Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-get-who-you-voted-for dept.

The conservative small government movement has gained momentum based on the principle that decisions are best made at a local level, because people know what they want better than the federal government does. So why is a contingent of small government-minded congressional representatives trying to dick over local governments when it comes to high-speed internet access?

I live in Chattanooga. I have their gigabit internet. It is great, but it could be better officially let us run servers, officially let us run open wifi ala openwireless.org (I do it anyway, but if they come knocking I'll have to turn it off), even better would be if they let other ISPs run on top of their fiber plant and compete with each other. Still, it is at least as good as google fiber for the same price or less (except for no $300 flat-fee low-bandwidth option).

[Editor's Note] For the non-Americans in our readership, this appears to be nothing more than the usual Rep/Dem disagreement depending on which 'big business' funded the most to the appropriate campaign coffers. I would have to agree that the pricing seems expensive but, as we know, that is caused more by the regional monopolies than the actual cost of provision.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:24PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:24PM (#73243)

    It's funny how everyone has plenty of bile for the Federal government, when it's state laws that are granting monopolies to the big players. The FCC is trying to overrule state law and reasonable people can disagree on whether letting an unelected regulatory body overturn state laws is proper way to govern. (Disclaimer: I am squarely with the FCC on this one because nothing says "interstate commerce" to me like internet access. But if you think states' rights come heavily into play here I don't think you're evil or stupid.)

    People who want to break up state-sanctioned ISP monopolies should petition their state governments for a fairer and more sensible policy. The states made this mess. Let them fix it. Generally I find my state government is a lot more responsive to the people of my state than is the Federal government, probably because the state legislature doesn't have to deal with competing agendas from 49 other states.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 1) by MorbidBBQ on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:03PM

      by MorbidBBQ (3210) on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:03PM (#73281)

      Good insight!
      Is there any chance you know what laws/regulations enable ISP monopolies at the state level? Where can we begin to look for current state regulations? Is there semi-standard language used? Can someone provide an example from their state (Florida would be nice).

      • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:21PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:21PM (#73291)

        Is there any chance you know what laws/regulations enable ISP monopolies at the state level?

        No, I'm much better at sounding off on principles than I am at actually getting stuff done. :-) I hope someone else can help you. I live in Massachusetts, which is not on TFA's map of states that have laws against municipal broadband. I know in my state the monopolies are legislated at the municipal level so it's city government I would have to talk to.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:23PM (#73331)

      > People who want to break up state-sanctioned ISP monopolies

      I am pretty sure those are already illegal under the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992" which made exclusive franchise agreements illegal. That doesn't stop natural monopolies from forming.

      The problem at hand isn't monopolies, it is state laws that forbid county and town governments from operating their own ISPs. They are about as reasonable as laws that would prevent towns from running their own utilities like electric, water, even public roads.

      That's what the article is about - why are these people being hypocritical and saying "states rights" but are not ok with "counties rights?"

    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:24PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:24PM (#73398)

      " the principle that decisions are best made at a local level, because people know what they want better than the federal government does"

      I've ran into people who think this way but I don't get it at all. What I don't get is the idea that a more local government is somehow equivalent to people making their own decisions. It's not that I think the politicians making up the federal government have my best interests in mind. They don't know me nor care! But neither do local governments.

      It's the federal government that says things like I can't kill people. I'm ok with that. It's the state that says things like I can or can not enjoy a good firework. City governments will tell you what you can or cannot do with your own back yard! The more local you get the nosier people are. Thanks to the NSA the federal government might technically have enough information to barge into our personal lives but for the most part they have bigger fish to fry. It's our own neighbors that really have the ability to make our lives hell given a bit of power.

      I say keep strict limits on the federal government.. but strip the powers almost completely away from the local ones!

      • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:44PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:44PM (#73406)

        It's our own neighbors that really have the ability to make our lives hell given a bit of power.

        I look at it the other way around. It's our own neighbors that really have the ability to make our lives hell if they can get away with whatever they want. This is why local governments exist -- to balance my neighbor's desire to be a dick with my desire to prevent his dickery from ruining my life.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55PM

          by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:55PM (#78436)

          I suppose if you have no job and no life you can go to all of the town hall meetings and make your voice heard much better than at the state or national level. It is the people who fit that description though that are most likely to be the nosey neighbors making trouble for the rest of us! These people may live closer to me but they surely aren't representing MY interests! That is why I would like to see NO powers granted to the local city or maybe even county governments beyond those necessary to keep the roads maintainted and the water flowing.

      • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:01PM

        by MrGuy (1007) on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:01PM (#73414)

        It's the federal government that says things like I can't kill people.

        No, it is not. Murder is virtually always a state level crime. There are very few circumstances under which murder (or most other acts that tend to be prosecuted in criminal courts, like robbery, rape, assault, etc) wind up as federal crimes. Almost all criminal law is state level.

        Your argument would be more powerful if you understood the issues at hand before pontificating about them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:05PM (#73471)

          Murder is virtually always a state level crime

          When committed on federal land (e.g. a military reservation), it gets federal treatment.

