Slashdot Mirror


West Virginia Won't Release Broadband Report Because It Is 'Embarrassing'

An anonymous reader writes "The Charleston Gazette is reporting that the state of West Virginia hired a consulting firm for over $100,000 to investigate the state's use of Federal stimulus money (which included the purchase of $22,000 routers for tiny buildings). Unfortunately, the state government is now refusing a FOIA request to release the firm's report. The reason? The findings 'might be embarrassing to some people,' according to Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette."

183 comments

  1. Typo in summary by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Replace the word 'embarassing' with 'incriminating'.

    1. Re:Typo in summary by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Replace the word 'embarassing' with 'incriminating'.

      Possibly, but not necessarily, or at least, not primarily. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is the one witholding the information. He's an elected official whose job is probably more to collect campaign contributions than to actually serve the public.

      He very likely discussed the content of that report with the "parties" he is protecting, and was told exactly where he wasn't going to be receiving any more money from if that evaluation wasn't buried. He's probably very well aware that it's going to get pried out of his hands and plastered on page 1 eventually, but this will at least give him a "but I tried to stop it!" when those parties blow up his phone, and he's hoping this will at least do a little damage control.

      But things like that can turn and bite you. This may be a very big thorn in his side, come election day. Depending on how close the competition is, his opposition may drag this issue back above ground for a month of mud slinging. But money can really help to bury things. Depends on how much he can throw at it, and how deep it needs to go.

      "Never give a man a gun unless you know where he's going to point it." Same goes for inviting in a team of investigators to get to the bottom of any mess you are even remotely related to. You'd better either make sure you're squeaky clean, or make sure their opinion is already properly paid for.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's more insight: Representatives of the people have only one job, which is written into their job title - represent the people. So if the representatives are too embarrassed to share what they've done with the funds granted by the people, especially in regards to a project that should benefit the community, it means the money have been either wasted with no regard for public interest, or stolen. Both of these scenarios are covered by criminal law. Hope that covers it. Monetary system is stupid anyway, but that's beside the point.

    3. Re:Typo in summary by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a previous Slashdot article blaming this incident on Cisco, and even though I don't work for Cisco, I want to cut the bs and set the record straight. Let me do so by quoting the words of the main politician behind this project

      West Virginia Homeland Security chief Jimmy Gianato, who's leading the state broadband project, defended the $24 million router purchase last week, saying the devices "could meet many different needs and be used for multiple applications."

      "Our main concerns were to not have something that would become obsolete in a couple of years," Gianato said. "Looking at how technology evolves, we wanted something that was scalable, expandable and viable, five to 10 years out. We wanted to make sure every place had the same opportunity across the state."

      So we have this asshole behind this mess, but the mass media blames Cisco and Verizon. There's more:

      Verizon spokesman Keith Irland said the company simply responded to router specifications detailed in the state's bid posting.

      "They specified the equipment they wanted," Irland said. "That's what they requested, that's what we bid on. We had the lowest price, and we won the bid for the equipment and related maintenance."

      The Gazette-Mail contacted two Cisco sales agents last week, asking whether the 3945 series routers were appropriate for schools and libraries.

      "The 3945 is our router solution for campus and large enterprises, so this is overkill for your network," a Cisco representative responded.

      The sales agents recommended a smaller router -- with a list price of $487.

      State Department of Education officials questioned the size of the routers before Gianato and the Office of Technology executed the $24 million purchase order.

      http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201205050057

      Other than manufacturing the equipment, Cisco had nothing to do with this project. They weren't even involved in the sales. So clearly corrupt corporations are to blame, not the poor innocent politicians. Oh and did I mention that he was commended for this later?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Typo in summary by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "West Virginia Homeland Security chief Jimmy Gianato, who's leading the state broadband project"

      Forgive me my ignorance, but why is the chief of Homeland Security leading a broadband project? Isn't that kind of ... weird?

