Slashdot Mirror


British Farmers Growing Their Own Internet Service

pigrabbitbear writes "Look outside of your window: if you see miles of farmland, chances are you have terrible internet service. That's because major telecommunications companies don't think it's worth the investment to bring high-speed broadband to sparsely populated areas. But like most businesses, farms increasingly depend on the internet to pay bills, monitor the market and communicate with partners. In the face of a sluggish connection, what's a group of farmers to do? Grow their own, naturally. That's what the people of Lancashire, England, are doing. Last year, a coalition of local farmers and others from the northwestern British county began asking local landowners if they could use their land to begin laying a brand-new community-owned high-speed network, sparing them the expense of tearing up roads. Then, armed with shovels and backhoes, the group, called Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN (it's pronounced 'barn'), began digging the first of what will be approximately 180,000 meters of trenches and filling them with fiber-optic cable, all on its own."

178 comments

  1. some places have it ready already by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

    Memphis Light Gas and Water have been laying cables with fiber optic cores since the 1970s. If only the law allows them to offer Internet service - fiber to the houses, at prices unseen before in the United States.

    They could have it as good as the Google Fiber Hood. But... too much entrenched interests.

    1. Re:some places have it ready already by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The city of Tacoma has their own fiber network. Put in by their power company for the purpose of controlling their substations, it turned out to have some extra capacity. Some Eastern Washington State power PUDs, awash in cash from their hydro power sales have strung fiber around their largely rural, agricultural service territories as well.

      Since then, the telcoms have sought legislative injunctions against public utilities implementing new systems. And the private utility I used to work for was scared sh*tless about their wrath to the point of never putting in fiber even restricted to their own internal requirements.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:some places have it ready already by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      why? lack of balls :\

    3. Re:some places have it ready already by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Memphis Light Gas and Water have been laying cables with fiber optic cores since the 1970s"

      And you'll never get a piece of that considering MLGW vbuilt that for their own measurements/price control.

      Hi, I used to work for MLGW for a tiny period of time as a subcontractor.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:some places have it ready already by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Telecoms lose money in rural areas. Even with phone service. This has been a problem since the invention of the telephone. The solution? Give the telephone company monopoly over a large area, but require them by law to provide service to rural residents. Just how far rural they go will be negotiated between the local municipality and the telco. Putting in rural service is not profitable, but the telco can raise rates in the metropolitan areas to make up the difference.

      Now, some jackass comes along claiming free market and starts selling his own service. He offers it to whomever he likes, is under no obligation to provide service to anyone, and can undercut the telco in the easiest to serve markets. If you want free and open competition in these markets, that's fine. But you need to lift the regulations the telcos are under before you can do that. There are some areas of the country were the local phone company is required by law to maintain dialtone and 911 service even if the house is vacant or condemned. Just in case some homeless person needs to use the phone. How can a company that has to do maintain service like that compete with random competitors that have no such obligations? A free and open market for internet service means NO rural internet service at all. Simple as that. It's not profitable, and an open market means it can't exist.

    5. Re:some places have it ready already by PPH · · Score: 1

      That's what we call universal service for telephones. But the phone companies are under no such obligation to provide uniform broadband service. They cherry-pick the markets just like everyone else for this product.

      Now, if they want a monopoly to keep the "jackasses" out with broadband, they are going to have to provide uniform service to rural as well as profitable urban markets on an equal price basis. With regulated terms of service, utilities commission oversight, common carrier status and a bunch of other stuff that they have been fighting against. Otherwise, its first come, first serve for these markets. If someone else thinks they can make a go out of serving an area, they are free to do so.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:some places have it ready already by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Telecoms lose money in rural areas. Even with phone service

      That's debatable. The value of the phone network is that it can reach pretty much anyone that you want to be able to reach. A phone network that only covered major cities would be a lot less valuable to everyone. Lots of people didn't bother getting phones until coverage was almost universal, because there's no point if they can't use it to call their rural relatives. You may lose money on the individual lines, but you gain money from all of the people who join because those lines exist.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:some places have it ready already by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      too much entrenched interests.

      I see what you did there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:some places have it ready already by sycodon · · Score: 1

      That's it right there. The big companies have been using the law to stifle competition.

      If a group people tried to do what B4RN is doing there'd be lawyers in their fancy suits and expensive shoes stumbling about in the field, trying to stop them.

      This is what happens with Government sanctioned monopolies.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:some places have it ready already by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's true. But it only works as an argument for a monopoly supplier. In a free market, you have a tragedy of the commons scenario, where all can see that 100% coverage would be advantageous to the technology, but none of the individual suppliers wants to be the one to put the money into those rural areas.

      It MIGHT work, if there's a limited number of suppliers and they successfully negotiate to split the costs. But there's nothing in free market pressures that make that likely. The instinct to compete is usually stronger than the instinct to grow the market for everyone. Usually it takes government intervention to solve these tragedy of the commons issues.

    10. Re:some places have it ready already by radaghast · · Score: 1

      nah, I think tragedy of the commons is more like when there is a common resource, so individuals rush to take as much of it as possible before the other guy gets it. When in reality they are shooting themselves in the foot because they use the resource inefficiently. Alas, they have no real choice because they will just get left behind if they are efficient consumers, and their competitors are not.

      What you describe is nearly the same conundrum, but it is arrived at in almost the opposite way.

    11. Re:some places have it ready already by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's the opposite of the classic formulation. I'm not sure if it officially counts as a tragedy of the commons, but that seemed like the best way of describing it. Maybe there's another term for it?

    12. Re:some places have it ready already by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Only because they are prohibited to do so by law. The people who built it want to use it. But they can only use it for the internal stuff

    13. Re:some places have it ready already by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Telcos are required by law to provide broadband in some areas, just like they are phone service. It's entirely up to the local government. Some areas have such requirements, some do not. The problem with such requirements is that to provide the required service, the rates inside the towns and villages go up substantially. This isn't an easy sell for local politicians.

    14. Re:some places have it ready already by FreekyGeek · · Score: 1

      Wait just a minute, WE pay for those services, not the telco. Haven't you ever looked at your phone bill and wondered what all those extra taxes they add on are for? I mean, besides enriching themselves by making us pay for their expenses?

      In any other business, the taxes are included in the price as part of the cost of doing business. but cable companyes and telcos seem to feel that they're special, so they advertises lower prices and then make you pay for their business expenses. Does Wal-Mart make you pay an extra line item for ecach purchase to cover their taxes? No, that's all included in the price.

    15. Re:some places have it ready already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an interesting episode of Planet Money recently (I think it was about air travel and the American/USAir merger) where they discussed the tension between regulation and anti-trust. The sane, healthy choice is between allowing concentration, but imposing strict regulation, or promoting competition with vigorous anti-trust action, and then not regulating heavily. Sadly, our congress these days prefers to allow both concentration AND laissez-faire, leaving the consumers to deal with either not getting whatever service, or paying more. Either that, or being active in preventing concentration and then over-regulating.
      Personally, I'm from the Ma Bell era, when we had three "channels" and few airlines, but all were regulated. This era is often referred to nostalgically by, of all people, Republicans, as being when American values were at their peak. I don't disagree with them about that, but I do wonder how they square that with their rejection of every single way corporate life was conducted then - 5:1 ratio of the highest earner to the lowest, 90% highest tax rate, heavy regulation of industry, etc etc.

    16. Re:some places have it ready already by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I got an even better idea. DON'T give any telecoms a monopoly over anything. Have the government hire contractors who know how to create telecom infrastructure to install it everywhere populated and whatever unpopulated places we want. Use tax money to fund it. Now the infrastructure is owned by the people, not some for-profit corporation that can exploit it's monopoly.

      Why do politicians rarely propose this solution? Because then they can say they didn't raise taxes. All they did was cause your utilities to be more expensive, but the uneducated will just blame the utilities rather than connecting the dots that it was their politicians that sold them out.

      In an open market, rural internet service can be profitable. You simply allow the market to decide the price in every region. rural areas are more expensive and populated areas are cheaper. If this is the actual cost, why not allow this cost to be reflected in the price offered to consumers?

      There are costs to living in the wilderness, just like there are costs to living in the city. Paying the true costs of your lifestyle (except maybe those on welfare) leads to a more efficient economy.

  2. Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could just lobby your legislators to pass a law requiring ISPs to provide sparse areas with cheap broadband access, effectively subsidizing the internet costs of a few by raising rate on everyone else. I mean that's how government works right? Everyone lobbies their legislature for special favors until everyone has special favors and everyone is paying for everyone else's stuff in addition to providing much needed jobs for lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, regulators, etc.

    Forming a private cooperative to build their own internet infrastructure seems like a perversion of the crony capitalist system that is the foundation of western society.

