Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday March 30 2018, @06:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the ownership-models dept.

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.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
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) by meustrus on Friday March 30 2018, @07:26PM (5 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Friday March 30 2018, @07:26PM (#660487)

    Come on now straw libertarian AC. Surely even you can tell there’s nothing that makes a violently imposed monopoly administered by the guys holding the guns any worse than a violently administered monopoly administered by a a profit-maximizing corporation.

    In many ways, the latter strategy is the worst of both worlds. It’s still violently imposed, but if they screw the peasants bad enough that they revolt, the corporation can just evaporate while the guys holding the guns get to say “sorry that didn’t work out, here’s a new administrator that totally isn’t just the same guys as before under a new name”.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @07:39PM (#660495)

    At the very least, I can choose not to use the Internet, or I can connive with my buddies to do something wild to access the Internet without using a particular corporation, if only for shits and giggles.

    Yet, that's not possible if the Government provides an ISP. The government WILL force me to fund its activities by one means or another.

    That's the difference. That's what indisputably makes the Government a violently imposed monopoly.

    Surely, even a bootlicker like you can perceive that difference.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @10:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30 2018, @10:34PM (#660571)

      I'll take accusations of bootlicking any day over being a naive fuckwit.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:20AM (#660631) Journal

      At the very least, I can choose not to use the Internet, or I can connive with my buddies to do something wild to access the Internet without using a particular corporation, if only for shits and giggles.

      Are you saying that the existence of a municipal ISP will force you to use the Internet?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @09:56AM (#660790)

        You know that's not what the AC means.

    • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday April 02 2018, @02:51PM

      by meustrus (4961) on Monday April 02 2018, @02:51PM (#661496)

      But the government already forces you to fund the ISPs. Your taxes pay for rural broadband incentive packages and other infrastructure rollout funds. Funds which the ISPs often manage to avoid spending on rolling out infrastructure like they are supposed to, but that's beside the point.

      The point is that the current ISP system is already a violently imposed monopoly. You cannot choose not to pay for it.

      It would be different if the ISP market looked more like the old dial-up market. What made that more free was that anybody could buy a small set of equipment and broadcast over the existing infrastructure. Nobody had a violently-imposed competitive advantage over anyone else.

      The only way to make that kind of system work for broadband is to dissociate the infrastructure from its commercial applications. Whomever owns the infrastructure has a competitive advantage, so don't let them compete. Then the ISPs can be a free market layer on top of that infrastructure.

      Even then, the infrastructure itself is still a monopoly problem. No one has yet come up with a way to maintain singleton infrastructure without the government ultimately being in control. Whether the public or private sector administers it is irrelevant to the fact that the government is still taking your tax money to build and maintain it.

      --
      If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?