      Makes one wonder what the exact relation between homeland security and broadband is ... and what ulterior motives this man Gianato is hiding.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    5. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (At this point some enterprising individual can get a light bulb go off above his head, go to a local computer hardware store, buy some linksys router, that would actually be appropriate for these applications and quietly swap it with the expensive hardware, in the process he would actually save the small libraries a few dollars on the electrical bills and now he can sell the expensive equipment on eBay or some place and the library wouldn't even notice this.)

      Government solutions for you - if something is not expensive enough, apply more government.

    6. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forgive me my ignorance, but why is the chief of Homeland Security leading a broadband project?

      The state homeland security chief is administering a Federal Homeland Security grant. Remember the feds consider cyber security an important part of their overall Homeland Defense mandate.

    7. Re:Typo in summary by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Nine words for you: "If the NSA can do it, so can we!"

      Perhaps the "opportunity" Gianato speaks of is co-locating a DHS seeekriiiit data centre.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    8. Re:Typo in summary by houghi · · Score: 1

      Representatives of the people have only one job, which is written into their job title - represent the people.

      Companies are people too.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Typo in summary by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Corporations operate under laws created by government. They do wield influence and most people are incredibly stupid, Hence government needs to be limited.

      There is corruption and waste in every organization. Concentration power in the hands of the government is simply asking for politics to be included in that toxic mix.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    10. Re:Typo in summary by khallow · · Score: 2

      So we have this asshole behind this mess, but the mass media blames Cisco and Verizon.

      So these businesses picked up $24 million in some really shifty, probably high margin business and you aren't at all curious how they happened to get it? There's a kickback somewhere in there.

    11. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just saying

      "Earl Ray Tomblin
      Governor of West Virginia

      Earl Ray Tomblin is an American politician, the 35th and current Governor of West Virginia. Tomblin is a member of the Democratic Party. Prior to becoming Governor, Tomblin served as President of the West Virginia State Senate for almost 17 years. Wikipedia"

    12. Re:Typo in summary by wiggles · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly, but not necessarily

      True. Fortunately, there's a process by which the public can determine whether or not to bring charges for wasting or embezzling tax dollars: FOIA. Denying this request on wholly illegitimate grounds -- "because it's embarrassing" is not a legitimate reason to classify a record FOUO or otherwise exempt from FOIA -- does not give one hope that actions tied to these activities were otherwise above-the-board.

    14. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not weird. Homeland Security is an excuse for spending lots of money with little accountability, and I guess that's the kind of skills they were looking for to head the broadband project.

    15. Re:Typo in summary by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Well speculated! More insight, please!

      If they would just release the information like they should, we wouldn't have to speculate.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    16. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the proper context, everything is Homeland Security or Healthcare.

    17. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Yes We Can!

    18. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's my understanding that many of these routers were purchased in collaboration with future plans for broadband roll out throughout WV:
      http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/factsheets/WV_ExecOfcWestVA_FINAL.pdf

      If the infrastructure is never put down, how on earth can anyone expect the state to actually start utilizing the infrastructure's capabilities (when it doesn't even exist)? Criticizing this is like walking up to a new building in progress, looking at the foundation wasting valuable property space that something else could be using, and saying what on earth are you spending all these millions of dollars surveying, putting foundation down, drawing out architectural plans, running electric/water, etc. to this empty space? It turns that foundation is for a hospital in an area where there's poor health services available for a 100+ miles in every direction or in this case, no real broadband infrastructure for miles.

      The argument should be whether broadband investment is worth the focus in the state or not.

    19. Re:Typo in summary by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That is one possible reason. The other is budget politics. The more money you spend, the more money you can spend on more discretionary things. If your entire budget is $500k/yr and you're spending 95% of that on salaries then chances are that you can't afford to take your team out for a fact-finding trip to Hawaii. On the other hand, if on top of your staff you are forking out $100M annually to suppliers then spending $100k to do some due diligence in Hawaii is a lot easier.

      And so on...

