SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the sueden-outbreak-of-common-sense? dept.
Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead
A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network. Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday.
"The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday. "The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015." About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.
Charlemont has about 1,300 residents and covers about 26 square miles in northwest Massachusetts. Town officials estimate that building a municipal fiber network reaching 100 percent of homes would cost $1,466,972 plus interest over 20 years. An increase in property taxes would cover the construction cost. But the town would also bring in revenue from selling broadband service and potentially break even, making the project less expensive than Comcast's offer. "With 59 percent of households taking broadband service, the tax hike would be 29 cents [per $1,000 of assessed home value], similar to that for Comcast," a Recorder article last month said. "But if 72 percent or more of households subscribe to the municipal-owned network, there is no tax impact, because subscriber fees would pay for it."
(Score: 3, Informative) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:19AM (6 children)
You have to nominate and vote for them. That's how you can work the system in the U.S.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:24AM (5 children)
Sure, nominate and vote for... who? In the current climate where political adversaries don't just debate issues, but attempt to destroy each other, what sane person would want to run for anything anymore?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:13PM
Wah wah wah! You're right, that sounds like an awfully lot of work. And BORING too! I too much prefer to bitch about my principles and liberties than to actually put in any effort, because let's be honest here, if the system was working well for all of us and I was doing pretty well, I'd have nothing to complain about. I'd be a conformist! I couldn't get that nihilistic-chic edge that says "I'm a bad boy outsider."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:01PM (3 children)
Then we'll have to conscript them. Wanna be a lawyer? You gotta serve time in congress first. You'll get your license if you do a good job. If you can't get elected, you probably wouldn't be a good lawyer anyway. Call it pre-karma. It'll sort the wheat from the chaff.
The thing is, why would you vote for people that do want the job? They are usually the least qualified, and are only looking for personal power/wealth.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:28PM (2 children)
I seem to remember an Arthur C. Clarke(?) novel where the presidency was assigned by lottery, with no option to abdicate, on the assumption that anyone who wanted the job was clearly unqualified.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)
Lottery would be better than voting. Congress should be like jury duty. Probably wouldn't hurt to put 'em out on Parris Island for a few weeks either.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:57AM
I've often advocated for "legislative juries" - not necessarily instead of congress, but in addition to it. Each bill gets it's own "jury" with (line item?) veto power, if not full re-writing power. And if congress can't get the bill through the jury in a reasonable amount of time, then no similar bills may be proposed for at least 4 years.
Obviously such a jury would need to be sequestered from lobbyists and other undemocratic actors - though I'm not sure how you'd do that while still giving them access to relevant research and experts. Perhaps just put them under 24 hour surveillance, and make clear that any corruption on their part will be considered treason?