Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 06 2015, @01:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-vox-populi dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 06 2015, @06:04PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 06 2015, @06:04PM (#259563) Journal

    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.

    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...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @07:34PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday November 06 2015, @07:34PM (#259604) Homepage Journal

    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

      by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 06 2015, @08:49PM (#259650) Journal

      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

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday November 06 2015, @09:40PM (#259675) Homepage Journal

        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

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:46PM (#261233) Journal

          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?

          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

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:58PM (#261236) Homepage Journal

            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

              by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:35PM (#261255) Journal

              I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you referring to the NSA network taps that are *already* in place?

              That's what I've been referring to throughout this entire thread, yes.

              If so, how would providing municipal broadband make things worse?

              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

      by tathra (3367) on Friday November 06 2015, @10:42PM (#259709)

      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.