    20. Re:Typo in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just like when traffic cops are hired to design new subdivision roadways.

  2. This is what newspapers are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a good example of what we'll lose if and when big city daily papers go under, and are replaced by national/international news outfits with makeshift and/or crowdsourced local staffs.

    1. Re:This is what newspapers are for by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's all well and good. However, you don't want the local city/state funding said local press/paper. Conflict of interest and all that. Would you trust them if there was a financial connection? Political connections are bad enough with the press, but understandably unavoidable. Don't make it worse.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's all well and good to be against shredding live puppies, but do we really want to bring back the Nazi party in order to use it to protect the puppies? I mean, I think we can agree that would be worse, right? Right?!?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've already lost that. There are hardly any hard-nosed beat-reporters out there. Journalism in 2013 (and for most of the last fifteen years) has consisted of pulling down and repeating the AP feed and rehashing PR faxes.

    4. Re:This is what newspapers are for by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Public funding for media is only a problem when it is discretionary. Just make it a dedicated tax with a fixed rate and with all proceeds going directly to the paper. Sure, the legislature can still repeal such a tax, but at least they'd have to do so in a very public way that would be certain to generate huge negative publicity.

    5. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? If a government funds a newspaper it is not a newspaper it is a government newsletter. Who even mentioned government funding of local newspapers. Put away your paranoia and strawmen.

    6. Re:This is what newspapers are for by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Right... And when politicians threatens to repeal the funding? I'm sorry, but this is still a bad idea. The press will never bite the hand that feeds! And of all things we need the press to keep an eye on, our own government ranks as the most important. And they need to do so with no strings attached.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:This is what newspapers are for by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 1

      It won't be done publicly. You haven't been paying attention. The lawmakers (or their surrogates, the regulators) will get to write the regulations that determine just what is a "legitimate news organization" and is therefore eligible for the subsidy. If you publish too many stories that embarrass the powers that be, the regulations will be tweaked and you will lose your funding. The same issue exists with public financing of elections (aka welfare for politicians) as those in power write the regulations that determine who gets access to public money.

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    8. Re:This is what newspapers are for by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You missed the point of the suggestion. It wouldn't be funding for "any legitimate news organization". It would be funding for one particular news organization designated for that purpose, like BBC in UK.

    9. Re:This is what newspapers are for by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This is addressed in the comment you were replying to. It's not easy to remove such funding - it would require an open vote in the parliament, which is not something that can be done in an instant - and the press would have plenty of time before it actually happens to drag the involved politicians in the muck in front of the electorate.

      See BBC in UK for an example of how this works in practice.

    10. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I've seen the opposite. As a newspaper subscriber (I know, hard copy is SO 20th century), in the past 5 years I've seen the reporting improve. I've seen more investigative stories exposing corruption and malfeasance and far less happy happy joy joy columnists eking out a living filling lines and writing about pet shows.

      Now what's been done to the comics, otoh, is a damn shame. Broom Hilda needs to end and For Better or For Worse jumped the shark years ago.

    11. Re:This is what newspapers are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "repeating the AP feed and rehashing PR faxes"

      Yeah, which are basically little more than celebrity gossip stories.

      Is there any media which isn't a corporate shill these days? Not in the USA, I think.

  3. General Services Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    So isn't this the purpose of the General Services Administration? To streamline the process of fulfilling the needs of agencies such as these so that this kind of stuff doesn't happen? Let me guess, someone approved a PO and bought the equipment from a friend who sold it to them at a high commission.

    1. Re:General Services Administration by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      The GSA isn't a state agency.

    2. Re:General Services Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is.

  4. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly enough the company that wrote the report, the ICF, was the same company hired by the Department of Agricultural (Federal) to evaluate the broadband stimulus applications and track the progress of the companies receiving loans and grant. If West Virginia is ignoring the foia request, perhaps a request to the feds will break things loose.

