El Reg reports
Voters in Colorado have abolished laws that had prohibited local governments from offering their own broadband internet services.
Local ballots in 17 counties all resulted in voters electing to allow their local governments to offer broadband service in competition with private cable companies. The vote overturns a 2005 law that prevented any government agency from competing in the broadband space.
[...] According to The Denver Post , the 17 counties have differing reasons for overturning the rule. Some areas want to build their own broadband infrastructure, while others simply want to offer Wi-Fi service in public buildings or improve service for farming communities.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Colorado Voters Abolish Ban on Government-Owned Broadband
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 66 comments
| Search Discussion
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 Friday November 06 2015, @02:20PM
Talk about a blatantly corrupt legislation. Ban municipal utility to protect asinine monopolies? Fuck me. How did we get here?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dale on Friday November 06 2015, @02:39PM
Mostly by apathy. Most issues in our country could be solved by an informed and active electorate. Unfortunately we have neither an informed electorate nor an active one. Much of the activity we do have is uninformed. Voting rates during presidential years is pretty sad. Voting rates during non-presidential years is embarrassing. When you have low participation it is easy for special interests to have a disproportionate level of influence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Friday November 06 2015, @03:32PM
http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Changed-Anything-Theyd-Abolish/dp/0006373356 [amazon.com]
"If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It" - K. Livingston.
Until lobbying is banned (at least in private) , how can you expect politicians to act in your interest?
They are simply doing what they are paid for...
PS. Not a troll, but sometimes I wonder if we can ever dig ourselves out of this hole...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday November 06 2015, @07:15PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Saturday November 07 2015, @02:01AM
Jefferson County, Colorado (western suburbs of Denver) did precisely that to the right-wing faction in their school board Tuesday.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @08:57PM
Lobbying can't be banned unless you are prepared to repeal the first amendment.
If some interest group can be told to shut up and not talk to their legislator, then so can you.
It all comes down to campaign contributions. If that is what you MEANT to blame this on, that makes sense. But to suggest people and companies can't talk to their elected representatives as a solution is just totally off the mark. Its not like once elected, government never again needs guidance.
The Economics:
In the US, There has always been a reluctance to allow government to compete with private business, whether they be small or large. Some things like streets, sewer, water, were seen around the world very early on as natural monopolies and governments were allowed to handle (or at least regulate) these.
To the extent that broadband means cables/fiber to each house, (physical cable plants) you again have something of a natural monopoly simply because you can't realistically allow trenching cable after cable through every neighborhood. Somebody has to be in charge of the cable plant.
The franchise route was taken in most places, because government had no real experience with this technology, no real money to construct them, and the Closest Business Model was telephone and power industries. Most neighborhoods do have access to a cable plant, but usually this was put in under Franchise, and the plant is still owned by the installer, and the vast majority of neighborhoods have exactly one choice of cable plant providers. (ADSL doesn't count if you ask me, its usually a monopoly anyway).
Telephones has only changes from single source franchise to open competition with the advent of wireless and near universal availability of cable TV plants (which can carry Telephone and broadband obviously).
Municipal cable/broadband plants are just starting to make sense, but the franchise structure is pretty heavily entrenched (sorry, bad pun). To achieve a municipal broadband plant, you have a huge "Taking" issue wresting control of cable plants from the hands of companies. Either that or you have to allow local government to once again trench every friking street in the country.
(And be very very careful what you wish for here. Government control of communications is something only an idiot would willfully agree to.)
With WIFI Broadband, its a whole different issue, and there is no actual reason you can't have competition in that area, just as you do for cell providers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday November 07 2015, @01:51PM
It is really hard not to see lobbying as simple bribery. And allowing companies (or rich folks) access to a politician while in office, is in appropriate.
However, 1st amendment compliance could still work, just so long as it was put on record what was being lobbied for, and some public redress was possible. We are paying for these representatives, not much call for them to have secret meetings with lobbyists to push an agenda.
In fact, perhaps the simplest mechanism is to ban donations from anyone that is not a citizen. No foreign cash, and limit the amount donated the same way the presidential campaign contributions are. Make it a bit larger, but you get the point. Disconnect the firehose funding mechanisms...
Something has to be done about the ludicrous farce of the law being directly written by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, and with complete impunity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:43AM
Most lobbying does not involve any monetary transfers, either explicitly or implied, or under the table.
