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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:23PM
> People who want to break up state-sanctioned ISP monopolies
I am pretty sure those are already illegal under the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992" which made exclusive franchise agreements illegal. That doesn't stop natural monopolies from forming.
The problem at hand isn't monopolies, it is state laws that forbid county and town governments from operating their own ISPs. They are about as reasonable as laws that would prevent towns from running their own utilities like electric, water, even public roads.
That's what the article is about - why are these people being hypocritical and saying "states rights" but are not ok with "counties rights?"