SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the take-your-destiny-into-your-own-hands dept.
TechDirt reports
[...]if there's a place to start fixing U.S. broadband competition, it's the nearly two-dozen state protectionist broadband laws written and passed by the nation's incumbent ISPs. Said laws either hinder or outright ban towns and cities from building and/or improving their own broadband networks, even in cases where local private companies refuse to. In several instances, the laws even prohibit government collaboration with private companies in any way.
[...]Colorado's 2005 state law hindering community broadband bills was pushed for by local incumbents CenturyLink (formerly Qwest) and Comcast, which, like AT&T, have a long and quite sleazy history of passing awful laws, trying to sue such operations out of existence, or engaging in misleading disinformation campaigns (like telling locals their taxpayer money will go toward subsidizing porn).
In Colorado's case, the 2005 law fortunately included provisions allowing locals to build networks if they call for an election. Last week, Boulder and six other communities voted to move forward with the idea of building their own networks.
[...]Refreshingly, a lot of the community revolt against these laws currently occurring in places like Colorado, North Carolina, and Tennessee is being championed by Republicans and Democrats alike, who collectively (though belatedly) seem to have realized that better, cheaper broadband ultimately benefits everybody.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 24 2014, @03:26PM
it's the nearly two-dozen state protectionist broadband laws written and passed by the nation's incumbent ISPs.
which, like AT&T, have a long and quite sleazy history of passing awful laws
I didn't realise companies were allowed to pass laws now.
Yes, I know, they push for these laws, as the summary does say at one point, and in some cases there may be a fine, grubby line as to who the lawmakers are "working" for, but to say that these companies are passing laws is hyperbole.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by srobert on Monday November 24 2014, @03:56PM
Yes, technically it is hyperbole. But most of us have sadly accepted it as an immutable fact that government, at any level, couldn't be elected that would be able to dictate rules to corporations. Rather, we are doomed to have it be the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @09:37PM
I heard a great thought the other day:
These days, any time you hear "government" and what was said wasn't "corporate government", that statement is incomplete.
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) [wikipedia.org]
Corporate and non-profit members of ALEC [wikipedia.org]
United States Chamber of Commerce [wikipedia.org]
Big hint: It's nothing like the Chamber of Commerce in your town.
It's a Reactionary lobbying group for megacorporations.
(Clever choice of name, don't you think?)
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Monday November 24 2014, @04:59PM
In US, at least, it's a statement of fact. Of course they are not supposed to be passing laws, but for all the practical purposes that's what they are doing. They are writing those laws, and then paying more or less directly for favorable votes. Not exactly how it's described in a famous cartoon, but they are passing them alright.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 24 2014, @05:14PM
Well, perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but that's kind of my point. That may be how it is "for all practical purposes" but strictly speaking they still don't pass the laws, and to put in that way in what is ostensibly a news story gives it a hint of non-objectivity. Perhaps saying that they "get the laws passed" or a mention of the shadiness of lobbying might have been better. Not everyone is familiar with the way things are done in the US.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday November 24 2014, @05:38PM
However, to push pedantry even further (hopefully off a cliff), while it is indeed inaccurate to say that corporations actually pass laws, lobbyists have long been known to actually write them, by way of "suggested wordings" and "recommended scopes" that get written into bills by legislative staffers. The politicians themselves are merely high-priced rubber stamp actuaries.