    1. Re:Or... by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forming a private cooperative to build their own internet infrastructure seems like a perversion of the crony capitalist system that is the foundation of western society.

      Oh please. You know what's "crony capitalist?" Bullshit like states banning municipal broadband at the demand of local telco monopolies so that they don't have to compete with better service.

      We've already tried forcing them to spread into more rural areas, all they did was raise rates and mark up impressive profits.

    2. Re:Or... by mk1004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Power and telephone service to rural areas were subsidized in the US, back before everyone got the "no one else can play with my stuff" attitude that permeates this country today. Internet access could be done the same way, and probably would have been if it had been developed in the '50s. For that matter, nationalized healthcare probably could have been done too. Yes, I'm sure some people didn't like the power/telephone subsidizes back then, but there were enough people who thought it was the right thing to do.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    3. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Must I add /s to everything?

    4. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently... the mods missed it too.

    5. Re:Or... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      until everyone has special favors and everyone is paying for everyone else's stuff in addition to providing much needed jobs for lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, regulators, etc.

      "We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket."

            — Frank Sobotka, The Wire.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    6. Re:Or... by Microlith · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you should, because there are people who genuinely believe what you wrote.

    7. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1. I was being sarcastic 2. I said the private cooperative was a *perversion* of the crony capitalist system (i.e. it's not crony capitalism, like it should be /s)

    8. Re:Or... by ewieling · · Score: 1

      First of all, the government ALREADY forces phone companies to provide rural service, effectively subsidizing the telephone costs of a few by raising rate on everyone else. I don't have a problem with that, but it is easy to corrupt the idea if there is not enough oversight. For example, when AT&T bought Bellsouth there was all sorts of talk about AT&T rolling out a major rural broadband upgrade -- as far as I know this never happened.

      I would rather the local government grant a temporary monopoly (10 years?) on high speed internet access to the first company who wants to provide the service in a specific rural area. Much like telephone service (at least the wiring) or cable television service. This would create an incentive for companies to invest in rural broadband because if they don't, they will be locked out of the market for a while. This would especially protect smaller broadband organizations from having a large company come in and sell broadband at a loss.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    9. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1. I was being sarcastic 2. This was a story about British farmers and you are talking about the US government and American companies.

    10. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all seriousness why do we want access in rural areas to be subsidized? If it is expensive to bring access to these places, why shouldn't it be the ones who want it to pay for it?

      Economies of scale is one of the benefits of living in an urban area. You get cheap internet, cheap water, cheap electricity, cheap garbage collection, cheap sewer, etc. When you live out in the boonies the land is cheap, but you don;t get the benefits of living in a metropolis.

      If you want to live in the forest, that's awesome. If you want high speed internet in the forest, then I support allowing you to have the fewest restrictions possible to allow you to pay for that getting that infrastructure yourself. I don't think it's fair to subsidize rural internet costs anymore than it would be fair to subsidize rent in urban because it's "too expensive". The free market decides what things cost, and we should be trying to achieve a free market (externalities accounted for) so that everyone pays the true cost of what they consume (people, corporations, everybody).

    11. Re:Or... by alen · · Score: 1

      in the USA all the tiny hick towns make the carriers build them yarn museums and other crap in town as a sign of gratitude of being allowed to sell their services in the town

    12. Re:Or... by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Hooking up a farm is only 2-3x more expensive than hooking up an apartment in the middle of the city. Based on the case-studies and research for Minnesota, hooking up farms actually increases the net-income of the state more than the cost of connecting the farms.

      In other words, the oppertunity cost of not trenching fiber to a farm 35mi out of the city is more than the cost of trenching it.

      Funny how that works.

    13. Re:Or... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      2. This was a story about British farmers and you are talking about the US government and American companies.

      Did you actually RTFA? it started off about british farmers but it quickly shifted to the USA.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    14. Re:Or... by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you serious? Rural America votes, and their votes affect you. Do you really want them not to have at least potential access to the wealth of knowledge and "dissent" that Internet offers? Consider the alternatives: they'll only listen to the local ClearChannel station and watch Fox News OTA. I'm not saying an average Joe Redneck is reading random wikipedia article each day to edify himself, but your way of thinking makes it not merely improbable: it becomes impossible.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    15. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      When you refer to "the government" in a context where multiple countries are involved, it doesn't make any sense.

    16. Re:Or... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Especially that in the rural areas you can really trench very quickly as there's almost no other infrastructure to deal with -- just soil and an occasional road, usually unpaved.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    17. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So if the state would be making a lot of money by bringing internet to rural areas, that means the people living in these rural areas would save a lot of money by doing it themselves. The question is whether this money does more good in the hands of the residents of these towns or in the general fund of whichever level of government.

    18. Re:Or... by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      Right on! :) Yay for cronies!

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    19. Re:Or... by khallow · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Power and telephone service to rural areas were subsidized in the US, back before everyone got the "no one else can play with my stuff" attitude that permeates this country today.

      Ever wonder how the "no one else can play with my stuff" attitude came about? If the politicians had stopped long ago with stuff like the above, it wouldn't even be an issue. There wouldn't be enough people to care to obstruct your sort of proposal. But since a significant fraction of the US's economy is just being shuffled around as a result, it has become an issue.

    20. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There aren't that many people in rural america. By definition it's the part with less people. The last census indicated that only 16% of Americans live in rural areas. Also, they already have internet, they just don't have internet that is as fast for the price as in the city on average. You don't need fast internet to read a newspaper or Wikipedia article.

      In order for rural people to get Fox News, it means they have basic cable or satellite TV. Fox News is only 1 television station. I know people who only watch Fox News. They *could* watch other news stations, they choose not to. Also most people in rural areas are willing to pay high prices for fast internet (and do). They *should* pay these high prices because it costs a lot of money to create good internet infrastructure, and they are choosing to live in areas without it.

      Ideally fast internet in big cities should be an incentive to move to the city. Urbanization is one of the few positive forces in a world with an exponentially increasing population and CO2 emissions.

    21. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax, he's a just a karma whore looking to score a few +1's by responding with obvious outrage.

      Interestingly enough, on of the best ways to karma whore is to make a dumb, troll comment on a sleeper account or as AC, then make a reasonable, sane reply to it under your real account.

    22. Re:Or... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Mostly so stuff like, you know, food, keeps flowing, ... mostly. It's hard to compete with Kraft when it takes 3 months to download the satellite data to plan out exactly where every grain of wheat falls.

    23. Re:Or... by redneckmother · · Score: 1

      Well, I have electric service, but WTF happened to telephone out here in "the sticks"? The ILEC says I can have a line for ~250K USD - I can't afford that!

    24. Re:Or... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      In order for rural people to get Fox News, it means they have basic cable or satellite TV.

      Wrong. Before calbe and satalite, people had these things called television ``stations'' that broadcast over radio waves. Many are still in operation. Fox affiliate stations broadcast pretty much everywhere. With a 30 year old TV and a bent-up metal clothes hanger you can usually get pretty good reception on at least a couple Fox stations. CBS and NBC are pretty flaky, and PBS is there, but it sucks.

    25. Re:Or... by quenda · · Score: 1

      The tone was obviously sarcastic, but it is normal all over the world for utilities to provide gas/water/electricity/telephone to rural areas at the same price as city customers pay, or at least heavily subsidised. This works best with natural monopolies, but runs into trouble when there are competing providers.
      You may have to deal with competitors who want to cherry-pick the most profitable customers, and ignore others.

    26. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And before cable there were fox affiliate stations that had news programs. This is different than "Fox News Channel", a cable channel, that was created in 1996 and I am pretty sure is what tibit was referring to.

    27. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So internet to rural areas need to be subsidized to help them make more money? Why don't we just cut out the middle man and send them a check.

    28. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. You know what's "crony capitalist?" Bullshit like states banning municipal broadband at the demand of local telco monopolies so that they don't have to compete with better service.

      Crony capitalism is also mandating the provision of broadband access in rural communities, forcing companies to collect extra fees to subsidize rural broadband, building roads in rural communities, and all that. Not only are people's nice rural lifestyles subsidized that way, companies make a bundle from such attempts at redistribution.

      We've already tried forcing them to spread into more rural areas, all they did was raise rates and mark up impressive profits.

      Politicians passed laws that, predictably, would not improve rural broadband access very much, but would result in large increases in profits. And well-meaning idiots like you interpret that as "us" forcing "them" to do something.

    29. Re:Or... by stenvar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Power and telephone service to rural areas were subsidized in the US

      Yes, and it was a lousy idea back then too. The result was to encourage city dwellers to move out of the cities, resulting in much less efficient energy use, long commute times, and a destruction of inner cities.

      The reason people live in cities is because it is more efficient than in the country. If you destroy that efficiency advantage by forcing city dwellers to subsidize country folks, the predictable outcome is overall low efficiency and a destruction of cities.

