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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:06AM (#660625)

    A government is a special organization; it is an organization that declares its income at the point of a gun.

    It's not competition but rather distortion when a government participates in the market—the competing private organizations are forced to fund their opponents, the government. Also, consumers are given a very irritating choice: Either pay the government for its service, or pay both the government for its service and some other competing company... stupid.

    With regard to the US Postal Service, I urge you to read about Lysander Spooner.

    Inherent in your view of a government communications service is the notion that the government is inherently more angelic than "private" organizations. Yet, how can that be? Both kinds of organization are staffed by Men, who are not angels. Worse for government, though, is the fact that government can declare its income regardless of its performance, and when government commandeers an industry, it does so as a violently imposed monopoly where—BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT—it is in danger of corruption through lack of competition (especially given the incompetence that necessary comes along with taking over an industry rather than growing the industry through continuously profitable activities).

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1