SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The conservative small government movement has gained momentum based on the principle that decisions are best made at a local level, because people know what they want better than the federal government does. So why is a contingent of small government-minded congressional representatives trying to dick over local governments when it comes to high-speed internet access?
I live in Chattanooga. I have their gigabit internet. It is great, but it could be better officially let us run servers, officially let us run open wifi ala openwireless.org (I do it anyway, but if they come knocking I'll have to turn it off), even better would be if they let other ISPs run on top of their fiber plant and compete with each other. Still, it is at least as good as google fiber for the same price or less (except for no $300 flat-fee low-bandwidth option).
[Editor's Note] For the non-Americans in our readership, this appears to be nothing more than the usual Rep/Dem disagreement depending on which 'big business' funded the most to the appropriate campaign coffers. I would have to agree that the pricing seems expensive but, as we know, that is caused more by the regional monopolies than the actual cost of provision.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:50PM
Your mistake is in crediting Republicans with being small government. Most Republicans are just as much fans of big government as Democrats - they just want different pieces of the government to be big.
In any case, follow the money. Who is contributing to their reelection campaigns, and who will benefit from prohibiting locally financed high-speed networks? Likely the incumbent providers, who are likely sitting comfortably on a local monopoly.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:25PM
> Your mistake is in crediting Republicans with being small government.
No one is "crediting" them with it. They are trying to hold them accountable to their own rhetoric, to make their hypocrisy plain for anyone to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @09:32PM
A true Conservative *is* in favor of smaller gov't (e.g. Ron Paul), but that philosophy is not exclusive to that label.
Someone who wants smaller gov't and more localized gov't is properly called an anarchist (literally "without rulers").
Anarchists (Left-leaning and Right-leaning) fit into another common category: Progressives.
.
...and as you note, the vast majority of current Republicans are NOT Conservatives and would be more correctly called Crony Capitalists, Plantation Capitalists, or Radical Reactionaries.
(They're NOT in favor of smaller gov't; they love corporate welfare).
-- gewg_