      And progressives still don't get this through their heads, since they still throw around subsidies for everything and then whine and complain when people react rationally in response.

    30. Re:Or... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And before cable there were fox affiliate stations that had news programs.

      Since Fox started up in 1986, I doubt that very much

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    31. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because as long as there are enough people to think it's OK to take one person's money to give to another, it's OK. I love democracy. :(

    32. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      ok, before fox news was on cable, not before cable existed.

    33. Re:Or... by plopez · · Score: 1

      "that means the people living in these rural areas would save a lot of money by doing it themselves"

      You are forgetting that the individual usually cannot make such a large upfront capital investment. So it is a good way for governments to invest in the PUBLIC interest and provide services the individual may not be able to provide for themselves.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    34. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I never said it was done by individuals. A group of individuals can form a cooperative and take on big projects like the ones described in the article.

      The government itself is a cooperative formed by it's citizens. Ideally this cooperative would be working for the best interest of it's members, but as Bengie pointed out, this government cooperative would actually be profiting from it's members.

      If this profit is significant enough, then it makes financial sense to form a cooperative and perform the work instead of having the government do it. Lets say the government was going to use this surplus of money to build a nice park in the town. If you want this money to be spent on the park, then everything is good. If you don't then your money is being spent on things you don't want.

      It all boils down to whether you think you can spend your own money or whether a cooperative thinks they can spend their collective money better than a different cooperative consisting of a different set of people (the government).

    35. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess you live in a place with competing privated fire departments which will let your house burn down if you haven't signed up with them beforehand and are unwilling/unable to pay the "full rescue price" for your house.

      And the premium is higher since for the same area there might be more fire trucks than necessary.

    36. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ever wonder how the "no one else can play with my stuff" attitude came about?

      It comes from the freeloaders that benefited from these improvements all their life but don't want to do anything for their kids.

      Did I get that right?

      It certainly wasn't the boomers that were building anything in the 50s or 60s. But they are certainly the ones with a giant sense of entitlement and the "not paying for that!" attitude.

    37. Re:Or... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      actually, it does make sense.

      people are people and countries are imaginary lines.

      controlling classes are controlling classes.

      this is human-wide. not country-specific.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    38. Re:Or... by jjjhs · · Score: 1

      Trench? They have these newfangled things called utility poles, which I am sure are plentiful in sparsely populated areas in the U.S.

    39. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the "socialist" Europe the municipal broadband would be subjected to public tendering process and a telco and other utility companies would be selected to implement the project. The idea that a local telco would oppose such a project based on increased competition seems absurd from this perspective since they would effectively only refuse new financially sound customers, or compete with themselves.

    40. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      "the government ALREADY forces phone companies to provide rural service"

      Every government does this?

    41. Re:Or... by khallow · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It comes from the freeloaders that benefited from these improvements all their life but don't want to do anything for their kids.

      There's only so much lunch to go around. When you got too many freeloaders for the free meal, they'll turn on each other. It's worth noting that the same sort of selfishness came out in people who aren't boomers.

      Social Security was a known problem for decades and while they did make some fixes to it, there also was some crazy stuff like the one percent "kicker" (the amount of benefit was increased by CPI-indexed inflation plus 1% each year) that was implemented for a brief while in the 70s and the accounting fraud, which would be illegal, if it were done by private businesses. That mess which was broken on arrival wasn't started by the Boomers. They were born into the system.

      Similarly, we have some pretty crazy stuff going on with student loans and credit cards to an extent. I gather a number of the borrowers either had way off expectations of how much they'd be earning or they thought they could weasel out of it. Sure, the government side of this particular mess is remarkably incompetent and to a degree malicious (who thinks we're really helping people by guaranteeing huge loans for them and then passing onerous laws to make sure that student loan debt is almost unique a burden to bankrupt ex-students?), but it's all above board. You just need to look at people who've run through the gantlet to see how risky it is to take big debt for an attempt at a degree of dubious value. These people aren't for the most part, Boomers.

      These sort of games are what happens when you let entitlement spending get out of control so that even things which you can put together an ok argument for, like subsidizing internet hookups in rural areas, are difficult to fund, because ultimately, you're taking that money from some other freeloader.

      And this leads to the corporatism symptom. Who's going to fare the best in such an environment? It's not going to be some particular age bloc, no matter how numerous they might be. It'll be the businesses and non-profits which specialize in obtaining public funds, usually with the connivance of the politicians who hold the purse strings. It's a natural breeding ground for all kinds of corruption.

    42. Re:Or... by kermidge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "It certainly wasn't the boomers that were building anything in the 50s or 60s."

            And you think that they should have been building stuff then?

            You might consider that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, baby boomers are those who were born between 1945 - 1964.
            For instance, I was born in 1947. What do you think I should have been building in, say, 1960, when I was all of 13 years old? Or 1967 maybe, when I was 20? (Now, by then I did work in the construction trades, but hadn't the capital to even leverage buying land and setting up construction projects; I wasn't precocious enough for your liking, I guess.)
            And for someone born in '64, I suppose you're really bent out of shape that the greatest building projects for a 6-year old likely involved Lego or somesuch.

            As for the 'sense of entitlement'....
            You'd have to search far and wide to find someone in my parent's generation who hadn't been affected by The Great Depression (as it was known, although it seems there's one of those every other generation or so) and World War II - both thoroughly global things.
            So, no, we didn't have to deal with either of them directly, although the aftermath of each had some lasting effects on attitudes, behaviours, values, politics and law.
            Sure, our parents, having gone through some real shit, generally wanted to see to it that their children didn't have to - 'cuz it was some serious bad shit, the kind that was bad enough that a grown-up mostly wouldn't wish even an enemy to experience.
            As a result of all those good wishes, some of us were spoiled, some still came up hardscrabble, and, as in most things done by humans when nothing special is going on, most of us just came up in the middle of the muddle, as it were.
            Overall, the watchword was opportunity - we tended to have better schools, better clothes, better medical care, better diet than did our parents generation, so we may have taken those things for granted.
            The cultural, social, and psychological stuff, that was a mixed bag. There were some little things, the undeclared war in Southeast Asia (first advisors, 1955, first combat troops, 1965), the Cold War (duck and cover, mother-fucker), the commie hunt, the wonderful Cuban missile circus, all the various civil rights issues. Nothing special, really.

            But maybe you had your own fun in the Sandbox, I dunno.

    43. Re:Or... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but....

            In rural areas initial cost to plant poles and string copper is low, but upkeep and repair kill you in the long run. Since at least the Sixties, wherever reasonable (politics, geography, finance) there's been a big shift to lay cable. (I worked buried cable for a telco in '67; and yes, the runs were plowed-in fibre, trenches were for house drops and road cuts.)

    44. Re:Or... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Neither you, nor my GP, appear to have the slightest clue what "capitalist" means.

      The GP describes a (presumably) democratic socialist state and then calls it capitalism. Wrong.

      Parent describes yet another form of Marxist principle implementation - state run or controlled industry, such as became the case in eg. Germany, Italy, and Russia, and It and calls it crony capitalist. (It's also called just totalitarianism, and a hundred other things like neo-feudalism, but capitalist it is not.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    45. Re:Or... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Er, in this case, maybe you should. You sounded quite similar to what many people seem to actually argue these days. :|

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    46. Re:Or... by progician · · Score: 1

      Can you enlighten us then, what is capitalism for you?

      I understand capitalism as an advanced commodity economy, where labour itself became a commodity. The free market is just one form of capitalism, and not a stable one either, since competition leads to winners and in the next round the free market already biased toward these winners to the point that those winners became eventually the ones who dictate the rules. All what I know about capitalism isn't in contrast of what you call "democratic socialist state", as long defining form of property is private property (even if the owner is the state), and the dominant form of production is wage labour. Social democracy, as a movement never aimed to overthrow the capitalist production, it only sought to hand over part of the production to the state, or in its radical form, Leninism/Bolshevism it sought to hand over the entire ownership to the state.

      Totalitarianism is just an empty word for describing something really bad with no precise meaning. You can have totalitarianism under very different economic, political and social conditions, it never had a precise definition. If it was me for example, who describes the political-economical structure of the socialist block, I would use the term state-capitalism, where basically the backbone of the capitalist production as described above remained intact, in fact, in many ways it followed the pattern of the development of early capitalism, only that it was conducted by the ruling force of the era, the Party. Not really different than the acolytes of protestant Christianity in the wake of capitalism. The society consisted mostly workers, they bought their stuff on the market, and they sold their productive time as labour. And neo-feudalism? Please...

    47. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is simply the other side of wage labour; that is, the wage labourer is on one side of the exchange, and the capitalist is on the other.

    48. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what "capitalist" means, nor do you know what "socialist" means, nor "totalitarian".

