Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Establishing State Wide Broadband Network
bohn002 writes "In order to coordinate and expand access to the state's broadband data network, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has signed an executive order establishing the Ohio Broadband Council and the Broadband Ohio Network.
The order directs the Ohio Broadband Council to coordinate efforts to extend access to the Broadband Ohio Network to every county in Ohio. The order allows public and private entities to tap into the Broadband Ohio Network — all with a goal of expanding access to high-speed internet service in parts of the state that presently don't have such service."
I can see them trying, and, knowing Ted, I can imagine what his reaction would be.
Thankfully the man has a pretty level head. He's been working at undoing the damage that the last governors have caused.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
I'm an Ohio resident and am fairly pleased with what Ted has done so far with my vote. Not only that, but he's generally a pleasant guy, as I am a Scioto County native and know him impersonally. This is a good step, because the Scioto County area especially is lacking in not only accessible broadband, but decent internet in general (aged telephone lines make sure you don't ever recieve anything over 26.4kbps on a modem!). I just wish the rest of the Stricklands around here weren't so scummy and inbred. :P
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I didn't vote for the guy, but he's doing a good job thus far. Things in Ohio are starting to turn around it seems.
Until they smell competition of course. I was not personally involved in our company's struggle to gain access to the supernet, but I have heard first-hand that prying access from the clutched hands of Bell Canada (who are one of these large corporate telco/ISPs, and apparently charged with some maintenance or control of the supernet) was a tooth and nail battle. My advice to Ohioans is to beware how this ubiquitous broadband network -- if it is to be -- will be administered and controlled.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Yes, I'm sure Ted is personally responsible for that. How long was Taft in office again?
It's actually a corporate interests doing a land-grab on state owned resources.
Quite some time ago, the state of Ohio began building a new, high speed internetwork that was paid for by taxpayers. This network was supposed to be available only to research and nonprofit institutions like universities, non-profit hospitals, and so forth. This network had strict access standards, and getting your organization connected (unless you were someplace like Ohio State University) wasn't easy to do. Even companies like OCLC were not permitted to connect to the network. Commercial use of the network was strictly prohibited by charter. It was a good thing for encouraging research and collaboration between research institutions in the state of Ohio.
Not too long ago a few entrepreneurial types decided that if they could just tap into that high-speed network, they could circumvent the telcos and resell access to that network as a broadband data network. Except that doing so would be against the charter, and basically equate to corporate welfare. But they weren't discouraged, because the current governor was on his way out of office, and they spent lots of money on lobbyists who wound up taking roles as technology advisors to the campaigns for both of the major candidates for governor.
I know this because the for-profit hospital that I was employed by at the time was actually approached by this new company about buying access to this high-speed network. At the time we asked them how they planned to pull it off, because we knew that they couldn't legally resell this network access, even if they could get it. Their response was "the next governor will be receptive to our business ideas and change the rules." Since the election hadn't happened yet, we asked them if they knew something about the voting machines that we didn't, and their response was that they had basically convinced both of the two major candidates to see things their way. We were not impressed, not just because we thought that the whole deal was morally questionable but also because the people who approached our company about it came across as extremely sleazy. After meeting with us once about it (which got a very tepid response), they began using our hospital's name in marketing materials for the community that we were located in as if we had already signed on to the project (presumably to convince other businesses that it was a good idea).
So now it's finally happened. We have a new governor, and he's OK'd these new companies to take the high-speed research network away from the institutions that we, the taxpayers, built it for and handed it to businesses that just want to make a fast buck off of it. On one hand, I'm appalled that a state funded, maintained, and sponsored resource could be co-opted by corporate interests and taken from it's intended purpose. On the other hand, I know that our AT&T sales rep was very concerned about this effort, and usually anything that pisses in AT&T's coffee is a good thing. So do I oppose it because it's morally wrong, or do I support it because it could hurt AT&T?