I lobbied my state legislature when I lived in Alaska, on behalf of my homeowner's association (several homeowners associations actually). We had no money to hand out, the best we could offer was an invitation to our HOA picnic. Nobody showed up. (We wanted to dial back some horribly expensive reserve study law that was proposed.)
Lobbying has a bad name, because you only remember episodes where some group lobbied against YOUR interests. You don't seem to remember when your guy was in there buttonholing some congressman.
Yeah, Exxon and Monsanto and Microsoft lobby too. And those visits ARE logged already. (That you don't know this, but still feel it necessary to rail against lobbying volumes.
House: http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/ [house.gov]
Senate: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/Public_Disclosure/LDA_reports.htm [senate.gov]
Those pages allow you to search who is meeting with who, and also allow you to search contributions by lobbyists or their employers. You can download the database and go over it with a fine tooth comb.
Now to this issue about "Public redress"...
Just what the hell do you mean by that? Redress of What?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:42PM
If you did it in a public place, and not in a hotel meeting room, I don't see the problem. Plus your use of the word "most", gives me pause...!
I guess I wouldn't mind if lobbying improved the situation, but competing private interests have really distorted our legal system for their benefit. For example, the current argument de jour is crazy muni broadband laws. Are you telling me that was not due to some undue lobbying effect? They even got laws written to support their businesses!!
I understand what you are saying that perhaps it is a minority, but the registered lobbying interests is only the visit part of the machine.
In addition to lobbying they can now setup these PACs (e.g. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/av6bvx/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac---coordination-resolution-with-jon-stewart), [cc.com] so unlimited funds can be used to support a political campaign.
Good luck finding where that money comes from...
PS Interesting point about your state reps not showing up. That is because you correctly identified you had no money. Maybe beer helps?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 06 2015, @04:45PM
I don't know whether voters should take all the blame. There's such a thing as voter fatigue, where we are asked and asked to vote on every little thing. To make it harder, it can be astonishingly difficult to get any good information. I've voted having no more information about two opponents than their names and ages. There were no campaign slogans, websites, platforms, newspaper stories, statements, and not even a party affiliation, which is rather too common in local elections.
Some of the elections are just stupid too. Shouldn't have to have a vote on issues where the will of the people is already well known, and very one-sided. This Colorado vote is one of those. What are they trying to do, asking people to vote on something obvious like that? Hope turnout is so low that they can easily rig the election to return the opposite result? Or, is this sort of for us, to hammer on the point that people hate monopolies, a result that can be used to justify why these telecoms monopolies deserve to lose in court, maybe have to pay bigger bribes?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 06 2015, @05:11PM
A vote gives a hard reason to support a law which will instantly be attacked in court.
Threats of defunding campaigns can be avoided more easily too.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @08:07PM
Which is why the system is irreparably borked. Politicians literally cannot afford to attain office based on their integrity, ethics, and positions alone. They must either be very well supported by private corporations/industry, either by their own funds by virtue of being a rich executive, or actively promulgating the views of a group of many rich people elsewhere.
More disgustingly, where does the vast amount of campaign contributions go towards? Television and advertising executives and shareholders. If Ted Turner is donating a ton of money to elections that literally completes a financial circle. It's ridiculous that we support a multi-billion dollar industry making a few people rich so that we enjoy our farce of a representative anything.
If we want true change than a brand new political platform needs to be created that specifically and effectively lowers the barriers to entry in politics. We have more than enough resources to do so. It would be cheaper for us to just pay a half-billion a year to Netflix to operate the public politics portal. Anyone can access it anonymously and obtaining information directly from the politician about their viewpoints would be available. Live debates would not be logistically impossible either, nor cost too much money, with a single bill provided to government.
I'd like to see somebody able to enter politics simply by virtue of petitions. If this politician has any chance at all, starting a viral campaign for Netflix to establish his portal page should be a cinch. Walking around and meeting people, starting small town meetings and bake sales, these are all things that are reasonably within reach of any of us. As a politicians support base grows, Netflix just scales with him or her. Just like I heard about some Republican candidates being sent to "kids table" for the debates, the 7 most supported (read popular) politicians get the center stage in a debate. That's for debates that would require infrastructure.
Would it be so damn bad to just use HD Webcams in this person's office instead? Those televised debates are about psychology and creating an entertainment like event, just as much as they are about informing the voters. That can be done from a private office ("appearing by satellite") easily.
$20,000,000 fucking millions dollars just to consider a campaign is a big contributing factor of why monied interests own politics like a violent pimp owns and operates his hos .
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @09:06PM
Wow! Edill recommends handing election campaigns over to private corporations. Just Wow!
