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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @08:57PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday November 06 2015, @08:57PM (#259656) Journal

    Lobbying can't be banned unless you are prepared to repeal the first amendment.
    If some interest group can be told to shut up and not talk to their legislator, then so can you.

    It all comes down to campaign contributions. If that is what you MEANT to blame this on, that makes sense. But to suggest people and companies can't talk to their elected representatives as a solution is just totally off the mark. Its not like once elected, government never again needs guidance.

    The Economics:

    In the US, There has always been a reluctance to allow government to compete with private business, whether they be small or large. Some things like streets, sewer, water, were seen around the world very early on as natural monopolies and governments were allowed to handle (or at least regulate) these.

    To the extent that broadband means cables/fiber to each house, (physical cable plants) you again have something of a natural monopoly simply because you can't realistically allow trenching cable after cable through every neighborhood. Somebody has to be in charge of the cable plant.

    The franchise route was taken in most places, because government had no real experience with this technology, no real money to construct them, and the Closest Business Model was telephone and power industries. Most neighborhoods do have access to a cable plant, but usually this was put in under Franchise, and the plant is still owned by the installer, and the vast majority of neighborhoods have exactly one choice of cable plant providers. (ADSL doesn't count if you ask me, its usually a monopoly anyway).

    Telephones has only changes from single source franchise to open competition with the advent of wireless and near universal availability of cable TV plants (which can carry Telephone and broadband obviously).

    Municipal cable/broadband plants are just starting to make sense, but the franchise structure is pretty heavily entrenched (sorry, bad pun). To achieve a municipal broadband plant, you have a huge "Taking" issue wresting control of cable plants from the hands of companies. Either that or you have to allow local government to once again trench every friking street in the country.

    (And be very very careful what you wish for here. Government control of communications is something only an idiot would willfully agree to.)

    With WIFI Broadband, its a whole different issue, and there is no actual reason you can't have competition in that area, just as you do for cell providers.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:51PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:51PM (#259950)

    It is really hard not to see lobbying as simple bribery. And allowing companies (or rich folks) access to a politician while in office, is in appropriate.

    However, 1st amendment compliance could still work, just so long as it was put on record what was being lobbied for, and some public redress was possible. We are paying for these representatives, not much call for them to have secret meetings with lobbyists to push an agenda.

    In fact, perhaps the simplest mechanism is to ban donations from anyone that is not a citizen. No foreign cash, and limit the amount donated the same way the presidential campaign contributions are. Make it a bit larger, but you get the point. Disconnect the firehose funding mechanisms...

    Something has to be done about the ludicrous farce of the law being directly written by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, and with complete impunity.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:43AM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:43AM (#260243) Journal

      Most lobbying does not involve any monetary transfers, either explicitly or implied, or under the table.

      I lobbied my state legislature when I lived in Alaska, on behalf of my homeowner's association (several homeowners associations actually). We had no money to hand out, the best we could offer was an invitation to our HOA picnic. Nobody showed up. (We wanted to dial back some horribly expensive reserve study law that was proposed.)

      Lobbying has a bad name, because you only remember episodes where some group lobbied against YOUR interests. You don't seem to remember when your guy was in there buttonholing some congressman.

      Yeah, Exxon and Monsanto and Microsoft lobby too. And those visits ARE logged already. (That you don't know this, but still feel it necessary to rail against lobbying volumes.

      House: http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/ [house.gov]
      Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/Public_Disclosure/LDA_reports.htm [senate.gov]

      Those pages allow you to search who is meeting with who, and also allow you to search contributions by lobbyists or their employers. You can download the database and go over it with a fine tooth comb.

      Now to this issue about "Public redress"...
      Just what the hell do you mean by that? Redress of What?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:42PM

        by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:42PM (#260352)

        If you did it in a public place, and not in a hotel meeting room, I don't see the problem. Plus your use of the word "most", gives me pause...!

        I guess I wouldn't mind if lobbying improved the situation, but competing private interests have really distorted our legal system for their benefit. For example, the current argument de jour is crazy muni broadband laws. Are you telling me that was not due to some undue lobbying effect? They even got laws written to support their businesses!!

        I understand what you are saying that perhaps it is a minority, but the registered lobbying interests is only the visit part of the machine.

        In addition to lobbying they can now setup these PACs (e.g. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/av6bvx/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac---coordination-resolution-with-jon-stewart), [cc.com] so unlimited funds can be used to support a political campaign.

        Good luck finding where that money comes from...

        PS Interesting point about your state reps not showing up. That is because you correctly identified you had no money. Maybe beer helps?