SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Common Dreams reports
A new report details how local officials can create publicly owned internet programs that not only protect free speech and privacy, but also are accessible and affordable
In response to Republicans' recent attacks on net neutrality and digital privacy protections at the behest of giant telecommunications companies, the ACLU is calling on local government leaders to establish municipal broadband systems.
"States, cities, towns, and counties should take matters into their own hands by creating publicly owned services that do honor those values and can help ensure an open internet." —ACLU report
"Net neutrality and privacy protections are essential for the open internet that has transformed our society. With the Trump administration and for-profit companies abandoning those values, what we're seeing around the country is that local governments can protect them and provide access for all", said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, and the principal author of an ACLU report released [March 29].
The report, entitled The Public Internet Option, [1] describes the internet as "a necessity, like traditional utilities such as water and power"; denounces moves by the Republican-controlled FCC and Congress to roll back measures meant to protect consumers from privately-owned internet service providers, or ISPs; and encourages local officials to invest in publicly owned internet infrastructure. It emphasizes the need for internet options that not only protect free speech and privacy, but also are accessible and affordable.
[...] Outlining the many options available for ensuring internet freedom at the local level, the report explains: "Communities can go all the way and provide high-speed fiber connections directly to their residents' homes, along with internet services to go along with them. Or they can leverage their ownership of crucial assets such as conduits (tubes, pipes, tiles, and other casings for cables) to require private-sector providers using those assets to respect free-internet principles. Or any strategy in between."
Acknowledging concerns "that government-run broadband service will be bureaucratic an inefficient", the report points out that "cable and television internet service providers are among the industries most hated by consumers", while the public internet service in Chattanooga, Tennessee "was rated in 2017 as the nation's top ISP in terms of consumer satisfaction."
[...] cities and counties are fighting [the incumbents' "misinformation" campaigns]. In November, for example, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado approved [2] a ballot measure to invest $150 million in a city-owned broadband utility, despite a well-funded effort by the telecom lobby to sway the vote. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), which reviewed the ACLU report, has developed an interactive map [3] for tracking local broadband initiatives nationwide.
The ACLU sent its report to more than 100 mayors in 30 states who have spoken out against the federal rollback of net neutrality protections. For those who are interested in advocating for implementing publicly owned broadband systems in their areas, the ACLU suggested starting with the Community Connectivity Toolkit, a resource developed by ILSR.
Also at Vice.
[1] Page points to PDF.
[2] Dup'd link in TFA.
[3] JavaScript required.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @07:14PM (6 children)
That's ridiculous. Government came into being because the alternative was even worse.
If government sucks, it's purely because idiots like you refuse to do anything to make it better. As long as people continue to vote for anti-government nutters we're going to have a government that sucks. It's not because governments are bad, it's because there's a sizable number of people that are too ignorant to vote for their self interests because they find intelligence to be threatening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @07:21PM (2 children)
Even if the alternative were worse, it's true that Government is a monopoly on various aspects of society, and it's true that Government arose to that monopoly through violent imposition rather than through being good at providing a service (voluntarily, by imposition).
So, you're not disagreeing.
Whether Government is a necessary evil is beside the point.
People are still requesting that one Monopoly be replaced with another Monopoly, the latter Monopoly of which is explicitly based on violent imposition. Strange.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @07:43PM (1 child)
I'm arguing no such thing.
I'm arguing that we're stuck with some sort of a government as the alternative isn't acceptable. And that if we want the government to be one that works for our benefit, we need to actually vote for people that are pushing policies that would make that so.
What's strange here is that you are being so purposefully obtuse about this. The issue isn't that there is a monopoly, the issue is that there's no mechanism for when the source of the service makes decisions that aren't good for society at large. Without either competitors willing to do the right thing or the option of voting the bums out of office, we wind up with the current situation where the service sucks, but we don't have a meaningful say about whether or not to participate as more and more essential government functions are only available online.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @08:43PM
"Everything in the State. Nothing outside the State." That (or the like) was the description of Fascism, according to its founder, Mussolini.
Here's what I say: If Government provides a service, then you are not only forced to pay for that service but you are forced to pay a particular provider of that service (namely, Government). However, if anybody else can provide that service (not including the Government at all), then you at least have choices. Therefore, anybody who wants to live in a free society must try very hard to put as much of society as possible into the hands of organizations that are not the Government.
To flip Mussolini around: "As much as possible outside the State. As little as possible in the State; ideally, nothing in the State."
Where do you draw the line? What is your philosophy? Mussolini is precise; I'm precise. How about you?
If the government's resources are increasingly available only online, then the government should supply ways for every citizen to access those resources.
Oh, wait! It does!
Public libraries provide Internet access (though the wastrels use it to wack off to porn, or bitch in forums about how they deserve more handouts), and there is public transit, subsidized for the poor, to get to those libraries.
Public welfare should NOT be convenient; falling into the safety net should not be an enjoyable alternative to crossing the damn tight rope that everyone else has to cross.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 30 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
Go. To. Fuck.
What about the millions of people who voted for Obama? A "sizable number of people" were so desperate for change, and Obama offered Hope AND Change, so they voted for him. Did they find intelligence to be threatening? Which by the way, sounds like a swipe at religious Republicans.
The system itself is broken, and no amount of voting will fix it. Only revolution, war, and bringing the Elites to their knees (makes it easier to cut off the head) will help.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @08:40PM (1 child)
It's definitely fixable without revolution, the problem is that there's a bunch of morons that keep voting to prevent gays from having abortions.
Obama was the best option for the Presidency and at the time he was first elected, he was the only candidate that had a plan for dealing with the impending economic crisis.
As far as the system goes, perhaps if people would stop voting for corporatists and rightwingers we might have some change. When all is said and done, there's a sizable number of people that purposefully vote for people that aren't even pretending like what they're doing is going to be good for the country. If they aren't even promising better and they still get votes, why on earth would anybody expect better?
This year we've got people actually primarying their fellow party members in much larger numbers than usual. We've finally got somebody running against that horrible Pelosi that's an actual liberal. It shocks me a bit that nobody has tried that before as she clearly isn't representing her constituents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @03:09AM
Obama [...] was the only candidate that had a plan for dealing with the impending economic crisis
I see that you aren't timid about revealing your towering ignorance.
Ralph Nader was on the ballot in 2008. [wikipedia.org]
If you scroll down to 2008[1], you'll see not only Ralph (no single declared party that time), you'll see Cynthia McKinney (Green Party; former Georgia congresswoman) and Gloria La Riva (who is getting to be a Peace and Freedom Party perennial).
Jerry White (not listed on that page) was on the Socialist Equality Party ticket that year.
Any of those had an economic plan that was at least the equal of O'Bummer's bailouts of failed Capitalists (criminals, at that).
A little reminder here that the S&L crooks of the 1980s were imprisoned in the 1990s--not bailed out at taxpayer expense.
[1] Someone who is signed up with Wikipedia needs to add all of those headings to the top of the page so that folks can use a #FragmentIdentifier to index the page to the pertinent part.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]