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This discussion has been archived.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 edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @08:07PM

    by edIII (791) on Friday November 06 2015, @08:07PM (#259622)

    Threats of defunding campaigns can be avoided more easily too.

    Which is why the system is irreparably borked. Politicians literally cannot afford to attain office based on their integrity, ethics, and positions alone. They must either be very well supported by private corporations/industry, either by their own funds by virtue of being a rich executive, or actively promulgating the views of a group of many rich people elsewhere.

    More disgustingly, where does the vast amount of campaign contributions go towards? Television and advertising executives and shareholders. If Ted Turner is donating a ton of money to elections that literally completes a financial circle. It's ridiculous that we support a multi-billion dollar industry making a few people rich so that we enjoy our farce of a representative anything.

    If we want true change than a brand new political platform needs to be created that specifically and effectively lowers the barriers to entry in politics. We have more than enough resources to do so. It would be cheaper for us to just pay a half-billion a year to Netflix to operate the public politics portal. Anyone can access it anonymously and obtaining information directly from the politician about their viewpoints would be available. Live debates would not be logistically impossible either, nor cost too much money, with a single bill provided to government.

    I'd like to see somebody able to enter politics simply by virtue of petitions. If this politician has any chance at all, starting a viral campaign for Netflix to establish his portal page should be a cinch. Walking around and meeting people, starting small town meetings and bake sales, these are all things that are reasonably within reach of any of us. As a politicians support base grows, Netflix just scales with him or her. Just like I heard about some Republican candidates being sent to "kids table" for the debates, the 7 most supported (read popular) politicians get the center stage in a debate. That's for debates that would require infrastructure.

    Would it be so damn bad to just use HD Webcams in this person's office instead? Those televised debates are about psychology and creating an entertainment like event, just as much as they are about informing the voters. That can be done from a private office ("appearing by satellite") easily.

    $20,000,000 fucking millions dollars just to consider a campaign is a big contributing factor of why monied interests own politics like a violent pimp owns and operates his hos .

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @09:06PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday November 06 2015, @09:06PM (#259657) Journal

    Wow! Edill recommends handing election campaigns over to private corporations. Just Wow!

    Back on your meds buddy.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @09:41PM

      by edIII (791) on Friday November 06 2015, @09:41PM (#259677)

      So you want government run CDN networks and media software? Paying private industry a decent rate to provide free political coverage anonymously to every citizen does cost something in terms of R&D and then operating costs. We pay Microsoft for licenses. Do you want to say something about that?

      All I'm proposing is that we utilize or license Netflix's technology for the platform. Otherwise, you would have government re-designing the wheel at billions more. I've seen government projects like that. Just license the technology, and Netflix is not the only provider either. Amazon has tech that can do it, and so does Google with YouTube. Nothing says we can't load balance across both providers either. Think outside of the box.

      At some point, we will be paying *somebody* to operate that public CDN network. I'm convinced it would be many times more expensive to have government do it. What's your idea on taking the political media machine away from the traditionally corrupt distribution channels and pushing it towards a publicly funded and impartial distribution channels?

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @10:26PM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday November 06 2015, @10:26PM (#259697) Journal

        Who precisely said anything about Government Run CDN networks!??? Stop putting words in my mouth.

        Netflix is not a free service. It is only open to people who pay and also have some sort of broadband.

        Youtube is free. But you still need broadband.
        Why would you pick any single private company to FORCED carry election information?
        Seriously, who is going to sit and watch that on their computer or phone while paying for bandwidth? Are all 17 CSPAN viewers going to suddenly start watching Netflix? We've been down that road and it doesn't lead anywhere.

        And what is this anonymously stuff you mention? In light of all that has happened in the snowden years, how naive do you have to be to suggest that such a thing exists?
        Newspapers and TV may make bank on election cycles. But they are virtually un-traceable. We used to have "Must Carry" rules. Going back to that would make more sense than paying Netflix, who in short order would be JUST as corrupt as Big TV, and just as much in the pocket of "progressives" as is big tv.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.