Back on your meds buddy.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @09:41PM
So you want government run CDN networks and media software? Paying private industry a decent rate to provide free political coverage anonymously to every citizen does cost something in terms of R&D and then operating costs. We pay Microsoft for licenses. Do you want to say something about that?
All I'm proposing is that we utilize or license Netflix's technology for the platform. Otherwise, you would have government re-designing the wheel at billions more. I've seen government projects like that. Just license the technology, and Netflix is not the only provider either. Amazon has tech that can do it, and so does Google with YouTube. Nothing says we can't load balance across both providers either. Think outside of the box.
At some point, we will be paying *somebody* to operate that public CDN network. I'm convinced it would be many times more expensive to have government do it. What's your idea on taking the political media machine away from the traditionally corrupt distribution channels and pushing it towards a publicly funded and impartial distribution channels?
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @10:26PM
Who precisely said anything about Government Run CDN networks!??? Stop putting words in my mouth.
Netflix is not a free service. It is only open to people who pay and also have some sort of broadband.
Youtube is free. But you still need broadband.
Why would you pick any single private company to FORCED carry election information?
Seriously, who is going to sit and watch that on their computer or phone while paying for bandwidth? Are all 17 CSPAN viewers going to suddenly start watching Netflix? We've been down that road and it doesn't lead anywhere.
And what is this anonymously stuff you mention? In light of all that has happened in the snowden years, how naive do you have to be to suggest that such a thing exists?
Newspapers and TV may make bank on election cycles. But they are virtually un-traceable. We used to have "Must Carry" rules. Going back to that would make more sense than paying Netflix, who in short order would be JUST as corrupt as Big TV, and just as much in the pocket of "progressives" as is big tv.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday November 06 2015, @06:14PM
To make it harder, it can be astonishingly difficult to get any good information. I've voted having no more information about two opponents than their names and ages. There were no campaign slogans, websites, platforms, newspaper stories, statements, and not even a party affiliation, which is rather too common in local elections.
They don't give you any information because they don't *need* to give you any information to get elected. People will vote for them anyways. What we should do is vote for an third, write-in candidate. Maybe people should vote for an agreed-upon fictional character. If Popeye started getting more votes than either of the candidates, you can be sure there would be some changes.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 06 2015, @09:12PM
What the fuck kind of state do you people live in anyway?
Everywhere I've lived there has been election pamphlets put out by state and county governments giving candidate submitted resumes, history, and platform statements. Its usually published in news papers, and sent to every voter, its also available on the web, and its been this way since before the web was "a thing".
Even the whack-job candidates get included on these things.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @11:08PM
In California, we get a Sample Ballot in booklet form.
The last part has Statements of ______ candidates seeking ______ office where the statements of *some* candidates can be found.
Why just *some* candidates? It costs $25 per word. [google.com]
Ain't Democracy great?
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @05:41PM
Voting rates during presidential years is pretty sad. Voting rates during non-presidential years is embarrassing.
This meme has come to be accepted thoughtlessly, but do you actually know what voter turnout is? A quick non-fact-checked numbers suggest Presidential years it's somewhere around 55%-60%, and non-presidential years it's around 40%. Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/voter-turnout/ [fairvote.org]
Now I have no idea how gamed these numbers are, and of course they could definitely be better. However I would suggest that if approximately 50% of the population it is neither "pretty sad" nor "embarrassing." I would suggest there there is at least some reflection of popular will going on with these numbers, for better or worse.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @07:49PM
Convince me that my vote makes any noticeable difference whatsoever in policy, and I'll consider it.
The first, and last, time that I actually attempted to vote was for Obama. I learned my lesson.
There's no point in giving any energy whatsoever to politics. They're simply the cancer that I must somehow live with.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @08:29PM
And you deserve what you get, so why are you bitching about it?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 06 2015, @09:32PM
That fact that fucking morons and complete mental failures like you think that voting would do anything anyways, *and* then also denigrate others that refuse to be as deluded as you are. I deserve a shitty country for recognizing the truth? My country is *not* a representative democracy? I bet you would tell an Iraqi citizen pre-invasion, that they deserve their lot by not standing up to Sadam's family enough right? If *only* they poured out into the streets to vote, they could *change* something? Not while the quasi-Baathists were in power. What do I have? Democrats and Republicans driving this country into the shitter.
Uh huh. I deserve a non-representative country because I refuse to waste my time voting between two groups of sociopaths that will directly, provably, and historically, flat out ignore their constituencies and proceed with unabated corrupt political practices. You're right. America could just change by voting.
