Slashdot Mirror
Municipal Networks as Alternative to Commercial Broadband?
"Universally, it seems, people get better service and prices when such networks are implemented. It also forces telecom companies operating in the area to offer better service and prices as well, in short, to compete. But it's also increased companies' lobbying efforts against such municipal activity and it's not hard to see why such companies like AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications (controlled by Microsoft), and Qwest don't like it."
Not many municipalities are saavy enough to think about deploying this sort of infrastructure, however. For those in that situation, what kind of lobbying efforts must a municipality put together before village/town/city officials will take notice? If the government does notice, what kind of arguments should be made to convince them that it might be worthwhile to make such an undertaking?
why does windows keep crashing??
I have to try.
first post!
i am the fp masta
How tragic that Charter Communications is not more sensitive to your pain.
Why did I shit blood this morning?
Missed by a good 3 minutes. Get a faster modem.
I can easily keep nt4 and win2k boxes up for months, you have to watch what software is installed and what drivers you use. Hell I have win95 boxes that do data acquistition and run for months on end with no reboot. Whats your problem?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The *only* way to have a decent broadband system is to have a public utility installed. California learned this the hard way when it came to its power system. If you expect that you'll get competative service from the multinational communications giants you're kidding yourself because it's only a matter of time before they'll all be one giant bloody company anyway.
God help us, indeed ... and those words don't come easily for an atheist.
:wq
I would love a huge MAN to use any time I want. What? Oh. Nevermind, you're not talking about the type of huge man I want. Sorry.
Your Pal,
Jon Katz
Neither is anyone else.
Bullshit.
Lets see, what about the highway system, the water and wastewater system? Do you think a private entity could provide those services better than the government?
We should allow the government to build the infrastructure because they have the capital and the legal ability to get the right-of-way to lay the fiber. Then the 'market' can provide the services - phone, cable, internet, etc.
god forbid system admins do their JOB!
What crack smoking moderator modded this down? If you are a new moderator and are not familiar with true "trolling" I appologize. If you really think this is trolling, I'm sorry. If you do it because you don't like the guy... well that's just mean.
Uhh, are the moderators on crack again? Wake the fuck up stupid moderator, this is NOT a troll.
Local muncipalities are different than the "US Gov't". The people directing the build out live in the area and hence have a much more vested interest in the venture succeeding and being on schedule (well, within reason of course).
Does your local government tell you what you can and can't do with your electricity? Or what you can talk about on your phone (okay, the phone isn't a local utility but same difference in my book)? If they just provide the network, and someone else provides your ISP services/bandwidth, etc. then they are the ones responsible for your content, not the local government.
And BTW, it's not just the "far Right" that would want content filtered. the "far Left" would want hate content filtered and other topics that didn't push tolerance of others. (Offtopic: Isn't it amazing how many of those touching tolerance of everything are generally intolerant of people that aren't intolerant themselves?)
"All I ask is for a chance to prove that money can't make me happy."