Slashdot Mirror
Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican?
Reader Ant wrote to mention the article entitled Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican? The author argues that media companies are systematically ruining the MuniWiFi efforts across the country, likening the community initiatives to a form of communism. From the article: "Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise"
Today, monthly broadband packages offered by the national carriers hover above $50, barring access to millions of Americans who can't afford the sticker price. Cities and towns across the country have taken up the task of building a cheaper alternative -- often choosing easy-to-build wireless mesh networks -- to bridge the gap that has kept many on the darker side of the digital divide.
Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise.
While I don't agree with the laws that are being passed against broadband, I would like to point out that most states have a type of business specifically designed for the common good while simultaneously keeping the government (and stupid laws) out of it: Cooperatives.
CO-OPs are designed to be businesses by the people, for the people, without engaging in the communist-like practice of merging everything under the government's umbrella. A lot of towns in my home state (Wisconsin) have banded together into CO-OPs to provide local utility services. Thanks to their efforts, I had DSL access long before Comcast stopped breaking their promises, and long before many city dwealers had the same services. So if your state passes an idiot law, see if you and your neighbors can do something about it on a local level. It might piss off Verizon and SBC, but that's just too bad, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the United States has slid from first to thirteenth place in national broadband penetration, falling behind South Korea, Japan and Canada, where effective private-public sector initiatives have paved over the digital divide, allowing more citizens to reap the economic benefits of the open information era at a fraction of the costs we take for granted.
This isn't really surprising. The tech started here in the US, so that made us #1. But the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Completely on-topic. See Cablevison (www.optonline.net) and their idiotic TOS and "mystery capping" which no one knows (or can sya) when they'll cap you. The usual rants on dslreports.com are completely ontopic. Repeat as necessary for your local cable company.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, 73 members of the party voted in favour of that bill. So much for being able to take the high ground.
Most of Canada's population is centered in one of the following:
Vancouver
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal
With perhaps, maybe, a dozen or two dozen other semi-major centers. This gets a very large portion of the populace online without much expense from the telco.
I live in a rural area and have gotten the shaft WRT broadband access, so I am working with my municipality to make a wifi gateway available to get a broadband link to an area where I can link into a commercial DSL line.
Much of the lip service to "private / public" initiatives is politico code for dumping money into the telephone companies with little or NO accountability. If it did not make a business case to install broadband, it didn't get installed. Period, end of discussion.
Spite, however, is a powerful motivator.
..don't panic
" The public shouldn't be forced to pay for a service that will compete against private sector alternatives. Socialized internet services will only lower the quality of the service in general where they are implemented because people will go to them for the price: free or near free. "
turns out, thats not the case. If you provide better service, and services, people will pay for it.
"
I already pay $45 a month for Adelphia's cable service and it would make me quite mad to have to pay more taxes to subsidize someone else's connection to their home. "
bear in mind, you could get it free as well, if you chose too.
"Oh and if the government is running the wireless service you can pretty much bet safely that the government will let the police play around with the ISP."
Historically, in the US people using government provided services have more protection then those using corporate services.
"That means that if they want to log everything and periodically check to see who is doing what, well that's their prerogative."
wrong, they will ahve a very strict set of guidline on how it works.
Besides, you could still pay for a corporate service provider, if you wanted to.
" Your expectation of 4th amendment protection online will all but go out the window if you use the gubermint's service."
First over, misspelling government as gubermint implies that you are about 14, and has put as much thought and research of your points as any 14 year old. Like writing 'M$'
Corporations are much easier to get information out of then other government agencies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's not communist or communist-like. Education, health care, and pensions aren't property (strictly speaking). Restrictions on the trade of physical property would be communist. But these are social concepts and considered necessities in some societies, hence it's socialism to have the government control them (as in who gets what).
For things which are necessities or become ubiquitous the government regulates or takes control of them as public utilities. The internet is certainly at the level where some states might consider them utilities. Therefore at some point they should be allowed to offer them as such. Right now we're in that in-between stage; it's not as common as the telephone but it's getting there.
Developers: We can use your help.
You can get DSL even in a place like Moosonee, in northern Ontario. This is a small town of 2500 souls near James Bay, surrounded by thousands of km of forest and shrubs and not much else.
You can also get DSL in places like Magnetawan (population 1300). Grab an atlas, look up a few tiny places in rural Ontario, and look them up yourself at http://canadianisp.com/ for yourself.
Are you crazy? Have you never head of McCarthy and The House Committee on Un-American Activities?
Go forth. Google.
Not to mention the fact that if we had to sit down and research *everything* we do in our lives, we would not have time for family or the job to pay for the thing we are researching.
Yes, *some* reasearch should be done by the customer, but you can't expect them to do the work that the companies that want us to buy their crap should be helping with. (if that made any sense)...
bork bork bork!
It's not even "how much is your time worth", it's that there is usually no significant price differences, except when quality or features are lobbed off.
Where I live there are 2 choices, countem, 2. Cable (Time Warner) or DSL (SBC). No 3rd party DSL provider can get there. They have this fake "competition" nonsense which is as transparent as plastic wrap. SBC and Time Warner "compete" for the "lowest cost" combined TV/Broadband/Phone package, but then if you look closely you'll realize a few things: 1) You don't want the package they offer on TV, it's the lowest quality, lowest feature offering that 2) To get anything above the bare bones you have to spend 2 hours on the phone with each vendor to get an estimate for what may or may not be what you asked for 3) The price tag jumps exponentially with each new feature, no matter how simple it is (ex. static IP), and the vendors are ultimately within $5/month of each other 4) There is a significant price disadvantage to picking and choosing between providers for the three services. For example Dish Network + Time Warner broadband is a poor choice. SBC Broadband + Cell Phones + Time Warner cable = real ugly. I recently moved and went through this excersize, just to figure out what the better deal is. There IS NO advantage, the deeper you dig, the more you realize it's a sham.
This is not competition, it's a joke. Yet, as the article points out, SBC and TW spend a lot of time advertising on TV about this new "competition" and how prices have improved. They have even bought TV news times to talk about how great this new competition is (for them). It's complete bullshit.
So yeah, I advocate the Marxist part of communism where the people overthrow the monopolies and take over the means of production, and figure out a better way to offer these services, as capitalism is failing us.
How about this:
- Nearest city pop > 1,000,000: ~ 1,900 kms
- Nearest city pop > 500,000: ~ 800 kms
- Nearest city pop > 250,000: ~300 kms
- Nearest city pop > 25,000: ~200 kms
- Nearest city pop > 5,000: ~120 kms
- Your population: ~900 people
Is that rural enough? It's the town I grew up in. It's in Saskatchewan.Yup, broadband available.
Compare that with places in the US that are complaining they can't get broadband because they only have a few hundred thousand people. C'mon. Really.
Now, I'll admit that my parents who live on a farm several miles from town (and a half mile from a forest that you could walk through and get to the freakin' north pole only crossing a couple roads) can't get broadband. Yet. But they could if they were a half mile closer to town.
Yes, Canada is highly concentrated along the US border. But broadband is still available.
Perhaps you live in Alberta. It's more like the US. That might explain your lack of service availability.
as capitalism is failing us.
What you've described doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, so your claim (in the context of your post) is baseless.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?