Slashdot Mirror


Georgia Bill Would Prohibit Subsidies For Municpal Broadband

McGruber writes "The Associated Press has the news that Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers is sponsoring a bill that 'would prevent public broadband providers from paying for communication networks with tax or government revenue.' Senator Rogers claims that 'The private sector is handling this exceptionally well.' Local government officials disagree. Georgia Municipal Association spokeswoman Amy Henderson says 'When cities were getting involved in broadband, it was because private industry would not come there. Without that technology, they were economically disadvantaged. We feel like it is an option cities should have.'"

4 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Doublethink by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a corporate power bid to get public funds off their wires, so that they can claim the network as their own property, and no longer have to abide by [what is left of] the constitution. For example, laws governing privacy over publicly funded networks would cease to exist if no tax dollars went into something.

    Most politics these days is something bad trying to be passed off as something good. It's important that we keep PUBLIC money invested in our infrastructure, so that nobody can make the claim of "the corporations made this possible, therefore we should let them run roughshod over us". They didn't make it possible. DARPA and our tax dollars made the internet happen when it did.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  2. Re:you have got to be kidding. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As well it should. Internet access should be a utility. Every place I'm aware of that has municipal internet access has a superior connection than neighboring areas without municipal internet. This is what municipal governments are for.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Re:you have got to be kidding. by bfandreas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Utilities and telecommunication was publicly held in Europe for a very long time.

    The way starting your own service when the private sector doesn't do it usually works like this:
    -build stuff with tax money
    -spin it out as a publicly held company
    -sell it off with a profit

    And this is the right thing to do. If telcos don't want to build up because actually doing buusiness instead of just selling stock is a bit of a hassle then you build it yourself. Towns don't want their folks wander off into the City. If nobody can be arsed to sell electricity, take care of the sewage, take away the trash, keep the taps from running dry and in the 21st century provide telco services then you do it yourself.

    A mayor gets voted into office for taking care of the place. As is everybody else.
    Companies only have to answer their stockholders who do not give a damn if people in Stinking Dead Rat Creek get teh internets delivered in a series of tubes.

    Disallowing providing service to your citizens is that is just absurd. What's next? Not allowing the town to take care of the trash since nobody thinks there's not enough money in it?

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  4. Re:It ends up being a boon doggle by Cutriss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The light bulbs thing isn't about you saving money. It's about everyone making a very small change in their lives which results in a very large change for us all on this blue marble of ours. Making every single little government line item into "What does it do for me?" is part of how we got into this stupid mess in the first place.

    --
    "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."