Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Monday October 07, @03:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the let-them-build-it-and-they-wlll-come dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The Institute For Local Self Reliance (disclosure: I have done writing and research for them) has released an updated interactive map of every community-owned and operated broadband network in the U.S.

All told, there’s now 400 community-owned broadband networks serving more than 700 U.S. towns and cities nationwide, and the pace of growth shows no sign of slowing down.

Some of these networks are directly owned by a municipality. Some are freshly-built cooperatives. Some are extensions of the existing city-owned electrical utility. All of them are an organic, popular, grass-roots community-driven reaction to telecom market failure and expensive, patchy access.

[...] Data routinely notes that community-owned broadband networks provide faster, cheaper, better service than their larger private-sector counterparts. Staffed by locals, they’re also more directly accountable and responsive to the needs of locals. They’re also just hugely popular across the partisan spectrum; routinely winning awards for service.

[...] That’s not to suggest community-owned broadband networks are some mystical panacea; they require smart leadership, strategic planning, and intelligent financing. But if done well, they not only drive significant fiber improvements directly to local markets, they incentivize lumbering regional private sector monopolies — long pampered by federal government corruption and muted competition — to actually try.

Widespread frustration with substandard U.S. broadband drove a big boost in such networks during COVID lockdowns. Since January 1, 2021, more than 47 new networks have come online, with dozens in the planning or pre-construction phases. Many are seeing a big financial boost thanks to 2021 COVID relief (ARPA) and infrastructure bill (IIJA) legislation funding (the latter of which hasn’t even arrived yet).

In response to this popular grass roots movement, giant ISPs have worked tirelessly to outlaw such efforts, regardless of voter intent. 16 states still have protectionist state laws, usually ghost written by giant telecom monopolies, prohibiting the construction or expansion of community broadband. House Republicans went so far as to try and ban all community broadband during a pandemic.

Lumbering regional monopolies like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter could have responded to this movement by lowering prices and improving service. Instead in many cases they found it cheaper to lobby politicians, sue fledgling networks, or create fake “consumer groups” tasked with spreading lies about the perils of community-owned broadband networks among local communities.

But based on the growth rate of such networks, these efforts have backfired, and locally-owned and operated broadband networks appear to be more popular than ever.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Monday October 07, @06:38PM (9 children)

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Monday October 07, @06:38PM (#1376130)

    I'd much rather have a private company, who's goal it is to earn my money, controlling my internet connection than a government who's goal it is to cut off my internet connection if my socio-political beliefs don't align with theirs.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Overrated=2, Total=7
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by stormreaver on Monday October 07, @06:59PM (4 children)

    by stormreaver (5101) on Monday October 07, @06:59PM (#1376134)

    Not all community Internet is create equal, to be sure, but governments are constrained by their state constitution and the federal constitution. Private companies have no such constraints. You are far more likely to be dropped by a private company for political reasons than you are to be dropped by a government for the same reasons. With private companies, you have no recourse. Not so with governments.

    The community Internet where I live makes all that an academic thought exercise. The local utility owns the infrastructure, and private companies provide the service.

    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by DadaDoofy on Monday October 07, @09:55PM (3 children)

      by DadaDoofy (23827) on Monday October 07, @09:55PM (#1376150)

      "governments are constrained by their state constitution and the federal constitution. Private companies have no such constraints."

      Perhaps where you come from. Here in the United States, entities both public and private are "constrained by their state constitution and the federal constitution".

      "With private companies, you have no recourse. Not so with governments."

      In the US, for recourse against private companies, we have the courts. Our court system also has the power to keep unconstitutional action by the executive branch of our government in check. In the last four years, the executive branch of the US federal government has taken a number of unconstitutional positions, many of which by executive order, only to be slapped down by the by the US Supreme Court.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 08, @09:38AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 08, @09:38AM (#1376195) Journal

        I think that stormreaver is alluding to some of the arguments that have been made in court, opposing municipal services. The telcos have argued for years, often successfully, that state constitutions and laws in various states forbid government competition with private enterprise. I have always thought those arguments were lame, but time and time again, the telcos walked away with a win. And every time a judge decided such a case in the telco's favor, Americans lost. I think that those court decisions pressured congress into channeling yet more money into the telcos, for the purpose of building out that mythical 'last mile', that the telcos never built. I think all SN members have bemoaned the billions after billions shoveled into telco coffers over the years, with billions of nothings to show for the money.

        It has taken over 20 years for congress to actually come up with a workable method of channeling money away from the telcos, into the hands of entities willing to build out the infrastructure.

        In my case, in southwest Arkansas, it's not a municipality that finally brought me broadband. Instead, the electric coop applied for, and won, one of those government grants to build out the infrastructure. None of the telcos ever made a move to bring broadband internet to this part of the country. The electric company did it. I would have been just as happy if the state did it, or the county governments, or a grass roots movement of private citizens. Someone needed to do it, and the telcos simply refused, even after being paid multiple times.

