SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ars Technica is reporting on San Francisco's initial steps to create a citywide fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) open-access network where ISPs compete for customers.
According to Ars Technica:
San Francisco is trying to find network providers to build a city-wide, gigabit fiber Internet service with mandated net neutrality and consumer privacy protections. It would be an open-access network, allowing multiple ISPs to offer service over the same lines and compete for customers.
The city yesterday issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to find companies that are qualified "to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain a ubiquitous broadband FTTP [fiber-to-the-premises] network that permits retail service providers to lease capacity on the network." The project would also involve a free Wi-Fi service for city parks, city buildings, major thoroughfares, and visitor areas. Low-income residents would qualify for subsidies that make home Internet service more affordable.
ISPs offering service over the network would not be allowed to block or throttle lawful Internet traffic or engage in paid prioritization. ISPs would also need customers' opt-in consent "prior to collecting, using, disclosing, or permitting access to customer personal information or information about a customer's use of the network."
Could this be the first major US metropolitan area to create a real free market in broadband Internet? Do any Soylentils have similar municipal networks?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @10:35PM
...and some just use the words without ever actually implementing the ideas.
"Communist" is high on that list.
(Without a really tight feedback loop between The Workers and the folks making the ultimate decisions, you have a poor implementation of what Marx described.)
"Socialist" gets misused a whole lot too.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
The fundamental unit of Socialism is the worker-owned cooperative--or perhaps even the worker-owner.
If you don't have Democracy in the workplace, you have something--but it isn't Socialism.
Wikipedia's page makes the classic mistake of painting with too broad a brush.
Taxing and redistributing is NOT a key feature of Socialism.
That's Liberal Democracy AKA Social Democracy AKA Christian Democracy.
From the Russian Revolution of October 1917[1] to 1921, [google.com] USSR had a pretty good implementation of Socialism.[2] [google.com]
...and of course, after Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin took over, what USSR had was a dictatorship.
That's what "communist" North Korea has too.
[1] ...by the old calendar. Adding 11 days to get the new calendar puts it in November.
[2] soviet==council (workers council; town council; etc.)
.
Chavista Venezuela has about 1400 "communes" now.
Those have commandeered farmland|factories that are idle and have put them into production.
(Capitalists being able to own more real estate than they are willing|able to use rubs us Socialists the wrong way.)
So, while Venezuela is best described as Bolivarian (Anti-Imperialist), they have a nice little start on Socialism there.
N.B. Since Chavez died, Maduro isn't doing as good a job at advocating/bolstering that.
.
...and the number of people who use "Capitalist" incorrectly is legion.
If your system has profit or markets or growth or ownership of stuff, it isn't necessarily Capitalist.
The (Socialist) Mondragon cooperative (now in 40 countries on 5 continents) has all of those.
Now, if you have workers who have no say in how things are being done where they work and no say in what will be done with the profits, THAT sounds like Capitalism.
...and especially, Capitalism and Democracy are NOT synonymous--or even necessarily related.
Capitalism can and does exist under extremely repressive political regimes.
Capitalism is completely agnostic WRT governmental forms.
(Socialism is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]