    49. Re:Or... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Most people I know don't live in cities because they're too fucking expensive, not because they enjoy the smell of cow shit, no culture and one day a week bus services.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:Or... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think we want everyone to just pile into the cities.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Or... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      benefits of living in a metropolis.

      When you say benefits, you mean like having someone living directly above, beside and below you at all times, subject to whatever noise your neighbors constantly put out? Or do you mean the constant drone of traffic out your window with the accompanying fumes it produces?

      Maybe you meant the fact there is no green grass out your front door to walk in bare feet but instead have to take a bus, ride a bike (through traffic) or subway just to find green grass. Then of course there are the significantly higher prices for everything, the excess heat in the summer, the inability to see the stars at night and of course, going back to the traffic issue, you can't have your windows open at night due to the noise.

      Yeah, some benefits.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    52. Re:Or... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >Most people I know don't live in cities because they're too fucking expensive,

      But that is exactly the point, if you, living in the country had to pay the 'true' cost it would cost far more to live in the country, and less to live in the city. $30,000 for electric service, $10,000 for water, $20,000 to have telephone so you can live $10 miles away from anyone else and all of a sudden city life is cheap.

    53. Re:Or... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      There are also trees in lots of places, they like to fall over on to your lines.

    54. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if everybody lives in the city, who the FUCK is going to grow your food? Dumbass.

      Ok, charge a farmer tens of thousands a month for services - you don't think your next meal will reflect those costs? And you'll be the first one whining "why is my food so damned expensive? Damned asshole farmers want to get rich off of just ME - Waaahh!". Dumbass.

    55. Re:Or... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Economies of scale is one of the benefits of living in an urban area. You get cheap internet, cheap water, cheap electricity, cheap garbage collection, cheap sewer, etc. When you live out in the boonies the land is cheap, but you don;t get the benefits of living in a metropolis.

      It's more complicated than that. Where does city water come from? Electricity? Where does your garbage go? Where do you get your food from?

      Economies of scale exist, but city-level density can only work with a rural support structure. If farmers have to pay for everything with no cost burden sharing, do you know what happens? First, in order to afford Internet, water, electricity, garbage collection, sewer, etc. they have to raise the prices on what they sell. This means that all these resources that cities depend on are suddenly inflated. End result? Either cities suffer mass inflation, or they get their resources from somewhere else that doesn't have the same expenses. If they do the second, the people in their area who WERE supplying those resources are forced to close up shop and move to the city, decreasing choice and diversity, and also shifting municipal dependency on to people who are willing to subsist at a significantly lower standard of living than the people they're supporting. This never ends well in the long run.

      The truth is that people in general always have to pay the true cost of what is consumed... the cost can be deferred, or shifted on to a minority group, but the cost still exists. Under the free market, countries willing to live at a lower standard of living will be equalized with the consumer countries, until the standards of living balance -- that's how the global economy works.

      Good for you if this is what you really want; you're basically saying that the US needs to come down a notch or two and share the wealth.

    56. Re:Or... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      With a 30 year old TV and a bent-up metal clothes hanger you can usually get pretty good reception on at least a couple Fox stations. CBS and NBC are pretty flaky, and PBS is there, but it sucks.

      The rural areas I've been in can't get UHF and VHF analog signals anymore -- remember that broadcasting went digital a few years ago? This means that in addition to your 30-year-old TV and coat hanger, you need a digital conversion box, and possibly the decryption codes for the station you want to watch. As all broadcast centers are mandated to have at least one in-the-clear station (so much for free economy) however, you should be able to pull in at least one decipherable signal with a converter.

      Most people I know just gave up and paid the rural premiums for cable when the old analog network started going black.

    57. Re:Or... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Trenching is really the only sane way to go. If you're dealing with farmers directly and forming a cooperative, you don't have to ask any utilities for permissions. You simply trench on people's land and that's it. You still need to deal with the county for right of way to snake under roads, but that's a minor inconvenience compared to dealing with the pole-owning utilities.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    58. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Well when I said "benefits of living in a metropolis", I was referring to the *benefits* not the disadvantages.

      Furthermore, not everyone living in a city has all the disadvantages you described. I live in the outskirts of San Diego. I live in a 2 story house. I have green grass and trees in my front and back yards. I can't really hear the traffic, but I can hear airplanes. I have windows open all the time. I don;t get any fumes. San Diego does but a bit hot in the summer, but I thought that was a good thing.

      What are the benefits of living in the rural areas? Attacks from wild animals and lack of entertainment?

    59. Re:Or... by Shred303 · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Everything in the city costs more. Cities are chalk full of graft, greed, corruption.

    60. Re:Or... by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      ...because ultimately, you're taking that money from some other freeloader.

      That's a key point. I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who tries to play the "no one else can play with my stuff" card can be shown to be getting some tax break that others of us don't get. They're the ones saying tax somebody else, all the while ignoring the preferences they receive. My point is that everyone nowadays gripes about how others are benefiting at their expense, while ignoring or denying how they benefit at the expense of others.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    61. Re:Or... by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Out in the country, you generally use well water, which you pay for yourself. Electricity and telephone service was already there by the time non-farmers started moving out into "the country" anyway.

      Most people in rural areas when this all happened were farmers. Back then, people tended to look at farmers as being an important part of the country. You know, feeding everybody. So such things as electric and telephone service were considered the right thing to do. How much of that played into people moving out of cities, I don't know. As far as movement into the suburbs is concerned, I think they pretty much paid their way in getting those services.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    62. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      If farmers have to pay for everything with no cost burden sharing, do you know what happens? First, in order to afford Internet, water, electricity, garbage collection, sewer, etc. they have to raise the prices on what they sell.

      Yes that's what *should* happen. Bringing food from the rural parts of the country and having the workers live in areas without luxuries *is* expensive and these expenses should be paid by the consumers that consume these goods.

      This means that all these resources that cities depend on are suddenly inflated. End result? Either cities suffer mass inflation, or they get their resources from somewhere else that doesn't have the same expenses. If they do the second, the people in their area who WERE supplying those resources are forced to close up shop and move to the city, decreasing choice and diversity, and also shifting municipal dependency on to people who are willing to subsist at a significantly lower standard of living than the people they're supporting. This never ends well in the long run.

      If people are willing to provide the food for a low cost, then that is the market cost of production. If we decide to pay local farmers more money to do the job instead, all we are doing is redistributing wealth from the consumer and the foreign farmer to the American farmer. I don't see a good reason why we should do that.

      The truth is that people in general always have to pay the true cost of what is consumed... the cost can be deferred, or shifted on to a minority group, but the cost still exists. Under the free market, countries willing to live at a lower standard of living will be equalized with the consumer countries, until the standards of living balance -- that's how the global economy works.

      A pretty definition of wealth is that you're potential standard of living is higher. You can increase wealth by producing and you decrease your wealth by consuming. We are transferring wealth to 3rd world countries by consuming the cheap labor they produce. The newly industrialized world is catching up by producing more than they consume.

      We can slow down this equalization by only buying American goods and in effect lowering our own consumption/production ratio, but why would we want to do that? That's like a doctor spending all his time cleaning his house. He should spend his money on a housekeeper. She could use the money and his skills can be put to better use. Even if you were a socialist and believed the doctor and the housekeeper should have equal standard of living, housekeeping is still a less valuable skill (it requires less effort to develop), and the doctor should still be using his time practicing medicine while housekeepers clean his house.

      It doesn't even matter much because this era of cheap labor is about to end. Not only are countries like China raising their standard of living, but increase of automation will cause the price of skillless labor to nearly 0. Soon we will not need people to perform any tasks except those that require intelligence.

      in the US it used to be that about half the people were farmers and each farmer could feed about 6 people. Now the number of farmers is like 1-2% and each farmer can feed like 200-300 people. There are tractors driving themselves with GPS. Farming has become 2 orders of magnitude more efficient. How long will it be before farming is an order of magnitude more efficient than it is now, and farmers can feed 2000-3000 people per farmer?

      Not only can we share the wealth, we can also just make more wealth through robot slaves, and have a bigger pie from which to divide.

    63. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      How many hours must you work to afford to buy a bed from ikea?

      How many hours would it take for you to make your own bed?

      How much does it cost to ship a package to L.A.?

      How much does it cost to ship a package to Siberia?

      How much does it cost for a megawatt*hour of electricity in L.A.?

      How much does it cost for a megawatt*hour of electricity in Siberia?

      Graft Greed and Corruption have existed for all of human history. They existed back when the largest human cities were smaller than a small town today. Do you really think rural areas have less greed and corruption per capita? All you need is 1 guy in a town of 10 people to be greedy for 10% of the town to be greedy.

    64. Re:Or... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Well put :)

      Not only can we share the wealth, we can also just make more wealth through robot slaves, and have a bigger pie from which to divide.