        --
        “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
        • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday October 09, @08:29PM

          by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 09, @08:29PM (#1376379)

          Not surprising, as the REA (Rural Electrification Administration) was instrumental in connecting rural areas with electric service back in the day via electric co-ops. No reason it can't be done the same way with internet.

          Interestingly enough, an electric co-op is a type of socialist construct, as in that the means of production is owned by the community served by it. If capitalists won't do it, who will? These co-ops did it with electric, they can do it again with internet.

          --
          The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, @11:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, @11:13PM (#1376389)

        Perhaps where you come from. Here in the United States, entities both public and private are "constrained by their state constitution and the federal constitution".

        But not constrained in the same way. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and expression, but it's a restriction on what the government is allowed to do. But for the private sector, it's a bit like when a troll gets banned from a privately-operated internet forum, then claims that the ban violates the first amendment. No! The first amendment doesn't prohibit individuals from censoring speech on their property. In fact, those individuals are making editorial decisions or performing content moderation, and these activities are protected by the first amendment.

        Would that permit a privately-owned internet provider to censor types of speech they dislike? Could my internet provider, which is a large private sector entity, block me from accessing content that is critical of them, for example? I'm not particularly familiar with the law and precedent about this, and it's harder to find clear precedent in this area, but I believe the courts would frown on this. Still, the protections against censorship are much clearer when they involve a government entity, because it's clearly a first amendment issue.

        I believe the protections against censorship are likely stronger when your ISP is a public sector entity.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by EEMac on Monday October 07, @09:16PM (1 child)

    by EEMac (6423) on Monday October 07, @09:16PM (#1376144)

    In theory, I agree with you.

    In practice, with commercial companies:
    * Customer service is not *always* bad, but it's often bad
    * The government already spies on our connections [wikipedia.org]
    * Commercial companies have inserted ads and tracking into web pages [duckduckgo.com]
    * My internet jumped in price from $60/month to $150/month just because they could
    * I get completely different speeds depending on whether I let the commercial internet company spy on my FTP transfers, or I use secure FTP
    * Torrent and file downloads were completely blocked if the company didn't like the name of the file I was downloading, although this *mostly* stopped happening a few years ago

    In practice, community broadband users report:
    * Low prices
    * Stable speeds
    * Reliable operation
    * Good customer service

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Ox0000 on Monday October 07, @10:09PM

      by Ox0000 (5111) on Monday October 07, @10:09PM (#1376153)

      It's almost as if having a service provided by a faceless vulture who only cares about picking every last piece of flesh off of the carcass of its victims and doesn't give a flying hoot about the wreckage it leaves behind is somehow of lesser quality than the service provided by something with a vested interest and ties to the area and residents it serves. Verily, I have no idea why this discrepancy would exist. This is truly stupefying, incomprehensible, unanticipated, unimaginable even.

      Surely, your experience is merely anecdotal, an outlier, a freak coincidence!

      Truly, I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to do a thorough investigation of this type of discrepancy, because surely, it's a very complex situation that is super-hard to comprehend. I'm confident our current findings from are merely anecdotes, barely hunches or subjective feelings even, which can benefit from a more robust, deeper, longer investigation/study.

      But I must be hallucinating...

      </sarcasm>(*)

      (*) The sarcasm is not aimed at the parent post (to be clear)

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday October 08, @03:57PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 08, @03:57PM (#1376225)

    than a government who's goal it is to cut off my internet connection if my socio-political beliefs don't align with theirs.

    Fun Fact: It's scaring the advertisers that's getting people booted, and that's from specific sites and not entire internet connections. When advertisers pay the bills they don't want their names associated with shit like hate against a portion of their customer base. Private companies have the right to do business with whomever they like, they have the right to show you the door for virtually any reason. This is especially true when its users do shit like trying to change the outcome of an election.

    The fears you and your allies have are self-created, but also self-solvable. Keep in mind though that you'll *always* be responsible for your actions, the first amendment does not say otherwise. You'll never live consequence-free, no-one can truthfully promise you that you ever can.

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, @11:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09, @11:27PM (#1376391)

    who's goal it is to earn my money

    This is where your argument is faulty. This says the business has to actually earn your money, implying competition and a market that is free. That condition is simply not met here. In a lot of markets, you have a duopoly between a cable company (e.g., Comcast Xfinity, Charter Spectrum, etc...) and fiber (e.g., Verizon Fios, AT&T Fiber, etc...), and the services are priced similarly. The duopoly in many places isn't really a competitive market.

    A monopolist is still subject to supply and demand when customers have a reasonable option to simply not purchase the product at all. If I am interested in a particular type of art that only one person produces, that person has a monopoly, but I also have the option to simply not buy the art if I think it's overpriced or of poor quality. But high-speed internet is pretty much a necessity now.

    If the private company actually had to earn your money, your argument would be valid. But that implies a level of competition and consumer choice that simply does not exist here.

    a government who's goal it is to cut off my internet connection if my socio-political beliefs don't align with theirs

    Can you actually find a single example of a municipal ISP doing this? This looks a lot like fear-mongering that just isn't supported by any facts or evidence.