The Misleading Fliers Comcast Used To Kill Off a Local Internet Competitor

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes In the months and weeks leading up to a referendum vote that would have established a locally owned fiber network in three small Illinois cities, Comcast and SBC (now AT&T) bombarded residents and city council members with disinformation, exaggerations, and outright lies to ensure the measure failed. The series of two-sided postcards painted municipal broadband as a foolhardy endeavor unfit for adults, responsible people, and perhaps as not something a smart woman would do. Municipal fiber was a gamble, a high-wire act, a game, something as "SCARY" as a ghost. Why build a municipal fiber network, one asked, when "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?" In the corner, in tiny print, each postcard said "paid for by SBC" or "paid for by Comcast." The postcards are pretty absurd and worth a look.

Re:Get used to this...

[SoCalChris]

No, he's associating it with Citizen's United v. FEC [wikipedia.org]

Works fine

[GWBasic]

My hometown has municipal broadband, it's had it since 2000. It works much better than Comcast, and they're much easier to work with.

Re:Appropriate punishment

[Frosty Piss]

Fraudulent advertising, perhaps?

They were not stating *facts*, but rather their opinion. "Disinformation" is rarely out-and-out fraud.

Re:Get used to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here in Oregon we've just lived through the Cover Oregon fiasco. A government-run website that was supposed to allow people to sign up for health insurance."

You myopic asshole. The site was contracted out to a private company. The 'gubbmint' didn't do the coding, didn't build the pages, didn't accept $134 million in payment and then deliver a turd pile in return. Individuals employed by a COMMERCIAL ENTITY fucked over the website. AND the taxpayers.

And let's not forget to mention the crony that ORACLE CORPORATION had in place, the person that they had already paid off to give them the contract.

Here's a simple Google search to help remind you that 'gubbmint' didn't build the site.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS480US502&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what%20company%20built%20the%20failed%20oregon%20health%20care%20website

Re:Get used to this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Oregon we've just lived through the Cover Oregon fiasco. A government-run website that was supposed to allow people to sign up for health insurance. It cost millions of dollars yet never managed to allow people to sign up for health insurance. You could download the forms, fill them in, then talk to an agent to find out what it would cost, but you couldn't sign up online. They could tell you the "partners" you could talk to -- mine was a three hour drive away in another state! They dumped a lot of money into cute jingles and ads months before the site was supposed to go online, but couldn't manage to get the job done. Better? Cheaper? Right.

How did you completely miss that ORACLE CORPORATION, a for profit entity was contracted to the position after bribing the official appointed with awarding the contract to perform the work? ORACLE CORPORATION was the entity that failed miserably to provide the agreed upon product. It was not some "gubbmint" official in an ivory tower. It was the ORACLE CORPORATION that failed Oregon's website.

A simple Google search of "what company built the failed oregon health care website" will show 4.3 million results showing ORACLE CORPORATION created the failed website for Oregon.

Re:Get used to this...

[bluefoxlucid]

"Better" is not a purely subjective term. Something with higher quality and lower cost is objectively better.

Re:I WAS THERE. IT'S ALL TRUE.

[PeteCollins]

Much of the data is over 10 years old, but here's how we answered the bulk of questions in 2004: http://www.geneva.il.us/index.... [geneva.il.us] 1. No local ISP was created as the referenda did not pass at the polls. 2. See this write up: http://www.dslreports.com/show... [dslreports.com] 3. Yes. See here for current info - http://www.muninetworks.org/ [muninetworks.org] 4. The first time around in 2003, the build was to be backed using General Obligation bonds (tax-payer backed) and was put on the ballot by the elected officials. When the issue went to the polls the second time in 2004, it was put on the ballot by CITIZENS COLLECTING SIGNATURES and the referenda question specifically blocked any taxpayer exposure (fund it any way you like but there can be no taxpayer risk). It was still spun by the incumbents as being a tax risk.