      I'm a firm believer in "wealth cannot be created or destroyed, only deferred." This means that other than energy coming from outside sources (the sun), we aren't really adding anything to the equation with robot slaves; we're just creating a more efficient energy transferral system -- which IS good. The costs however are in things such as fuels and rare minerals.

      If we can make asteroid mining an energy positive endeavour, we can start creating new wealth on earth. Until then, shifting the energy around will just make life better for some at the expense of others. Of course, we're very efficient at doing THAT in North America already.

      I'm hoping that the vision you have of larger pies will work out in practice, but the cynic in me sees that as going against the basic underpinnings of the human psyche. Even when we automate all jobs, we still have to deal with the large population of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and their clan/herd mentalities. Free market economies will always be limited by that.

    65. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the fruits of labor to be considered wealth? Someone who has spent the whole day cleaning his house is surely wealthier than if he has spent all day playing video games (because he now has a clean house rather than a dirty house). OF course this person had to sacrifice leisure time in order to make this wealth. If he had a robot he would only need to spend money on electricity to power the robot.

      A world where robots perform the labor is a world where you have more free time to spend on leisure, or making art, or inventing things. Every hour you spend doing a skill-less manual job that a robot could do is an hour wasted (unless you derive pleasure from doing it).

      Of course wealth can be created and destroyed in addition to being transferred. There is far more wealth now in the world than at any point in history. I am not talking about gold. I am talking about knowledge. We can't create matter/energy, but we can rearrange matter/energy in ways where they are far more useful to us. We can gain knowledge that allows us to get more of what we want with less effort.

      Similarly, if you smash a brand new $5000 computer, you have now just lost $5000 of wealth. You still have all the matter. You have converted some chemical potential energy in your body into heat. But this new configuration of matter and energy (i.e. broken computer) has much less utility. And it will cost much more effort ($5000 worth) to make/buy a new one.

      Energy is actually quite similar. While you cannot create or destroy energy, it can be lost to entropy. It's still there, you just can't ever use it again. The "heat death of the universe" describes the situation where all useable energy in the universe has been converted to heat.

    66. Re:Or... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who tries to play the "no one else can play with my stuff" card can be shown to be getting some tax break that others of us don't get.

      Or just wants to pay less taxes which is equivalent as far as the purse is concerned. There is a fundamental difference between people who earn substantial income and those who don't. The former pay most of the taxes collectively (though obviously there are those who find loopholes). The latter have most of the votes.

    67. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I guess a better way of saying it is...

      In physics you can do a bunch of work to push a large weight to a high place. You have converted chemical energy in your body into mechanical potential energy. When you allow the weight to go back down you convert the mechanical potential energy to kinetic energy that can be used for other things (with some of it lost to heat)

      If you do mental work to make a computer, you now have potential to some things you couldn't do before. But the ability to do these things is not "used up" in the case of the energy. Once you invent something you can use this knowledge ad infinitum for no extra cost. Also unlike the case of energy, when you destroy this potential (smashing all your inventions and forgetting your discoveries) you don;t get the work you did back like you did when you push a heavy thing up to a high place.

      Our wealth in terms of raw resources may be fixed (for the time being) on earth, but the utility that we can extract from these resources is exponentially increasing with the advance of technology.

    68. Re:Or... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Most people I know don't live in cities because they're too fucking expensive, not because they enjoy the smell of cow shit, no culture and one day a week bus services.

      And why is that a good reason for city dwellers to subsidize country dwellers?

    69. Re:Or... by tibit · · Score: 1

      And a decoder box :) Remember, there's no NTSC OTA since a couple of years.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    70. Re:Or... by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Government itself is a cooperative formed by it's citizens. So if I'm farmer X, I'll say, gee, farmer Y is closer to the origination point of the fiber we're running than me, but farmer Z is further away. We're all paying the same amount. Unfair! I should pay less. That's what all of the complaints about subsidizing is all about, on an urban/rural scale.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    71. Re:Or... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Just because you form a cooperative doesn't mean everyone pays the same amount. It just means that everyone is cooperating.

      Here is an example from my life right now. I am getting a cell phone family plan with a bunch of my friends to save money. However one person uses so many minutes that it forces us to go up to a more expensive plan. This person has offered to pay this extra cost. We are still a voluntary cooperative and we are still all saving money even if one person is paying more.

  3. So should we all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect there are a lot of laws in the way in most cities/towns etc, but imo this is something that should be done even in urban areas. local intranets; the difficulty comes when one residence can supply an internet connection they paid $50/mo for to hundreds of people; which odds are the ISP forbids this in their contract... Still community forums, files, games could be used over community/street intranets and be quite enjoyable; ie: BBS days.

  4. They better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hear Monsanto has a patent on that

    1. Re:They better be careful by masternerdguy · · Score: 0

      Monsanto only goes after farmers who knowingly grew their seeds, and they determine that because the pesticide monanto's "roundup ready" seeds are engineered to be resistant to kills regular plants. You'd never apply it to your crop unless you either wanted to kill it or you knew it was the resistant strain. Do the research.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    2. Re: They better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay up or we will strike you till you get cut off

    3. Re:They better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto only goes after farmers who knowingly grew their seeds, and they determine that because the pesticide monanto's "roundup ready" seeds are engineered to be resistant to kills regular plants. You'd never apply it to your crop unless you either wanted to kill it or you knew it was the resistant strain. Do the research.

      How about YOU do the research? In my opinion, Monsanto is one of the very most evil companies around. Oh and perhaps you want to look into why GMO crops are banned in Russia and various other parts of the world. You see, they cause lots of health problems. No big surprise there, since handling poison (pesticide) is the major reason why crops are genetically engineered.

    4. Re:They better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice try Monsanto's shill but we're not all stupid farmers around here: Monsanto vs Schmeiser.

      Monsanto, headquartered in St.Louis, makes the popular herbicide Roundup. Farmers all over the Prairies ---Schmeiser among them --- spray it on their fields, whereupon it kills every-thing growing there. Then they plant.

      Explain this: a farmer uses this traditional method and traditional seeds, at some point Monsanto's GMO seeds blow into his fields and get mixed in with his original seeds. He continues to farm the traditional way, and since he never sprays his crop after planting, how would he know he's using GMO seeds?!

      Ask yourself this: Monsanto's business model is to charge farmers annually for the use of their seeds. But since seeds can travel easily to adjacent farms who never signed a contract with Monsanto, how can Monsanto ensure that they're not losing potential new customers because the seeds have naturally landed on their farms already? Answer: legal bullying.

    5. Re:They better be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How about YOU do the research? In my opinion, Monsanto is one of the very most evil companies around."

      What more research is there to do? After all, in your opinion they are evil - it says so in black & white right there.

  5. How many homes connected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... please come back when (if?) they have the first 100 homes connected to Internet.

    Being a provider is not an easy task in terms of investment and operations.

    1. Re:How many homes connected? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah wherever will a bunch of farmers get their hands on earth digging and moving equipment...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:How many homes connected? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Umm what? To start with they can have an old beige box as the router, and secondhand media converters are cheap as well. They don't necessarily need gigabit haul, probably 100mbit stuff that's dirt cheap will do the trick. And nobody lays down a single-strand fiber cable!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:How many homes connected? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah wherever will a bunch of farmers get their hands on earth digging and moving equipment...

      They'll probably get a grant from the fucking EU to buy new JCBs, claim 100% capital allowances against the full cost, and keep the equipment after the "internet cables" are laid between their friends' multi-million pound farmhouses.

      All farms and land should be compulsorily purchased at the price that was paid for it (so about twopence an acre if it was pre-WW2) and nationalised.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:How many homes connected? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All farms and land should be compulsorily purchased at the price that was paid for it (so about twopence an acre if it was pre-WW2) and nationalised.

      Great idea comrade. I nominate you to go and work on one of these collective farms.

  6. It's a race by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who will be faster - the ditch diggers or the telecom lobbyists demanding the end to such community ditch digging?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:It's a race by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I would be curious what (probably bullshit) legal theory the telecom lobby would use?

      Unless it's brown envelopes stuffed with banknotes. That I could easily imagine. But that just transfers the problem to the legislators being lobbied. what legal theory would those fine citizens use to advocate for this kind of restriction to community action?

      Watching evil in action can be fascinating.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The telcos want to allow the project to be completed, or very nearly completed, before they move in and claim ownership of it for free.

    3. Re:It's a race by crioca · · Score: 1

      I would be curious what (probably bullshit) legal theory the telecom lobby would use?

      Probably on anti-competitiveness grounds -_-

    4. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who will be faster - the ditch diggers or the telecom lobbyists demanding the end to such community ditch digging?

