Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Colorado Voters Abolish Ban on Government-Owned Broadband

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

"gewg_" writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Colorado Voters Abolish Ban on Government-Owned Broadband | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
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 NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @09:40PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (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) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.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.