SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
Voters in Colorado have abolished laws that had prohibited local governments from offering their own broadband internet services.
Local ballots in 17 counties all resulted in voters electing to allow their local governments to offer broadband service in competition with private cable companies. The vote overturns a 2005 law that prevented any government agency from competing in the broadband space.
[...] According to The Denver Post , the 17 counties have differing reasons for overturning the rule. Some areas want to build their own broadband infrastructure, while others simply want to offer Wi-Fi service in public buildings or improve service for farming communities.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Colorado Voters Abolish Ban on Government-Owned Broadband
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 66 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
For recreational use only.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @03:04PM
Neither option here is good. On the one hand you have government sanctioned duopolies; on the other you have government entering into private industry with its vastly larger coffers and the ability to pass laws to help itself and hinder its competition. What's truly needed is new players of the disruptive, private competition variety and the government to get the hell out of their way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 06 2015, @03:29PM
The thing is, most places where the people want their local government to build that "last mile", there is no competition. None of the major providers are willing to build it, because the return on investment will only be a small fraction of what they can get in more populated areas. So, there is no broadband, unless the people in the community build it themselves.
Screw the competition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:41PM
A simpler solution would be require they build that last mile if they want to operate in your state. Frankly though, none of the telecom mergers should ever have been allowed after deregulation. That and requiring either two competitors or regulation would solve the problem.
The government's job in capitalism is not to sell laws to big players that minimize competition but to encourage, nay require, competition. Or at the very least to stay out of the way of it. Ours has done neither because they are utterly corrupt fuckwads.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:44AM
The government's job in capitalism is not to sell laws to big players that minimize competition but to encourage, nay require, competition.
Actually, the government's job in capitalism is what society (or in this case, the wallets of the big corporations and their political lapdogs) decides that it is.
cf. 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism [wordpress.com]
From the first "thing":
The above is intuitively obvious if you bother to think about it *at all*. Regulation (and mostly by *governments* even!) is at the heart of every market you can name.
Think about it for yourself. If there wasn't any regulation or rules in a market of any size or complexity, chaos would ensue. Bad regulation (which is what you refer to above) can have hugely negative effects on markets, as we've seen.
But taking the simplistic view that the government should ensure competition and nothing else and/or that regulation of any kind is inherently bad is patently false.
I realize I've gone off on a tangent here -- I do agree that regulation should require strong competition, but regulation must also set the boundaries of the market as well as ensure that the players (producers and consumers) can interact on a fairly even basis. We've fallen down badly in that respect in many ways and in many markets.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @03:50PM
Governments and government services are not for-profit entities, unlike private industries. Government has no reason or interest in competing because the goal isn't to get rich, its to provide whatever service they're providing. Only when things are privatized out does it become a race to the bottom service-wise with a race to the top price-wise.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:33PM
Government has no interest in money? This from the same type of person who will advocate that I pay more taxes so the government has to overspend less? Get real.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @10:26PM
Nowhere was that stated or even implied. "Money" and "profit" are two entirely different concepts. All the government needs for government-provided utilities and services are enough money to run the service, including paying the workers who provide it, and enough to upgrade the required equipment on a semi-regular basis; compare this to private industries who need all that PLUS however much more additional money they can get, either by squeezing it out of the suckers paying for it or by skimping on the workers' pay, the upgrades, the equipment, or the service itself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @11:52PM
Yes, the government is altruistic and has no desire for power, which money is. Scuse me while I finish laughing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @04:04AM
Nowhere did he say that either, you effing moron.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:42PM
Absolutely true when there is little or no competition. Then you regulate until competition arrives.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday November 06 2015, @03:59PM
What's truly needed is new players of the disruptive, private competition variety and the government to get the hell out of their way.
that was the original situation... and then your "private competition" turned into the blob and merged into massive telecom companies which then purchased laws to prevent competition. your fear of government involvement and belief in "the free market" is illogical at best and borders on dogmatic.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:32PM
It's not a free market if there are protectionist laws. Socialist retards like you refuse to understand that what the US currently has is NOT capitalism. Not even close.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @10:32PM
Crony capitalism is still capitalism. And despite your implication, capitalism does not require nor produce free markets, nor are they really related in any way. The only way free markets can exist is if there are regulations to ensure the markets remain free. Free markets are more likely to exist in socialism and communism, where monopolies are less likely to exist due to individuals and individual corporations not being able to amass the kind of money needed to buy laws, lawmakers, and all of their competitors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:26AM
Aren't bribes openly acceptable in some communist countries.
At least in the U.S. direct bribes are illegal.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:48AM
At least in the U.S. direct bribes are illegal.
It's adorable that you think that! I'm sure Santa and the Tooth Fairly take really good care of you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:59AM
Ah, you mean the government gets involved.
(Score: 4, Touché) by hemocyanin on Friday November 06 2015, @04:29PM
Yeah, we should privatize water, roads, sewer -- life would be so much better if you had to pop a quarter in your toilet every time you needed to use it, or pay a toll over 3 miles. Privatized water is such a bargain too. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/special-reports/growth-of-large-private-water-companies-brings-h-1/nRh7F/ [statesman.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:15PM
Barking up the wrong tree. It's one thing be weary of government-run outfits, but to ban it as an option in order to protect comcast's and at&t's of the world is beyond moronic.