      You do realise this is a story about Britain, don't you? Maybe it's different where you're from but here BT really couldn't give a monkey's what farmers get up to in the places where they themselves can't be bothered to lay down decent lines. Nor do they "lobby" together with their competitors... on account of them not really having any when it comes to telephone infrastructure.

      I might as well just give up hope of ever getting a story about the UK where the comments section isn't nearly-instantly filled with Americans who have very little idea of how things are different here and instead of asking questions - never mind insightful or thought-provoking ones - just post comments about how it would work in places that the story isn't referring to. Anything that is worth reading just ends up buried in a sea of irrelevances.

    5. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their land, their wires, their business. They just take a tiny bit out and plug it into the closest Internet Provider and become a reseller. I don't see why Large Internet Provider (R) would complain if they don't have to lift a finger yet get some money out of it. Those "fuck you" prices they quote when asked about expanding into rural areas are just a way of saying "we really don't want to lift a finger", but they don't mind if other people do.

    6. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already a precedent in US: a town hall decided to install internet in their town since they got tired of waiting for commercial installation. They got all sorts of pressure from the industry and the project was killed. I think it was on Slashdot A few years back.

    7. Re:It's a race by LingNoi · · Score: 2

      Exactly! Queue the posts about how "slashdot is a US website and if you don't like it then leave".

    8. Re:It's a race by paiute · · Score: 1

      Who will be faster - the ditch diggers or the telecom lobbyists demanding the end to such community ditch digging?

      You do realise this is a story about Britain, don't you?

      Yes, we realize that in England BT is a 15 billion quid company with a heart of gold which would never hire a lobbyist but shows its displeasure with harrumphs and a brandished brolly and that there is always more gruel.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    9. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they qualify under safe harbor?

    10. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Queue the posts

      The word you are looking for is "cue".

    11. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Queue the posts about how "this is a UK story and if you don't like it then leave".

      FTFY

    12. Re:It's a race by dkf · · Score: 1

      Yes, we realize that in England BT is a 15 billion quid company with a heart of gold which would never hire a lobbyist but shows its displeasure with harrumphs and a brandished brolly and that there is always more gruel.

      The key thing for people in the US to realize here is that there is nothing like the same extent of regulatory capture in the UK, and it is actually possible for the people doing this to get connected to the wider world without ever dealing with BT at all (just use one of the other business ISPs who run fiber to the customer). If the landowners are happy, it's not causing a hazard, and there's people willing to do it, who would have the standing to put a stop to it?

      But truly, BT don't care because these are people out in the countryside. Really. The UK is far more urban than the US; a policy of only properly serving towns is far more effective. (Heck, a policy of only serving towns with over 10k population would still be very profitable.) It's when towns start doing their own fiber that they (and their competitor, Virgin Media) stir themselves, and even then it is usually done by prioritizing the hardware rollout.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    13. Re:It's a race by Xest · · Score: 1

      You say that, but in South Yorkshire the councils grouped together to create the Digital Region project because BT outright said they weren't going to roll out any fibre there deeming it not cost effective.

      As soon as the project started, BT suddenly decided to roll out fibre to the exact same addresses as Digital Region which has left Digital Region no longer commercially viable against the backdrop of competition from BT and so the DR project looks like it's basically going to die, then BT wont roll out to the remaining 20% of home DR didn't yet reach (because it was due to use profits to reach those places).

      So BT absolutely does care, and there's good reason why - they learn their lesson from Hull, where Kingston has a monopoly and where BT cannot tred. They don't want that to ever happen again - find themselves locked out of part of the country, no matter how small, because as soon as a company gets a foothold in part of the country, they can use it as a base to then spread into BT areas where competition is allowed.

      BT cares, BT cares about holding onto it's nationwide monopoly no matter what. If you want BT fibre in your area the best way to do it is to setup a scheme that will compete against BT, you'll see Openreach vans turn up with fancy new cabinets in no time. It knows full well that it's biggest long term threat is local projects that turn into competing telcos over time. I guarantee if this project in TFA starts to cover more than a handful of houses, BT will get interested all of a sudden.

    14. Re:It's a race by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      >> Queue the posts

      The word you are looking for is "cue".

      This is a story about the UK, so queue is correct. Everyone will politely wait their turn to post.

    15. Re:It's a race by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Lobbyists? Don't be silly, they'll not waste their time with elected officials for this one. They've already bought them, as well as the regulatory positions they help create.

      These ditch diggers will probably get slapped with something outrageous. I'd wager something relating to environmental impact and destruction, having not completed the proper impact analysis forms and commenced with a multiyear study of how the purple wren's natural habitat will be impacted and....

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    16. Re:It's a race by dkf · · Score: 1

      BT cares, BT cares about holding onto it's nationwide monopoly no matter what. If you want BT fibre in your area the best way to do it is to setup a scheme that will compete against BT, you'll see Openreach vans turn up with fancy new cabinets in no time. It knows full well that it's biggest long term threat is local projects that turn into competing telcos over time. I guarantee if this project in TFA starts to cover more than a handful of houses, BT will get interested all of a sudden.

      The difference with the US is that BT is dealing with these things by improving provision instead of by getting their friends in the government from making it illegal for anyone to build out the fiber at all. The difference is that people at least gain access to the improved service (if possibly at excessively high prices) and that's a huge difference; the (near) monopoly is contributing to the Public Good.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    17. Re:It's a race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amused the hell out of this Brit. Nicely put Sir.

    18. Re:It's a race by Xest · · Score: 1

      "the (near) monopoly is contributing to the Public Good."

      Not at all. The monopoly is being used to block growth of competition, retaining artificially high costs, artificially low investment and preventing rollout to many other areas.

      In a truly competitive marketplace, the cost would be lower, investment in infrastructure would be higher due to competition, and they'd be fighting consistently to rollout everywhere. If there was a true competitor to BT in the UK they would be fighting each other to rollout to places that these schemes have forced BT to roll out to, and places for which no schemes exist and hence BT has opted not to rollout to.

      It cannot be said by any measure that the status quo is serving the public good. This isn't like Royal Mail where as part of their monopoly on the last mile they have a universal service obligation.

      Further, it's false to assume BT aren't using their friends in government. A number of attempts at competition in the fibre market by companies such as Fujitsu resulted in them pulling out of the tendering process, publicly complaining that the whole tender process had been set up for BT to win. A large part of this is the result of OFCOM (and formerly OFTEL) properly ensuring BT is forced to accept as part of it's monopoly other providers to link up to it's network and equipment at a fair cost. When you have government institutions writing tender processes that prevent big competitors that have the clout to go it alone competing, and small competitors that would need to hook into BT's backbone competing, it doesn't exactly smell good.

    19. Re:It's a race by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Cables are just cables. If there is nothing to connect them to, they are worthless.
      And the telecom companies will be all too happy to sell this connection without having to pay for the costly "last mile" network.

  7. Re:NOTHING IS EVER THEIR FAULT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    For Extra Credit Ways To Be a DOUCHEBAG:

    Get a job as a Slashdot editor.
    Never, ever, ever, ever, EVER use a spell-checker. No matter what. This is CRITICAL.
    Whatever the fuck you do, don't ever proofread either. Yeah that's what an editor would do, but you're special.
    Post stories that are themselves flamebait, to drive up page views.
    Never link to an informative site that gets to the point. Instead, drive traffic to your buddy's shitty blog and let posters provide good links.
    Or, link to a paywall site when free articles are available.
    Laugh at nigger jokes and other troll posts. Then use your infinite mod-points to mod them down to -1.
    Never review a book you don't like.
    Never disclose whether or not you financially benefit from book reviews.
    Play different camps against each other to drive up page views. E.g. Microsoft vs. Linux vs. Apple.
    Repost^H^H^H^H^^H Recycle old stories. You could mod down people who point it out.
    Obsess over patents because there is NOTHING ELSE going on in the world of technology.
    Mod this post down too because it's true and that makes you uncomfortable.
    Mod +5 Funny idiotic regurgitations of tired old memes that weren't very funny to begin with (sharks with lasers on their heads, etc) because you have no social life and feel so desperate to be part of a group, any kind of group.

  8. Lucky they're not in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were in the USA, I'm sure the telecom companies would find a way to sue the everloving piss out of them. You simply don't infringe on their business, no matter how much sense it makes. It's them vs. you, and they have multiple orders of magnitude more money and lawyers to throw at the courts to make your life a living hell.

  9. I wish them the best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hopefully it won't turn out like it seems to in the US.
    The rural areas aren't worth the big ISPs money to invest in the infrastructure. That said, the few times I have heard about small towns setting up their own local ISPs the big ISPs seemed to have no trouble finding all the money they needed to try to litigate the upstarts into the ground.