I'd laugh right now if we weren't so fucking sad. You only need to look to extraordinarily prominent situations like our spymasters ignoring 90% of the public not wishing them to continue. Or Net Neutrality. How many different times has the government abjectly failed to represent the will of the people? These aren't 50/50 discussions, but pleas in solidarity that get completely ignored.
You would be right if there weren't such a pervasive history of corruption in my country... but there is. Now it's becoming more transparent by the day with new leaks coming out all the time.
Yet mental midgets like you continue to compare it to a group of people deciding on what to eat that night. In that situation, simplistically, you're correct. I don't get to bitch that we are eating Italian if I didn't vote for Chinese. Politics isn't even remotely the same situation in which my vote has actual power. My vote has absolutely zero power whatsoever, and it makes no sense at all to waste my energies believing otherwise.
You know what has power? money. If I ever get really rich (probably not going to happen), I might vote more. I would need to decide which Senator to pay first to push my agenda though. That's the only "voting" that has power; The Mighty Wallet.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @11:48PM
Federal judges (especially SCOTUS members) can keep their jobs until they die or decide to quit.
Of the folks running for president last time, which one would you rather have choosing those jurists?
As a start, you might do a text search for the word "Justice" on this page [greenshadowcabinet.us] which names Jill Stein's Green Shadow Cabinet.
Compare that to the majority-Catholic, majority-Reactionary group now sitting at 1 First St NE, Washington, DC.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday November 06 2015, @02:39PM
Ever wonder how the word "to railroad" came to mean "shove legislation through without anything remotely resembling proper consideration"? In the 1890's, it was routine for railroad company executives (these guys were basically the same sort of scum as oil company executives are today) to show up in Washington with suitcases full of cash, invite Congressmen up to their hotel room one at a time, each one leaving with a hefty handful, and suddenly whatever legislation they wanted would pass. Regardless of party affiliation of the people involved.
Yeah, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 06 2015, @03:06PM
I was fairly certain the term arose from the fact that rails can take you to only one destination. This etymology lightly supports my understanding [etymonline.com]. Where did yours come from?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday November 06 2015, @03:24PM
This [metafilter.com] has several references, including an 1897 dictionary entry that describes this meaning and certainly implies a similar origin.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday November 06 2015, @03:34PM
I had a polite disagreement with someone online and learned something from it!
I beat the system!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 06 2015, @05:19PM
Expect a troll to show up any second to bring balance back to the Force.
... which is OK as long as he doesn't bring a moronic sidekick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:18PM
STFU, moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:48PM
You, my friend, are wise in that you know that you should have an open mind to be able to further reach greater wisdom. You even stated that your case was lightly represented; an acknowledgement that you may be corrected. You were and you benefited, you indeed did beat the system! You didn't even have to try to learn, you got to gain directly from the experience of others!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday November 06 2015, @04:25PM
I can see the political meaning. The Feds gave the railroads over 10% of the land in the US _and_ loaned the owners the money to build the railroads. The companies were then allowed to get private loans for the same amount the Feds gave them, and the private loans had priority over the Federal loans. You'd have to be a total moron to not get fabulously wealthy with such a massive giveaway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts#1862_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @03:04PM
Neither option here is good. On the one hand you have government sanctioned duopolies; on the other you have government entering into private industry with its vastly larger coffers and the ability to pass laws to help itself and hinder its competition. What's truly needed is new players of the disruptive, private competition variety and the government to get the hell out of their way.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 06 2015, @03:29PM
The thing is, most places where the people want their local government to build that "last mile", there is no competition. None of the major providers are willing to build it, because the return on investment will only be a small fraction of what they can get in more populated areas. So, there is no broadband, unless the people in the community build it themselves.
Screw the competition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:41PM
A simpler solution would be require they build that last mile if they want to operate in your state. Frankly though, none of the telecom mergers should ever have been allowed after deregulation. That and requiring either two competitors or regulation would solve the problem.
The government's job in capitalism is not to sell laws to big players that minimize competition but to encourage, nay require, competition. Or at the very least to stay out of the way of it. Ours has done neither because they are utterly corrupt fuckwads.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:44AM
The government's job in capitalism is not to sell laws to big players that minimize competition but to encourage, nay require, competition.