    1. Re:Hmm by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the company that wrote the report, the ICF, was the same company hired by the Department of Agricultural (Federal) to evaluate the broadband stimulus applications and track the progress of the companies receiving loans and grant. If West Virginia is ignoring the foia request, perhaps a request to the feds will break things loose.

      So what likely happened was the Federal Funding came with a hidden caveat that they had to use the same contractor that the Feds used, and the corruption and kickback scan runs all the way up to the federal level.

  5. Good strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just declare all governance an embarrassment and avoid the need for transparency.

    Genius!

    1. Re:Good strategy by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Just declare all governance an embarrassment

      The results of that governance usually are.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Good strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare to the transparent and efficient private companies. Hooray!

  6. When government does things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    it never works out. They don't even need to publish a report to tell me how awful and expensive it is.

    1. Re:When government does things... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      it never works out. They don't even need to publish a report to tell me how awful and expensive it is.

      Don't be too harsh on US government. It does an excellent job at protecting private property.

    2. Re:When government does things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless some business wants that property. Then it's eminant domain to make sure they get it.

  7. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how is that even a legal reason to refuse a Freedom of Information request? Last I checked, "we don't want to" isn't an acceptable reason to refuse.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could see a nasty bed of serpents here.

      On one side:

      Releasing the documents without also releasing a lot of priviledged information would paint at least one person with a very broad brush, and with a very unflattering color. This could very likely jeapordize their careers and good names, and thus has defamation suit written all over it. So, denying access to the information to prevent defamation suits seems crooked, but at least potentially plausible, especially if the situation really is the result of onerous BS further up the totem pole, and the person who will get the bad rap for it really had no other recourse. (Again, that is priviledged information about internal policies, and may be proprietary information from a vendor, and thus not safe to release with FOIA documents unredacted. The redacted form is what paints the negative image.)

      On the other hand:

      Allowing a refusal to satisfy a FOIA request on grounds of "embarasment" is not just a slippery slope; it's a freaking crazyslide, made of tefon, leading into a bottomless pit. Embarking down it is "not a good idea(tm)".

      This is one of those cases where you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs.

      Personally, I think the "best" solution to this intractable condition is to make govt agencies immune to defamation suits pertaining to information released via FOIA. That's also a slippery slope, but considerably less "teflon crazyslide" slippery than permitting arbitrary denials.

    2. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and embarrassing the government is the whole point of FOIA, so they stop doing things to embarrass themselves.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    3. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In some States, it's illegal but there are no penalties for refusing. The "sunshine laws" have "no teeth" a the parlance goes. In other States there are fines or convictions associated, and, surprise, the government complies more often.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      West Virginia.... where your freedom stops at the threshold of embarrassing the officialdom.
      As the Manning/Wikileaks issue shows, it may not be West Virginia specific.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that any state can be liable for simply following a federal law. And nobody gave the state the authority to pass judgement over the consequences of releasing information either. Short of clear damage to national security I think the law requires release of information even if riots in the streets will surely break out. It is simply not the call of a state to break the law.

    6. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't the very reason this FOIA thing was put together, was to force governments to release information they are reluctant to release for that very reason?

    7. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      How can it be defamation if it is only facts that they release?

      I always thought defamation is related to unsubstantiated allegations against people, usually backed up by only some circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted many ways. But releasing actual facts (and FOIA requests are to gather factual information), that can not be called defamation. It may hurt certain people, it may put them out of their careers, and they will hate it. But defamation? No.

    8. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Releasing the documents without also releasing a lot of priviledged information would paint at least one person with a very broad brush, and with a very unflattering color. This could very likely jeapordize their careers and good names, and thus has defamation suit written all over it.

      Did we read the same article?

      ""It was a specific document, citing specific companies, and making very specific suggestions to me [Commerce Secretary Burdette]."

      However, [Commerce Secretary Burdette] declined to release the report to the newspaper, saying it was an "internal memorandum" that could be withheld under state law.
      ...
      Burdette acknowledged that the exemption doesn't require him to withhold the ICF memo. In other words, he could release the document, even though he believes state law allows him to keep it confidential.

