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This discussion has been archived.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.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday November 06 2015, @04:05PM
thats what the constitution is for. the post office is, of course, capable of opening all your mail and reading its contents, but they're forbidden from doing so by law and by the constitution. government-run utilities are similarly hindered by the constitution from spying on you (not that it would stop them, despite federal law), and if necessary specific laws would be created if necessary to prevent it. the post office can still record all of everyone's meta-data, but i don't think they actually do that; a government-run internet service would ideally be similar to the post office, with punishments set up for recording people's information (like opening mail) or recording meta-data (reading the envelope's addresses is required for the PO to function, but saving or recording should be off limits).
with the government as rogue as it is, there's little difference between a government-run utility and a private one, with regards to surveillance. theoretically government would be the safer choice for better privacy ("third-party doctrine" i believe its called, plus all the NSLs and gag orders and such; remember, our government thinks that giving your info to your private ISP means the constitution doesn't apply anymore), plus a hell of a lot cheaper and better service.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 06 2015, @06:04PM
I think this is actually a great reason to push hard for publicly funded ISPs right now. Didn't they already make it illegal for the government to directly collect much of this info? Instead they make the ISPs store it and ask them to "voluntarily" turn it over without a warrant. So now if could just nuke the massive private ISPs ("...and there was much rejoicing.") we could make that whole setup blow up in their faces. At least for a year or two until they're sufficiently bribed, anyway...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @07:34PM
I think this is actually a great reason to push hard for publicly funded ISPs right now
Actually, I don't think publicly funded ISPs are the way to go. Quasi-publicly (by local and/or regional PBCs [wikipedia.org]) owned last-mile infrastructure paid for by fees from ISPs competing with each other on price and service makes much more sense, IMHO. The trick is to create a level playing field where competition drives quality, innovation and low prices.
I think that's an idea even TMB could get behind, or am I wrong Buzzard?
There's plenty of precedent for this -- think roads, bridges, power and telephone lines, transit hubs (airports, rail hubs, bus stations, etc.) and other types of infrastructure for which private industry is ill-suited.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 06 2015, @08:49PM
I'm still willing to trade in those theoretical benefits for some theoretical improvements in network security...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @09:40PM
I'm still willing to trade in those theoretical benefits for some theoretical improvements in network security...
So those who cannot get reliable broadband in their area should just suck it up until you get your imaginary (because your security is up to you and no one else) security improvements?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:46PM
And that's worse than the current situation -- where they have to just suck it up until they move somewhere else -- because...?
I'm not sure how allowing unrestricted surveillance on your every action is supposed to improve your network speed either...care to explain how that would work?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:58PM
I'm not sure how allowing unrestricted surveillance on your every action is supposed to improve your network speed either...care to explain how that would work?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you referring to the NSA network taps that are *already* in place? If so, how would providing municipal broadband make things worse?
Is your tinfoil hat on too tightly?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:35PM
That's what I've been referring to throughout this entire thread, yes.
My point is that municipal broadband would make things *better*, not worse. Because the government thinks the Constitution doesn't apply when they force a private company to do something instead of doing it themselves. So let's use their own argument against them and have them do it themselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday November 06 2015, @10:42PM
personally i think the way to go is to have a government-run service providing the basic level of broadband (which would be significantly faster than the services available now), such that everyone will have internet, because its basically required to live in today's society, and then have private ISPs competing on top of that, offering services better than the publically-funded utility. this provides the best of everything. really all utilities where its possible to be run like this should be, ensuring that everyone at least has the minimum necessary, and then providing better services for anyone who wants to pay for them.