Actually, the government's job in capitalism is what society (or in this case, the wallets of the big corporations and their political lapdogs) decides that it is.
cf. 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism [wordpress.com]
From the first "thing":
The above is intuitively obvious if you bother to think about it *at all*. Regulation (and mostly by *governments* even!) is at the heart of every market you can name.
Think about it for yourself. If there wasn't any regulation or rules in a market of any size or complexity, chaos would ensue. Bad regulation (which is what you refer to above) can have hugely negative effects on markets, as we've seen.
But taking the simplistic view that the government should ensure competition and nothing else and/or that regulation of any kind is inherently bad is patently false.
I realize I've gone off on a tangent here -- I do agree that regulation should require strong competition, but regulation must also set the boundaries of the market as well as ensure that the players (producers and consumers) can interact on a fairly even basis. We've fallen down badly in that respect in many ways and in many markets.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @03:50PM
Governments and government services are not for-profit entities, unlike private industries. Government has no reason or interest in competing because the goal isn't to get rich, its to provide whatever service they're providing. Only when things are privatized out does it become a race to the bottom service-wise with a race to the top price-wise.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:33PM
Government has no interest in money? This from the same type of person who will advocate that I pay more taxes so the government has to overspend less? Get real.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @10:26PM
Nowhere was that stated or even implied. "Money" and "profit" are two entirely different concepts. All the government needs for government-provided utilities and services are enough money to run the service, including paying the workers who provide it, and enough to upgrade the required equipment on a semi-regular basis; compare this to private industries who need all that PLUS however much more additional money they can get, either by squeezing it out of the suckers paying for it or by skimping on the workers' pay, the upgrades, the equipment, or the service itself.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @11:52PM
Yes, the government is altruistic and has no desire for power, which money is. Scuse me while I finish laughing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @04:04AM
Nowhere did he say that either, you effing moron.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:42PM
Absolutely true when there is little or no competition. Then you regulate until competition arrives.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday November 06 2015, @03:59PM
What's truly needed is new players of the disruptive, private competition variety and the government to get the hell out of their way.
that was the original situation... and then your "private competition" turned into the blob and merged into massive telecom companies which then purchased laws to prevent competition. your fear of government involvement and belief in "the free market" is illogical at best and borders on dogmatic.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 06 2015, @09:32PM
It's not a free market if there are protectionist laws. Socialist retards like you refuse to understand that what the US currently has is NOT capitalism. Not even close.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @10:32PM
Crony capitalism is still capitalism. And despite your implication, capitalism does not require nor produce free markets, nor are they really related in any way. The only way free markets can exist is if there are regulations to ensure the markets remain free. Free markets are more likely to exist in socialism and communism, where monopolies are less likely to exist due to individuals and individual corporations not being able to amass the kind of money needed to buy laws, lawmakers, and all of their competitors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:26AM
Aren't bribes openly acceptable in some communist countries.
At least in the U.S. direct bribes are illegal.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 07 2015, @10:48AM
At least in the U.S. direct bribes are illegal.
It's adorable that you think that! I'm sure Santa and the Tooth Fairly take really good care of you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:59AM
Ah, you mean the government gets involved.
(Score: 4, Touché) by hemocyanin on Friday November 06 2015, @04:29PM
Yeah, we should privatize water, roads, sewer -- life would be so much better if you had to pop a quarter in your toilet every time you needed to use it, or pay a toll over 3 miles. Privatized water is such a bargain too. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/special-reports/growth-of-large-private-water-companies-brings-h-1/nRh7F/ [statesman.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @06:15PM
Barking up the wrong tree. It's one thing be weary of government-run outfits, but to ban it as an option in order to protect comcast's and at&t's of the world is beyond moronic.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 06 2015, @03:25PM
"Fuck me. How did we get here?"
I think we were all drunk on our asses, because I can't remember either.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Chromium_One on Friday November 06 2015, @03:02PM
Municipal broadband, treated as a utility, may be the only way to get decent service anywhere that's not hobbled by spying (cable ISPs doing tracking because you might torrent their shows), hobbling of VOD services (again, cable providers because COMPETITION) or more spying (Google, for better targetted ads), etc etc etc.
Treated as utility AND covered under common carrier status, please.
Let's also not forget potentially good pricing (make costs to customer cover costs for maintenance, not more) though I'm not convinced customer service would be much better :-P
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday November 06 2015, @03:29PM
Of course, as I'm sure our libertarian folks would be happy to remind us, the government is at least as capable of spying on you as any private company is, legally or no.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Chromium_One on Friday November 06 2015, @03:35PM
In this case at least, this is a step forward for government efficiency. Remove the middleman!
