SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the broadband-blockade-benevolently-bypassed dept.
Boing Boing reports
After North Carolina Republicans banned cities selling internet, a town decided to give it away instead
North Carolina is one of many states in which telcoms lobbyists have gotten the state house to ban towns and cities from selling high-speed internet to the public--even in places where the cable/phone duopoly refuses to supply broadband.
FCC Chairman and decidedly non-dingo babysitter Tom Wheeler pushed through FCC rules invalidating these state laws, only to have Republican lawmakers and telcoms lobbyists use the courts to win back the right to force people to buy internet service from cable or phone companies, or do without if neither wish to supply internet to them.
The town of Wilson, North Carolina was one of the places whose municipal fiber ISP was threatened by the court decision, but after a close read of the rule, they've decided that since they're only banned from selling broadband, they can safely give it away for free. Wilson is offering free broadband to people outside the town limits, whose rural homes are not adequately served by Big Telco, and who were hammered hard by Hurricane Matthew.
The plan is to offer the service for free for six months and hope that during that time the state legislature--the same one that passed the awful, nonsensical "bathroom bill"--will come to its senses and strike down the ban on municipal internet service. Lotsa luck.
Previous:
Town Loses Gigabit Connections after FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss
FCC Considering Action on Municipal Broadband State Laws
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @12:58PM
What awful bathroom bill? The one that required separate restrooms for men and women? How the fuck is that awful? Any business that is so incompetent they can't afford two restrooms deserves to go under.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @01:02PM
Property owners should be able to set whatever rules regarding bathrooms that they wish. This viewpoint potentially pisses off both those who want to force rules which favor trans people and people who are paranoid about molesters in bathrooms (which could exist regardless of any bathroom rules, since bathrooms aren't heavily guarded).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @02:06PM
New rules: cameras in every stall, manager allowed to rape anyone who enters.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Monday October 31 2016, @01:51PM
you must not know what this is about.
in short, its a hate-bill that is designed to mobilize the christian extreme 'right' (I really hate that they own that word; nothing 'right' about christians when you look close enough) and to placate them.
there was never an issue but the deep (derp) south keeps wanting to fight issues that simply don't exist, just to show its 'faithful' that they have a friend in lawmakers.
the rest of the world and the US are laughing (and crying) about our derp south and how, time after time, they show that they really should have been allowed to leave the union. I do believe they should have left as, even 100+ years later, they still don't have the same goals and beliefs the rest of the country has.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 4, Informative) by tekk on Monday October 31 2016, @02:07PM
NC Resident. The issue wasn't that businesses were only having 1 bathroom, in fact there is nothing businesses have to do. What happened is that Charlotte, the biggest city in the state and one of the biggest in the Southeast (3rd after Miami and Atlanta I think?) passed a law which explicitly allowed trans people to use their preferred bathroom. This law was passed as a "fuck you" to Charlotte and does the opposite: you must use the bathroom according to your birth certificate's gender.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @03:27PM
Which bathroom do I use if my birth certificate says "Intersex", and who is standing guard outside the bathroom checking everyone's birth certificates? Just how badly do these dipshits want government to micromanage everyone's lives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @04:02PM
Just how badly do these dipshits want government to micromanage everyone's lives?
I think 'idiots' would be a better term. Not only are they being hypocritical about 'big' government, the great thing about this law is that, if followed, it will actually create the effect that the people pushing it claim terrifies them.
Do a google image search for 'born woman', and you'll see what I mean. I'd love to see these jack-asses create what they are most afraid of, if only it didn't affect anyone else.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday November 01 2016, @03:27AM
Glad somebody else realizes this.
I did that search, and it didn't seem very illustrative for me at least (keeping in mind that Google skews search results depending on things). Sort of guessing at what you were expecting, but I thought this “woman” [mirror.co.uk] was pretty hot!
My image search go-to example of a “man” is Korean pop star Harisoo (sometimes romanized as Harisu).
Somehow in the RWNJ bizarro world I wind up being straight, which is ok I guess. Nothing wrong with being straight!
(Score: 1) by tekk on Monday October 31 2016, @09:00PM
One of the many complaints about the bill :)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @05:31PM
What awful bathroom bill? The one that required separate restrooms for men and women? How the fuck is that awful? Any business that is so incompetent they can't afford two restrooms deserves to go under.
No. The bathroom bill which says that people are required to use the bathroom on their birth certificate. Never mind that:
1) This hadn't been an issue prior to the bill. This was passed to prevent school harassment because Think of the Children, but if you look at lawsuits and press reports prior to the bill you will find extremely few (maybe no) documented cases.
2) Birth certificates can be wrong (yes, they actually are cases)
3) People who have had gender reassignment surgery and actually appear to be (or now physically are) of the gender not on their birth certificate. So you have burly-men being forced to use female bathrooms, or curvy-women being forced to use male bathrooms.
4) How will you enforce this? Do you really want police standing around bathrooms checking birth certificates (yay for small government)? Is this going to be a selective enforcement type thing, where people are only called-out when "they look bad?"
5) There are already anti-peeping laws, or other things on the books. What problem does the law address?
6) The bathroom portion was actually a smokescreen for other, larger, social changes. The bill was also there to prevent discrimination lawsuits at the State level and force them at the Federal level (where it is far more expensive to file suit).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:14AM
My solution would be a row of identical bathrooms (not stalls), each minimally equipped, and a sign that says "Use any one that's vacant".
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.