      Translation: one or more contractors pissed away money and the Commerce Secretary & Governor don't want anyone called out for their mismanagement of broadband funds.
      /In the USA, truth is always a defense against defamation

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a more general condition for how something batshit absurd, like "we won't honor FOIA because it will embarrass somebody." Could have a somewhat reasonable basis, even if only applicable if you wiggle your ass just right, and happen to live in bizzaro world.

      Not specifically in relation to this specific intance, though it still might.

    10. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Omission can be just as bad as lying.

      Take for instance, if I write this:

      "If you think I can seriously get these people to vote sensibly, then you must think I am jesus fucking christ."

      And, through the power of omission, you write this as a synopsis:

      "..I can seriously get these people to vote sensibly.. I am jesus fucking christ."

      You are clearly misrepresenting what I actually said, without actually lying. Hence, defamation.

      A FOIA document can only contain information the government is at liberty to disclose. Proprietary processes and proprietary information that the goverment has knowedge of, and has policies in place to fascilitate, pose just this obstacle. The person who gets smeared may not actually be the crazy, wasteful, assfuck that the redacted FOIA portrays them as being. Hence, defamation.

    11. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Classified information and open governments don't go well together. People in the government should know that.

      Yet in this case there is quite some embarrassing information out there already, so it should be time for that government to come clean anyway.

    12. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      It may not necessarily be classified.

      Take for instance, information about how Time Warner cable handles cable deployments and service franchising.

      The state needs to know that, in order to follow the terms of the franchise, but the actual terms of the franchise agreement may forbid disclosure of any such information. A FOIA would thus have lots and lots of blacked out text dealing with the specifics of how these are handled, and how those things have contributed to overhead and wasted taxpayer funds.

      The lackey that gets smeared may not have had any alternatives, and actually acted as sensibly as is possible. But you would never know that, because the truly damning information is in the franchise agreement and policies concerning same. There could be provisions requiring hookers and blow at all meetings with executives in there. Its a private and confidential agreement with a private enterprise that said enterprise considers proprietary. It can't be disclosed by foia. As such, you would never know.

    13. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could very likely jeapordize their careers and good names, and thus has defamation suit written all over it.

      If it's a public money spent and a should_be_public document that defames someone it's the persons own damn fault they did stupid things. If politicians do things that jeopardizes "their good names" and carees they bloody well should be jeopardized.

    14. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really simple to solve. If you want to do business with the goverment you do it on their rules. If those rules state information must be free then you may choose to not do business with the government.

    15. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by samweber · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting what might be the most likely possibility: that the people that would be embarrassed are the OTHER companies that also bid on the contract. Remember, expensive as it was, the company that got the contract was the LOW bid -- what on earth were the other bids? If you read the article, the Governer's office does explicitly claim that it is not the government that would be embarrassed, and although they could of course be lying, the other bidders certainly look suspicious.

      Usually when there are bids for a contract, the losing bids are confidential. Violating this might lead to lawsuits as well.

    16. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, the best solution is complete transparency. If the facts are defamatory, so be it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Usually when there are bids for a contract, the losing bids are confidential.

      That should be illegal. The public procurement process should be completely transparent. Don't like it? Don't do business with the government.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....leading into a bottomless pit.

      That pit is in the sand sea, they call it Sarlacc...

    19. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of Information is Federal, not State unfortunately. That excuse just screams that multiple people did something they will lose their jobs over and likely get sued over if not outright criminal charges.

  8. He's doing us a service by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's making the FOIA lawsuit a complete slam dunk for the EFF, ACLU, or whoever files it.

  9. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The company that wrote the report for WV, ICF, is the same company that did the evaluations of the broadband stimulus grant and loan applications, and is heading up the auditing of the deployments. If WV is ignoring the foia requests, I would imagine the request could be sent to the Feds since it's their money.