    1. Re:I wish them the best of luck by masternerdguy · · Score: 2

      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    2. Re:I wish them the best of luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, the few times I have heard about small towns setting up their own local ISPs the big ISPs seemed to have no trouble finding all the money they needed to try to litigate the upstarts into the ground.

      But who is more to blame, the executives of the ISPs, or the unethical lawyers that do their bidding? Which is a bigger problem? Unethical conduct by legal professionals affects everyone in so many different ways, but so does internet access.

  10. It's been done already. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  11. Can I be the first to say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whoosh!

  12. home groan by Sir+or+Madman · · Score: 1

    Came here expecting net-enabled wheat stalks but at least I learned how to pronounce B4RN because that sure wasn't obvious.

    1. Re:home groan by rarumberger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, maybe they thought someone might pronounce it "be foreign", which would cause an instant negative response from American readers?

    2. Re:home groan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naturally one would pronounce it "bforn", which presumably means something in Swedish.

  13. B4RN; by Vaxwerth · · Score: 1, Funny

    TH4T'5 'BARN' 4 TEH 1337 1LL1T3R4T3

    1. Re:B4RN; by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      jØ0® 1 k®ÅÐ l3£+ hÅר® ÐØ0d.

    2. Re:B4RN; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know 1337 5P34|< is passe when farmers in rural England start using it.

  14. They're more American than Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was a time when the same sort of thing would happen in the USA, but who in the USA today would dare run afoul of one of the literally thousands of Federal regulations that MIGHT apply to them?

    The Federal government is so powerful that it's created a generation of Americans that sit frozen unable to solve problems for themselves out of fear that some distance authority will swoop in and punish them. There is nothing anymore that can be done without their permission.
    Land of the free and home of the brave? Hardly.

    I have a pretty radical socialist Czech friend living in the US that said that the problem with American politics is that it requires everyone agree. Every problem has to solved at the federal level and it prevents things from getting done.

    When even a European socialist complains that the US central government is too powerful, you know there is a problem.

    1. Re:They're more American than Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's still a few of us out there that embrace the American spirit that made our country. The problem is that we have to keep a low profile and stick to trusted circle of friends/family/associates to avoid being prosecuted for being innovative.

      It was really screwed up when I had to redo a section of my roof and a city inspector came onto my property saying I needed either to pay for a permit or hire a contractor. The only thing that saved my ass is that I have a fenced in yard and driveway and a habit of leaving the gates closed. As it turns out opening the gate into someone's yard and walking onto their property without permission against the law. So the only "evidence" he had that I redid that section of roof without a permit or contractor was no longer valid in court.

    2. Re:They're more American than Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually read the article?

      The Comcasts of the world might not like it, but the idea of community-owned networks is gaining steam again: the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance has tracked more than a hundred communities in the U.S. that are running publicly-owned broadband networks--35 of which, in ten states, offer 1-gigabit speeds.

      The cable companies love to spread the illusion that nobody in the US would do this.
      Don't believe their bullshit!

    3. Re:They're more American than Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, BULLSHIT on the "teh gubbernment is too powerful" propaganda. You fuckin' neocunt (yeah, I'm not from the US, we don't censor ourselves, since we're not Catholibans) morons don't even realize, that you have no fuckin' idea what a government is, since you've never in your life been under one. EVER .

      You have been under an industrial feudalism. And it is those very industrialists, that brainwashed you into wanting to destroy the last rest of actual (already powerless) government left. A institution, whose whole point it is, to defend the rights of the lower class (that is you!) against the upper class (that is the industrialists)!!
      Because apparently, pesky things like laws "harm" OMGTEHFREEMARKET!. Especially things like not being able to keep the population in slavery, and outright murdering people on the streets for profit.

      And that's what you defended right now. Your own damn fuckin' worst enemies!!

      Which means, you are such a certifiable gigantic moron, that the world has never seen somebody, as fuckin' retarded as you!
      Go ahead! Cheer for your own enslavement, you Neocunt Ameritard piece of shit!

    4. Re:They're more American than Americans by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree with you. Though as a caveat, a Czech socialist is kind of like a Belgian redneck capitalist in ideology. The Czech Republic seems to be one of the few marginally functional, economically sane, governments in that part of the world.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:They're more American than Americans by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0

      You're lucky the inspector was so generous. In most places, they'd just fine you outright, many times the cost of a permit. You have to either be crafty and get things done quickly on your own, spend a fair amount of money and time getting everything properly papered and stamped (expensive if you value your time), or hire the work out to be done. DIY has been largely squashed by meddling bureaucrats..

      If you were in Texas, arguably you could've just shot the bastard if he made any argument with your reasoning. :P

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:They're more American than Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this may come as a surprise to an American (who has, by definition, been constantly exposed to outrageously dishonest anti-left propaganda from his/her birth), but the crux of socialist ideology is not "all glory to the government".

    7. Re:They're more American than Americans by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

      Municipal building codes are "the man" trying to keep you down?

  15. Optic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldn't it be cheaper to setup multiple 802.11 b/g/n channels running 20-30km hops between nodes using dishes?

    Like these guys

    Optic has some great benefits of wide bandwidth and less prone to environmental factors such as storms but it is very expensive and time consuming to dig and setup. Wifi nodes can literally take a few minutes to setup and test and are configured for multiple points of failure redundancy. And solar is very lucrative seeing as these areas are the farmlands where sun is abundant. Running this equipment away from the grid would be trivial at best.

    1. Re:Optic? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Optical works in the snow, ice, storms and other UK conditions.
      Placing a good antenna on a roof and then getting the aim to the next site is not cheap.
      Placing a good antenna on a perfectly positioned roof may not be allowed due to historic building listing.
      Placing a good antenna on a tower might need gov approval and the costs can then go up with expert advice and paperwork.
      The new expensive tower might not even allow good 24/7 connections.
      A wireless box in a field or wood might attract 'easy' theft, property damage or free data use.
      Optical is the neat generational fix. You can always blow in new cable if needed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Optic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optical works in the snow, ice, storms and other UK conditions.

      So does wifi.

      Placing a good antenna on a roof and then getting the aim to the next site is not cheap.

      Where did you hear this? Try netstumbler, laptop, pigtail, lmr400 and a baked beans can. 24dBi antennas are also dirt cheap anyways and are ideal for testing.

      Placing a good antenna on a perfectly positioned roof may not be allowed due to historic building listing.

      Are we still talking about B4RN here?

      Placing a good antenna on a tower might need gov approval and the costs can then go up with expert advice and paperwork.

      Chances are highly likely that there is a TV antenna tower at a majority of the farm sites anyways with all that extra goodness space to utilize.

      The new expensive tower might not even allow good 24/7 connections.

      This is true, but nothing is 24/7 and these towers are a fraction of the cost the optic run. All it takes is good planning and people who know what they are doing/talking about.

      A wireless box in a field or wood might attract 'easy' theft, property damage or free data use.

      Goodluck scaling an antenna tower where all of the cpe can be stored including the solar required to operate it. There is more chance of destruction/vandalism to the tower than someone wasting time to scale and quite possibly get caught doing so.

      Optical is the neat generational fix. You can always blow in new cable if needed.

      Yeah you could, for a massive cost. Wifi is ridiculously cheaper on every level. The ability to 'blow' in new AP's for wifi can be done on the roof of a car or in many cases, from the window driving by.

    3. Re:Optic? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      I used to be a member of the WAFreenet, and whilst we did a great job at low cost, the network had major issues.

      Wifi is just not up to the job. The protocol cannot handle the timings and collition avoidance at outdoor scales, not to mention the fact that it was just plain unreliable. Oh and the channel space was completely saturated, plus you could only have 3 x 2.4GHz antennas co-located before you self-interfered. It's pretty hard to build a robust mesh this way.

      Carrier grade wireless is far better and addresses many of these issues, but they are not cheap.

    4. Re:Optic? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      WiFi is great till you actually have to use it.

      Once you start putting any serious amount of traffic over it, you find yourself putting up more radios over different channels to avoid all kinds of different issues.

      Or you can pay more up front and get your actual speeds with incredibly low latency with fiber.

    5. Re:Optic? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      >Carrier grade wireless is far better and addresses many of these issues, but they are not cheap.

      Most people don't realize that. Getting a chunk of private spectrum costs. Getting radios that are good and talk in that spectrum costs. All of a sudden you're paying a significant fraction of the fibre costs with none of the benefits. If you want more bandwidth with wireless, you might have to buy more spectrum and new equipment for it to work. With fibre, well hopefully you ran a full bundle in your pipe and just connect it to end points.

      Oh, and if you over build your fiber network, depending where you are, it's not hard to sell extra capacity to third parties.

    6. Re:Optic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am member of Guifi.net (the largest citizen-made network of them all), and let me tell you a couple of quick tips:

      First, stay away from mesh. Make dedicated point-to-point links. We had very bad results with mesh.
      Second, use antennas working in the 5Ghz spectrum. You'll have to have direct vision to the other antenna, but the resulting bandwidth is worth it.