Less snarky of a reply, well, in some cases state and local governments are standing up against the feds recently. Consider your local reps and their track records.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday November 06 2015, @04:05PM
thats what the constitution is for. the post office is, of course, capable of opening all your mail and reading its contents, but they're forbidden from doing so by law and by the constitution. government-run utilities are similarly hindered by the constitution from spying on you (not that it would stop them, despite federal law), and if necessary specific laws would be created if necessary to prevent it. the post office can still record all of everyone's meta-data, but i don't think they actually do that; a government-run internet service would ideally be similar to the post office, with punishments set up for recording people's information (like opening mail) or recording meta-data (reading the envelope's addresses is required for the PO to function, but saving or recording should be off limits).
with the government as rogue as it is, there's little difference between a government-run utility and a private one, with regards to surveillance. theoretically government would be the safer choice for better privacy ("third-party doctrine" i believe its called, plus all the NSLs and gag orders and such; remember, our government thinks that giving your info to your private ISP means the constitution doesn't apply anymore), plus a hell of a lot cheaper and better service.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 06 2015, @06:04PM
I think this is actually a great reason to push hard for publicly funded ISPs right now. Didn't they already make it illegal for the government to directly collect much of this info? Instead they make the ISPs store it and ask them to "voluntarily" turn it over without a warrant. So now if could just nuke the massive private ISPs ("...and there was much rejoicing.") we could make that whole setup blow up in their faces. At least for a year or two until they're sufficiently bribed, anyway...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @07:34PM
I think this is actually a great reason to push hard for publicly funded ISPs right now
Actually, I don't think publicly funded ISPs are the way to go. Quasi-publicly (by local and/or regional PBCs [wikipedia.org]) owned last-mile infrastructure paid for by fees from ISPs competing with each other on price and service makes much more sense, IMHO. The trick is to create a level playing field where competition drives quality, innovation and low prices.
I think that's an idea even TMB could get behind, or am I wrong Buzzard?
There's plenty of precedent for this -- think roads, bridges, power and telephone lines, transit hubs (airports, rail hubs, bus stations, etc.) and other types of infrastructure for which private industry is ill-suited.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 06 2015, @08:49PM
I'm still willing to trade in those theoretical benefits for some theoretical improvements in network security...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday November 06 2015, @09:40PM
I'm still willing to trade in those theoretical benefits for some theoretical improvements in network security...
So those who cannot get reliable broadband in their area should just suck it up until you get your imaginary (because your security is up to you and no one else) security improvements?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:46PM
And that's worse than the current situation -- where they have to just suck it up until they move somewhere else -- because...?
I'm not sure how allowing unrestricted surveillance on your every action is supposed to improve your network speed either...care to explain how that would work?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 10 2015, @01:58PM
I'm not sure how allowing unrestricted surveillance on your every action is supposed to improve your network speed either...care to explain how that would work?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you referring to the NSA network taps that are *already* in place? If so, how would providing municipal broadband make things worse?
Is your tinfoil hat on too tightly?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:35PM
That's what I've been referring to throughout this entire thread, yes.
My point is that municipal broadband would make things *better*, not worse. Because the government thinks the Constitution doesn't apply when they force a private company to do something instead of doing it themselves. So let's use their own argument against them and have them do it themselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday November 06 2015, @10:42PM
personally i think the way to go is to have a government-run service providing the basic level of broadband (which would be significantly faster than the services available now), such that everyone will have internet, because its basically required to live in today's society, and then have private ISPs competing on top of that, offering services better than the publically-funded utility. this provides the best of everything. really all utilities where its possible to be run like this should be, ensuring that everyone at least has the minimum necessary, and then providing better services for anyone who wants to pay for them.
(Score: 4, Funny) by srobert on Friday November 06 2015, @04:24PM
"...I'm sure our libertarian folks would be happy to remind us, the government is at least as capable of spying on you as any private company is..."
I'm not one of them, but I think their position usually is that government is not as capable of doing anything as well as the private sector.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday November 06 2015, @05:06PM
There's one exception to that rule, and that's oppression-related, which spying on Internet traffic definitely qualifies as.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @05:08AM
That's more of a neoliberal idea. Libertarians are quite capable of recognizing areas where the state can do a better job than the private sector. If municipal broadband is not paid for out of rates or taxes they'll be quite happy to use it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06 2015, @04:57PM
is a very refreshing uprising against the aspiring monopolists of the world.