Absentia mr sean Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Regardless of personal belief, the poster has a long history of presenting the appearance of....um...corporate mouthpiece.



Remember: it's not an intrusive government regulation if it gives the corporations what they want. And it's not really a legitimate local referendum if the taxpayers choose they want to build their own infrastructure.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism said by mr sean: the poster has a long history of presenting the appearance of....um...corporate mouthpiece. Why is it that when an individual DARES to stray from the orthodox groupthink of DSL Reports, they are automatically labeled a shill? How about debating the issue rather than attacking the commenter?

mr sean

Professional Infidel



join:2001-04-03

N. Absentia mr sean Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Sorry, after 13 years of reading the same drivel words sometimes fail me.



But hey, thanks for your own rendition of an ad hominem demonstration. It's nice to know that I march in jackbooted lockstep with the groupthink orthodoxy.



But sometimes the medium really is the message.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism I never said you marched in "jackbooted lockstep" with the groupthink orthodoxy. You inferred that yourself.



I said elray did not. Surely you can tell the difference?

Thespis

I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.

Premium Member

join:2004-08-03

Keller, TX Thespis Premium Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism If this were the first time, I would agree. Do some searching, read Elray's posts, then form an opinion. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO 1 recommendation Skippy25 to elray

Member to elray

If consumers want it and the local incumbents are not willing to provide it then those consumers have every right to vote to use their tax paying money to get it provided to them by the city/municipality or state if that is what they want.



The fact that they even have to go to that length highlights the failures of the incumbents. So if the incumbents dont like that they are failing their consumers to the point that they are willing to do this, they should address their consumers concerns instead of trying to stop their consumers from getting what they want in the best way possible because of their failures.



Let's be honest here, this has absolutely nothing to do with playing fair. It has everything to do with the incumbents not wanting to be forced to provide their consumers what they want to protect their profits if the consumers are allowed to vote to have this tax payer funded. That is 100% the bottom line no matter how you, the bought politicians or anyone else tries to spin it. elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Taxpayers can certainly vote to assess themselves to support infrastructure, and if you've followed my posts, you'd note that I am not opposed to the will of a supermajority ("consensus") of the actual taxpayers (property owners) choosing to lien themselves to that end.



My objection comes when the city, already having sold a franchise to the MSO, now uses tax money to build and operate the muni, and in doing so, is not only cross-subsidizing to sell below cost, but is also illegally taking the franchise's customer base without compensation.



If the locals want to use the aforementioned bond money, and form a separate cooperative - at arms length from the city government, to overbuild and compete with the existing ISPs, more power to them. Just don't muddy the waters by allowing the local politicians access to the money and process.



If you actually examine the history of municipal development of cable and broadband, you will find time and again, greed, graft, corruption, self-dealing, embezzlement, and a general coverup of actual cost, by way of cross-subsidy from other ledger accounts.



Government exists to perpetuate itself and grow, not to serve you. MSO-based broadband has its quirks, but they actually want your business, and they actually do continue to improve their offerings, year over year; government has no reason or incentive to. davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman Premium Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism Why do you require a super majority to pass the legislation? Unless mandated by a state constitution that all legal actions must have super majorities, the normal practice in the USA is that 50% plus one gets a bill or referendum passed.



Real estate property owners are not the only residents of many cities or counties. They are not the only ones who pay county or city taxes, other residents do also. Some pay some of them indirectly through rental payments. We actually created an economic disaster in the USA by thinking every family should own their own home and created badly performing loans that led to the mortgage mess.



Many of the telephone companies had chances to build out fiber to the cabinet such that good VDSL2 would have been available to every POTS user. They failed to do so, mainly due to spending the money that was to go to advanced wireline networks on cellular.



The cable companies were never intended to be the advanced internet providers for the USA, the telcos were supposed to handle that.



HSI was a nice bonus for the cable companies in having built a physical plant that turned out to be able to handle it in addition to the television they were franchised to provide. The cable companies that were abused by local governments do have some legitimate gripes. High franchise fees, that drove up subscriber bills, wasted on nonsense pet projects of city councils. Ridiculous subsidies of open to the public television studios. Those things needed to be capped and limited. I think if there had been more transparency in billing, much higher reliability in service, and a different revenue model for video and internet service, cable companies would have much less to worry about from citizens requesting municipal owned networks. Many cities reluctantly got into this business, when the incumbents ignored complaints and failed to reinvest in network improvements. That has been done when private electric companies and private telephone companies failed to provide services that residents wanted. The residents voted to create their own service providers.



Private companies do not exist to think about long term societal needs. They exist to provide stockholders with dividends and increases in stock valuation every 91 days if possible. Anything that gets in the way of that, such as FTTH build outs, is eliminated from the approved expenditure of net profits. elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA 1 edit elray Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism A super majority requirement for taxation means you have consensus, popular support, not just a partisan vote that might be reversed later. Most taxes last 10-20 years, or forever. Its critical to have support amongst all the people, not just the beneficiaries.



Real estate property owners aren't the only taxpayers in the county, but when you're looking to attach assets, to finance the $5-10K/address for (FTTH) infrastructure, they and they alone are going to pay the tax, so it make sense that you have their support, as opposed to imposing yourself upon them.



Cable and satellite aren't responsible for pay-tv pricing. Period. You're barking up the wrong tree. If you want to reform content licensing and broadcast retransmission, that's an issue for Congress.



Cable has certainly been delivering on broadband. All one has to do is look back 10 years or so, and compare, to see the progress that has been made, and stop complaining.



Telco is a mixed bag; in some cases, I agree, they could do better.. But you ignore the fact that the citizens aren't willing to pay for the service, all the while you want to make everyone pay for it, then point to the government's artificially subsidized low price and claim they know best.



Private companies do think about long-term "needs", but they look to profit off them as well, instead of simply raising taxes and pretending to shift and hide the real cost from the consumer. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: A Level playing field, not protectionism You are so delusional in your thinking.



How about ALL changes and even elections become super majority being that in your wisdom unless a vast majority of all people want it, then it shouldn't happen? You don't get to pick and choose the basis that something should be accepted based on whether or not you support it. The same rules apply for all things across the board unless there are rules/laws that say otherwise.



And I love how you simply ignore the single one truth that brings all this about, which is - If the incumbents were doing what the citizens wanted in this monopolistic/duopolistic industry that has extremely high (if not impossible) barriers of entry then they would have absolutely nothing to worry about. Their consumers wouldn't want, push for and certainly wouldn't pass legislation that allows them to build and maintain this network. This is the ONLY way consumers can speak in such an environment. They can't switch to another provider, they can't just build their own, nor can they uproot their entire family and move to a location that provides what they want or need. Address this or shut up.

••••••••••• show 11 replies Skippy25 Skippy25 to elray

Member to elray

Governments sole purpose is to serve its people, not itself or grow.



Though right now they may be delusional in this and have it a little backwards (as you do), that ultimately is the sole purpose of the government and the paper that frames our government says just that. viewwin2

join:2004-10-02

Bowling Green, KY viewwin2 Member List of states Can anyone provide a list of 22 states which limit municipal build outs? DrD

join:2008-03-03

Harrisonville, MO DrD Member Re: List of states LMGTFY - » www.ntu.org/news-and-iss ··· -to.html your comment..

