SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica is reporting on San Francisco's initial steps to create a citywide fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) open-access network where ISPs compete for customers.
According to Ars Technica:
San Francisco is trying to find network providers to build a city-wide, gigabit fiber Internet service with mandated net neutrality and consumer privacy protections. It would be an open-access network, allowing multiple ISPs to offer service over the same lines and compete for customers.
The city yesterday issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to find companies that are qualified "to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain a ubiquitous broadband FTTP [fiber-to-the-premises] network that permits retail service providers to lease capacity on the network." The project would also involve a free Wi-Fi service for city parks, city buildings, major thoroughfares, and visitor areas. Low-income residents would qualify for subsidies that make home Internet service more affordable.
ISPs offering service over the network would not be allowed to block or throttle lawful Internet traffic or engage in paid prioritization. ISPs would also need customers' opt-in consent "prior to collecting, using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer personal information or information about a customer's use of the network."
Could this be the first major US metropolitan area to create a real free market in broadband Internet? Do any Soylentils have similar municipal networks?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 05 2018, @07:00PM (4 children)
Maybe SanFran should instead work on getting more reasonably-priced housing...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 05 2018, @07:21PM
Better networks will help with the deployment of the upcoming Unicorn "Uber for sleeping under porches, bridges and in nooks and sewers" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:00PM (2 children)
Nice snarky comment, however the political reality is way more complicated. There are a LOT of very rich people in SF who do not want any more housing. There are a LOT of renters who want more housing. New development is insanely expensive, so even then housing prices will be exorbitant but it might be a 5-20 year fix if they start building now.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 05 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
The problem with your analysis is that those renters, who you claim are "a LOT", should logically outnumber the very rich people who don't want any more housing (please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am). So assuming the renters outnumber the rich bastards, they should be able to elect local government officials who will approve more construction projects. If they start building right now, at a massive scale, it should only be 2-3 years to see a huge difference due to increased supply; just look at how fast China can build a ghost city. This seems to be entirely a failure of local government, and of the majority of the voters to vote in their own interests.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @10:12PM
Yet, in the real world, owners nearly always have vastly more political power than renters. They have more money, so they can support campaigns better. And housing is a complicated issue, so politicians can appeal to renters without actually promising any policies that will actually result in more housing. Other complications include renters being less likely to be citizens (cities tend to have a lot of immigrants), and many of the interested parties living outside the city because they can't afford to even rent inside the city. And the ever-present problem in American politics of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire” voting for policies good for rich people, dreaming they'll someday be rich enough to benefit.