  10. West Virginia is the butt... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    of a lot of jokes. Yeah, they screwed up... Again. However, most people don't know that West Virgina was part of Virginia up until the Civil War. They believed so strongly in free labor (as opposed to slave labor) that they succeeded from their state. I can forgive them for a lot of crap after that. It's sad seeing them struggle over basic internet access, but I think it's always been a challenge in WV.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    1. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seceded.

    2. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course in typical rural state fashion, West Virginia is now far more racist than its coastal neighbors.

    3. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      They succeeded at seceding?

    4. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in West Virginia (not a native, and actual natives are quick to remind me of this fact), and parent's statement is sadly true. There are people here who openly admit that they voted against Obama in the last two elections "because he's black." No shame, and no other reason.

    5. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Informative

      of a lot of jokes. Yeah, they screwed up... Again. However, most people don't know that West Virgina was part of Virginia up until the Civil War. They believed so strongly in free labor (as opposed to slave labor) that they succeeded from their state. I can forgive them for a lot of crap after that. It's sad seeing them struggle over basic internet access, but I think it's always been a challenge in WV.

      Half of my family came from there and I can say that they are facing huge technical problems. Even cell phone service is spotty. There's very little line of sight in the state due to the mountains so they have to depend on lines. It's hard enough keeping roads passable since they wash out regularly. The coal companies used to help with tax dollars but that's been seen as a drain on corporate profits so the tax base is miserable so there's little money to address critical infrastructure so the internet comes in a very distant second to everything else. It's one of the poorest states as well so few people have computers to begin with. Just to spike the ball corruption is rampant. FYI he's one of the ones that isn't corrupt but my mother's second cousin is Governor so I have connections with the state. Another FYI I got a lot of nasty looks for daring to point out West Virginia was a northern state when I was growing up. Most of my mother's family still considers it part of the south. My guess is when the check showed up some one said "yeah internet routers, please" and put the money into his brother's company that fills pot holes.

    6. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by el+borak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I too honor the brave and ethical stance made by the WV leadership 150 years ago. However zero of that honor is conveyed to people simply because they happen to currently inhabit the same geographic area.

      --
      An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan. -- George Patton
    7. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they didn't really care that much about the freedom bit. They just got tired of the folks in Richmond telling them what to do, and took the opportunity that came along to strike out on their own.

      Abolitionism was not a driving force in any of that act.

    8. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, that's the story that's in the textbooks, at least.

      The reality of the Civil War was a *lot* more complicated. Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue until Lincoln turned it into the moral justification for the war. Which was a brilliant PR move on his part, since even a century later we're believing in it.

      The #1 reason was the same sort of divisive party politics that continues to this day, with the same party names even. You know what the Republican fringe was saying about Obama during the last elections? That was pretty much what the Democrats were saying about Lincoln, except replace "socialism" with "abolitionism".

      Then there was the whole movement from rural, agriculture-based societies to urban, industrial society. Always a cause for major upheaval. And guess what? East Virginia was mostly agricultural, and West Virginia was mostly coal mines (and thus economically aligned with the Northern cities they fueled).

      Of course there was also the statehood issue. The states, at that time, still had quite a bit more independence than they do now. There had been a delicate balance for years over the slavery issue, trying to make sure that neither side had enough votes to force their own way. Lincoln's election proved that balance was gone - he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states.

      Finally was the whole issue of the war. There was a lull between the initial round of secession and the war proper beginning, during which Virginia was still Union. Only when Lincoln began calling up the armies did the rest secede (and West Virginia re-secede, or de-secede or whatever the term is). Even then, some states tried to declare neutrality.

      As for West Virginia, there was one more reason peculiar to them - geography. The two are separated by the Appalachian Mountains, which are a rather significant barrier. I think it's even easier for them to ship coal to New Orleans (via the Mississippi) than to Richmond. When you have such separation, it's somewhat natural for political divisions to occur.