          President Kennedy's murder *should* have been handled by local authorities (who could have called in all the help they needed).
          Instead, the locals deferred to the Feds, who then whisked off the body to another region, chose unqualified propaganda-friendly personal to "investigate", contaminated the evidence, and published a cover story.

          -- gewg_

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @07:36PM (#73427)

        > It's the federal government that says things like I can't kill people.

        No, I'm pretty sure that murder is only a federal crime in specific circumstances.

        Meanwhile, to address your general point, you can't legislate good governance. But you can make it harder to perform good governance. One thing that makes it harder is to put distance between the people making the decisions and the people who have to live with those decisions. It doesn't make good governance impossible and the opposite certainly doesn't guarantee good governance either. But in general, the less communication between the two groups, the harder it is to do representative government.

      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday July 25 2014, @03:13AM

        by tathra (3367) on Friday July 25 2014, @03:13AM (#73576)

        " the principle that decisions are best made at a local level, because people know what they want better than the federal government does"

        I've ran into people who think this way but I don't get it at all. What I don't get is the idea that a more local government is somehow equivalent to people making their own decisions.

        its not really that a more local government is equivalent to people making their own decisions, but the closer a government is to the people it governs, the more able they are to hold that government accountable. the further a government gets from its people, the more the people appear as numbers and statistics than as people. so the closer it is to its people, the more likely it is to listen. there's also less people involved at lower levels, so it'll be easier to get a consensus on how the people want to be governed.

        education of the populace is even more critical when more power is held locally though, because without it, you get idiotic situations like in my area where people fight to lower property and other taxes while bitching about underfunded schools and other services; they fail to understand even the very basic idea of government, which is basically that everyone pitches in money (pays taxes) to provide everyone with essential services and institutions (schools, roads, utilities, emergency services, etc), and that those services can not be provided if the resources aren't available (no taxes, no services).

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:27PM (#73245)

    Someone made it a partisan issue... In my state before the R took over from D (after unwinding their years of gerrymandering) the D was the ones killing it. Once the R came into style they were the ones killing it. In one case it was the *same* bill presented by a D that some R took and represented as their own. One of the telco companies wrote it. In both cases the telco company would sit in the office and field answers about it.

    It is about money. Plain and simple. You can buy a state rep bill put in front of the house for as little as a 2 night posh hotel room and a nice dinner. That is what it cost here. If you want a congress critter that cost more but not out of reach for these people. For a senator it will cost more. You just need to step up your 'campaign contributions'. That is what PAC funds are about. A way to funnel money to our 'representatives'.

    This movie is a nice way to explain it.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104114 [imdb.com]

    It is about money. Plain and simple.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GlennC on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:03PM

      by GlennC (3656) on Thursday July 24 2014, @03:03PM (#73279)

      To buy a Congresscritter, you'll need to add a suitable "adviser" to provide "services".

      --
      Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:21AM (#73579)

      In one case it was the *same* bill presented by a D that some R took and represented as their own.

      I wish that worked in reverse. A very big law was passed in the recent past which was written and made into state law by an R, but once the Ds pushed it, the Rs have done nothing except try to get it repealed, trying and failing more than 50 times to date.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:50PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:50PM (#73253) Homepage Journal

    Your mistake is in crediting Republicans with being small government. Most Republicans are just as much fans of big government as Democrats - they just want different pieces of the government to be big.

    In any case, follow the money. Who is contributing to their reelection campaigns, and who will benefit from prohibiting locally financed high-speed networks? Likely the incumbent providers, who are likely sitting comfortably on a local monopoly.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:25PM (#73335)

      > Your mistake is in crediting Republicans with being small government.

      No one is "crediting" them with it. They are trying to hold them accountable to their own rhetoric, to make their hypocrisy plain for anyone to see.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:32PM (#73476)

      A true Conservative *is* in favor of smaller gov't (e.g. Ron Paul), but that philosophy is not exclusive to that label.

      Someone who wants smaller gov't and more localized gov't is properly called an anarchist (literally "without rulers").

      Anarchists (Left-leaning and Right-leaning) fit into another common category: Progressives.

      .
      ...and as you note, the vast majority of current Republicans are NOT Conservatives and would be more correctly called Crony Capitalists, Plantation Capitalists, or Radical Reactionaries.
      (They're NOT in favor of smaller gov't; they love corporate welfare).

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fatuous looser on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:00PM

    by fatuous looser (2550) on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:00PM (#73386)

    My little county seat in southeast KS (3400 souls) has had municipal fiber to the doorstep since 2004.  But drive west a ways & cross the Missouri border & it is illegal there.  "Special interests" bought legislation outlawing it.

    • (Score: 1) by fatuous looser on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:06PM

      by fatuous looser (2550) on Thursday July 24 2014, @06:06PM (#73389)

      Replying to myself to correct an oopsie.
      It should have said drive EAST into Missouri.
      Dammit.