      Wifi is perfectly fine for the job. My city has like 300 active nodes and we're good with it. Latencies are well below 10ms (often better than ISPs), and the bandwidth reaches up to 80Mbps for some applications.

      One config that is particularly good for cities is the following: Select 5 or more locations (depending on the city size) with good visibility. We'll call these "supernodes".
      Put in each one:
      • 1 Mikrotik Omnitik UPA-5HnD (omnidirectional 5Ghz antenna with PoE).
      • 3 or 4 Mikrotik SXT 5HnD or Ubiquiti NanoStation M5 (or Loco M5 with is cheaper but has shorter range). These are connected with ethernet cables to the Omnitik and get power from it.

      You make wireless links using the SXT/Nanostations with all the supernodes you can see from each location. Use OSPF to coordinate everything.
      Normal people (clients) then buy Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5 antennas (or similar) and connect to one of the Omnitiks (the one with best signal). Don't let connect more than 30 users to each one (ideally 10 or so). This is for 24/7 connections. If needed install more supernodes and repeat. Also, the quality for everybody is that of the worst link, so you want to limit who connects based on link quality (let's say you only allow -75dBm or better).
      If you want you can put 2.4Ghz antennas to cover the street and allow anonymous clients to connect every now and then, but don't let just any user to connect to the Omnitiks or you'll see that the quality degrades fast (specially with laptops).
      The next improvement you want to make in each supernode is buying a better router instead of using the one inside the Omnitik.

      Get in touch with other successful communities and coordinate IP ranges, ask for help, etc.

    7. Re:Optic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One weakness of optical I've noted is Power over Ethernet is only designed for use with copper cables. As such with optical cables, currently you need to deploy batteries everywhere to cover for power outages. Even then, those batteries typically only last 5 hours at which point you're unable to call 911 (or 119 elsewhere). The approach that comes to mind is to use "armored" fibers and run current over the armor, merely leaving the issue of modifying the SC/LC connectors to include an electrical contact.

  16. How did the fiber cross the road ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Referring to:

    sparing them the expense of tearing up roads

    I'm just curious how they did this...

    1. Re:How did the fiber cross the road ? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      They just put one of those little rubber cable covers across it it to keep the cars from tripping as they drove over the fiber.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re: How did the fiber cross the road ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poles? Sewers? Horizontal drilling machines?

  17. Re:NOTHING IS EVER THEIR FAULT! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, publish a completely off-topic rant that annoys everyone who came here for intelligent commentary. Oh, and post it A/C.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  18. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was reported on in online media over a week ago. What the fuck.

  19. NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by Pax681 · · Score: 2

    it might be North West England but it's middle-ish of Britain ......
    https://maps.google.com/maps?q=54.040038,-2.758484&hl=en&ll=54.085173,1.625977&spn=7.764374,26.784668&num=1&t=h&z=6
    mind you the wa things are going Scotland will leave the UK next year anyways... still for accuracy's sake.. at the moment it's NOWHERE NEAR NORTH WEST BRITAIN!

    1. Re:NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      it might be North West England but it's middle-ish of Britain ...... https://maps.google.com/maps?q=54.040038,-2.758484&hl=en&ll=54.085173,1.625977&spn=7.764374,26.784668&num=1&t=h&z=6 mind you the wa things are going Scotland will leave the UK next year anyways... still for accuracy's sake.. at the moment it's NOWHERE NEAR NORTH WEST BRITAIN!

      I always smile when I hear about "the Northwest" and realise I have to drive south for 3 hours to get to it.

    2. Re:NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Britain is the name of the island. The countries within it are Scotland, England and Wales.

      Saying that Lancashire is in the middle of Britain is about as useful as saying that Texas is in the middle of (the continent of North and South) America.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's northwest of the population centre....

    4. Re:NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Britain is the name of the island. The countries within it are Scotland, England and Wales.

      Saying that Lancashire is in the middle of Britain is about as useful as saying that Texas is in the middle of (the continent of North and South) America.

      it IS in the middle and the lower middle at that geographically. While it may well be in the North West of ENGLAND ,it, as i said before, is NOWHERE near the North West of "Britain".
      Also point to note if you are going to try and be a pedant about what is "British" then you might as well learn that Ireland, both North and South are part of the British Isles , granted that's a geographical term as opposed to a geopolitical one.
      however the English obsession with the geography of "Britain" Ending North of Carlisle is annoying to say the least.
      Then again, even when you look at it in the context of England only... it's just above the Midlands there's still Cumbria that actually IS the North West of England.

    5. Re:NOT NORTHWEST BRITAIN!!!! by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      It's northwest of the population centre....

      and it's still geographically incorrect no matter how you try to spin it

  20. This essentially happened before. by anon208 · · Score: 0

    Farmers in the US ran a telegraph network over barbwire in the late 1800s or early 1900s (can't quite remember which). From The Information James Gleick

  21. Close but no cigar by srussia · · Score: 0

    Forming a private cooperative to build their own internet infrastructure seems like a perversion of the crony capitalist system that is the foundation of western society.

    Ever hear of the Common Agricultural Policy? These "farmers" (0.5% of the UK population owns over 60% of the land) receive around â5 billion a year---just for owning "farmland"!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Close but no cigar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most farmers don't own land - they lease it off the same people who have owned the land for the last millennia - the aristocracy.

    2. Re:Close but no cigar by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So like â16,000 per farmer? I get almost that much in tax breaks for having a mortgage in the US. While I think doing away with all these subsidies and taxes that are not for offsetting externalities, I am not going to send my tax break money back to the government because I don't believe those tax breaks should exist.

  22. No SIX Strikes here... by wolverine2k · · Score: 0

    Good. That definitely means there would be no SIX strikes in the home grown service. Now what if these were to spread across the world?

  23. Similar projects in other EU countries by znark · · Score: 1

    Similar community-driven projects have been carried out in other EU countries, such as Finland.

    Here’s one such example from the region that geographically centers around Töysä – a small rural community of 3,000 people – and its neighboring towns/municipalities, some of which are a bit larger, but not much:

    Verkko-osuuskunta Kuuskaista (The Network Co-operative Kuuskaista)

    6net+ core network (a PowerPoint presentation)

  24. Re:NOTHING IS EVER THEIR FAULT! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Or, publish a completely off-topic rant that annoys everyone who came here for intelligent commentary. Oh, and post it A/C.

    Any criticism of slashdot editors is off-topic by definition, unless it's an article about how fucking brilliant the editors are. Which is perhaps unlikely.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  25. Bury it deep by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Some hired noobs have the innate, breathtaking ability to bottom a plow completely below ground.

  26. Schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    + some schools got a fat internet pipe virtually for free a couple of years back. They're now being asked to find ways to pay for it, so in some cases, they're hiring companies to dig up local gardens and driveways to plumb the neighbours into the same pipe. Using optical means the neighbours now become as well connected as the school, so can pass it on to more neighbours and so on. There are some using 'trunk' wireless solutions, not 802.11, but something related to get to areas where the fibres can't reach.

  27. Those wonderful whacky Brits.... by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    And they're doing it all with components built by Lucas!

  28. Already done in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That exactly same thing was done in Spain like 6 years ago. The project is called Guifi.net and it is the largest citizen-owned network in all the world. It has received several European prizes. It spans several cities and towns (mainly the Spanish east coast). Lately it has reached 20,000 active nodes.
    It is composed mainly of wireless links, but a couple years ago or so the farmers started building fiber links. They reached up to the closest Internet exchange point (CATNIX). They call this fiber-laying project "FFTF" (Fiber From The Farms, as opposed to Fiber To The Homes).
    They are supervised closely by the national regulator and all is perfectly legal. They are their own ISP, registered as such.
    I encourage similar projects to get in touch and at least coordinate IP addresses.

  29. Or, we could try NOT defending slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd sure like to. While in general fire service seems pretty low on the list of things that need privatizing, given that it doesn't do too badly (although it may be massively overpriced; I have nothing to compare it to), I would certainly like choice and competition in any and all services. Why should a private fire department be forced to put out someone's house for free (except to the degree that it's necessary to stop it from spreading to customers or brush)? Why should anyone be forced to subsidize services for their neighbor? Why are you defending slavery?

  30. Re:NOTHING IS EVER THEIR FAULT! by nobodie · · Score: 1

    yeah and where was the spelling problem? I went back and didn't see it, maybe someone cleaned it up already? Now if you want to fuss intelligently then you could talk about the writing style which is abhorrent, poor quality high school level writing. Not good, but not as horrible as the aged P wants me to think. No, this is just a rant, and not that well thought out either.

    --
    Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.