Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 05 2018, @11:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the give-me-network-choices dept.

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?


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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:49PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:49PM (#633471)

    Ok fine, I'll take the bait.

    Pleas elaborate on this history you refer to. List more than 3 instances so we have a good baseline to refer to, a quick blurb on what they countries wanted to do and how it actually turned out. The point keeps being brought up as some master stroke to end an argument, so lets review that part and see what shakes out.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 05 2018, @10:27PM (13 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 05 2018, @10:27PM (#633489) Homepage Journal

    Pick any three nations that have ever had "socialist" in their name or even talked about socialism as if it were a good thing. Or any three workers' unions. I'm too lazy to educate you today but it's your baby so you should have plenty of examples to hand.

    Socialism, by its very nature, is tyrannical. Even "properly practiced" it can be seen as nothing but the tyranny of the majority. There has never been and will never be an instance of socialism that was not oppressive by design. Socialists cannot deal with the idea that "He has more than me because he has earned it". In their little minds "I need it more than him" gives them some form of entitlement to things they neither created nor earned. They are thieves who have rationalized their theft, nothing else.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday February 05 2018, @11:21PM (11 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday February 05 2018, @11:21PM (#633525) Homepage Journal

      Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands and every other country with some form of single-payer health care [wikipedia.org].

      I'm sure I left out a bunch, like Germany [cjr.org], France and others.

      Yes, I know. Western Europe [statisticstimes.com] is a third-world shithole, with each one of the above countries having failing economies on the verge of collapse, right?

      You're attempting (poorly) to put Socialism in a tiny box that serves your preconceptions. Socialism (and capitalism, for that matter) takes many forms, and the most successful societies (including the US) have elements of capitalism and socialism.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 05 2018, @11:31PM (9 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 05 2018, @11:31PM (#633532) Homepage Journal

        You're misusing the word now to support a failed point. Socialism has a fixed and very definite meaning. Come up with a new word if you're wanting to support a word, because socialism does not encompass anything and everything that has ever been described as "social".

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:09AM (5 children)

          by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:09AM (#633604)

          You're misusing the word now to support a failed point. Socialism has a fixed and very definite meaning. Come up with a new word if you're wanting to support a word, because socialism does not encompass anything and everything that has ever been described as "social".

          I figured out why you're constantly arguing in endless circles with everyone. It's because you can't acknowledge that dictionary concepts like socialism, capitalism, communism and free markets don't actually exist in the real world. They're just ideas, or ideals. What exists in the real world are only imperfect, human implementations of these abstract, "perfectly" defined ideas. There are no "free markets" in the real world, there are only loose approximations full of holes that interfere with the theoretical functions of the perfect textbook free market. Here in the US, we aren't capitalists, we're capitalistIC. We aren't socialists, but we have socialistIC programs in place. We also have people who attempt to at least partially follow communistIC precepts, but we aren't communists. All in the same country, at the same time.

          When people disagree with your view of the evils of socialism, they aren't "misusing" the word, they're just disagreeing with your assertion that the real world implementations of these abstract, tightly defined ideas are as simple as you believe. Real world implementations of these ideas inhabit a wide spectrum, many of which only loosely follow the textbook definitions. That's not misusing words, it's just reality, and reality is messy. But all you seem to care about are the textbook, black and white definitions. And so the argument never ends, and no progress is ever made in seeing another viewpoint. There is no room in your mind for the idea that an imperfect implementation of socialism might not be evil, or that an imperfect implementation of capitalism might not be good.

          You could virtually be replaced by a bot that just endlessly repeats, "Nuh-uh! You're wrong and I'm right."

          --
          ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
          ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:10AM (3 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:10AM (#633626) Homepage Journal

            No, I'm simply being pedantic about definitions at the moment. Get with the program.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:37PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:37PM (#633770)

              Pathetic

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:58PM (1 child)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:58PM (#633785) Homepage Journal

                You know, it's a sad thing when the quality of your trolling does not measure up to that of Ethanol-Fueled on a bad day. You should practice more over on Twitter then come back and try again.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:01PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:01PM (#633893)

                  Since you're all pedantic about definitions try looking up "internet troll". EF and others are trolls, simply describing your performance is not.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @10:35PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @10:35PM (#634147)

            ...and some just use the words without ever actually implementing the ideas.
            "Communist" is high on that list.
            (Without a really tight feedback loop between The Workers and the folks making the ultimate decisions, you have a poor implementation of what Marx described.)

            "Socialist" gets misused a whole lot too.

            Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
            The fundamental unit of Socialism is the worker-owned cooperative--or perhaps even the worker-owner.
            If you don't have Democracy in the workplace, you have something--but it isn't Socialism.

            Wikipedia's page makes the classic mistake of painting with too broad a brush.
            Taxing and redistributing is NOT a key feature of Socialism.
            That's Liberal Democracy AKA Social Democracy AKA Christian Democracy.

            From the Russian Revolution of October 1917[1] to 1921, [google.com] USSR had a pretty good implementation of Socialism.[2] [google.com]

            ...and of course, after Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin took over, what USSR had was a dictatorship.
            That's what "communist" North Korea has too.

            [1] ...by the old calendar. Adding 11 days to get the new calendar puts it in November.

            [2] soviet==council (workers council; town council; etc.)

            .
            Chavista Venezuela has about 1400 "communes" now.
            Those have commandeered farmland|factories that are idle and have put them into production.
            (Capitalists being able to own more real estate than they are willing|able to use rubs us Socialists the wrong way.)

            So, while Venezuela is best described as Bolivarian (Anti-Imperialist), they have a nice little start on Socialism there.
            N.B. Since Chavez died, Maduro isn't doing as good a job at advocating/bolstering that.

            .
            ...and the number of people who use "Capitalist" incorrectly is legion.
            If your system has profit or markets or growth or ownership of stuff, it isn't necessarily Capitalist.
            The (Socialist) Mondragon cooperative (now in 40 countries on 5 continents) has all of those.

            Now, if you have workers who have no say in how things are being done where they work and no say in what will be done with the profits, THAT sounds like Capitalism.

            ...and especially, Capitalism and Democracy are NOT synonymous--or even necessarily related.
            Capitalism can and does exist under extremely repressive political regimes.
            Capitalism is completely agnostic WRT governmental forms.
            (Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.)

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:57AM (2 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:57AM (#633620) Homepage Journal

          I agree with RedBear's analysis [soylentnews.org].

          Only in textbooks are things as black and white as you're making them out to be.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:12AM (1 child)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:12AM (#633627) Homepage Journal

            See above. Pick whatever word you like for "social" things that fall outside the definition of socialism but don't use "socialism". It's already taken.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @05:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @05:18PM (#633953)

              You have the most fragile ego. If you weren't such a dick all the time I'd feel sorry for you.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Tuesday February 06 2018, @11:21AM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @11:21AM (#633742) Journal

        But everyone's favourite alt-wrong stupid signaller, Nigel Farage, says that all those countries are part of a Liberal Metropolitan Fascist Elite and on the verge of collapse along with the EUSSR.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:17AM (#633605)

      Figures, go suck an egg. It is your deal not mine, and obviously your subconscious knows you have no ground to stand on.