    9. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      My sister voted for him because he's black. What's worse: Putting a corrupt politician in office because you feel we all owe it to his race only to have him bomb civilians, or vote him out because you're a racist.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    10. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that any more racist than all the folks who voted for Obama simply because he's black? IMO both things are equally despicable.

    11. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      to be fair there were a lot of people who openly admitted they voted for him simply because he is black as well.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by oiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The #1 reason was the same sort of divisive party politics that continues to this day, with the same party names even. You know what the Republican fringe was saying about Obama during the last elections? That was pretty much what the Democrats were saying about Lincoln, except replace "socialism" with "abolitionism".

      Looks to me like it was the south that made slavery the issue on which they opposed Lincoln; divisive politics based on slavery...

      Then there was the whole movement from rural, agriculture-based societies to urban, industrial society. Always a cause for major upheaval. And guess what? East Virginia was mostly agricultural, and West Virginia was mostly coal mines (and thus economically aligned with the Northern cities they fueled).

      Slavery was part of that; industrial societies don't work so well with outright slave labour. Agricultural societies often do - or at least, more primitive ones based on large plantations.

    13. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by bit+trollent · · Score: 2

      ...because of the racism in West Virgina.

      Seriously, the white supremacist dumbfucks have proliferated in West Virginia before and after Obama was elected president.

      Who do you think the black folks in West Virginia who see their neighbors supporting white supremacist bullshit are going to vote for?

      And after all the racist bullshit in the last election, I don't see how an ethnic minority can ever vote for a republican in the next 30 years.

    14. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i vote for the individual, not the party, just for the record. But i guess WV is just WAY more bumblefuck than I can imagine, because in upstate NY, there really wasnt much racism from the right in the last election at all, I saw way more racists who swung to the left than the right up here.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    15. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      I live in Texas, one of the many states that the Republican party has targeted with a well funded voter suppression campaign designed to keep minorities from voting.

    16. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      Putting a corrupt politician in office because you feel we all owe it to his race

      Oh puh-leeze. Both electable choices are corrupt, every time, without exception. What determines your vote depends on what type of corruption and to what degree you're more tolerant of. That isn't to say everyone is just as bad as everyone else, just that everyone is corrupt.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    17. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      I really do not understand how asking for an ID to vote when you need an ID to buy cough syrup is considered voter suppression.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Briefly

    19. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by bit+trollent · · Score: 1

      It's basically a poll tax for poor (often minority) people. Make take the bus to wait in line to pay money (to get an id) to vote. It can take over a week of hassling with bureaucratic to finally be allowed to vote, even though they had been legally eligible for years.

      Implemented in a way that every valid voter would automatically recieve the correct ID, there is no problem. The problem is that it was implemented poll-tax style, which violates civil right laws dating back to Jim Crowe.

      There are many documented instances of this occurring due to the voter supression laws.

      Other times, like in Florida, the republican governor cut early voting and caused 8 hour voting lines, also blocking poor and minority voters.

    20. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reality of the Civil War was a *lot* more complicated. Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue until Lincoln turned it into the moral justification for the war. Which was a brilliant PR move on his part, since even a century later we're believing in it.

      The difficulty with your version of history is that it is directly contradicted by documents and statements made before and during the Civil War.
      Here are Declarations of Secession from the four States that decided to explain their reasons

      I could give you an almost endless list of primary sources to dig through,
      but if those declarations aren't convincing, I don't know what else would do it.
      Anyone who says that slavery was not central to the issues of the Civil War is engaging in historical revisionism.

      And, Lincoln didn't really want to end slavery in the South, his plan was to prevent any new States from having slaves, thus allowing slavery in the South to die out in its own time.

      If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

      Ignore whatever you learned growing up and go straight to the sources.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    21. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by gargleblast · · Score: 1

      It's better than the alternative.

    22. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Damnit, 20 mod points last week, and none this week. Was hoping someone would make this reply. Good job.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    23. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slavery was only the third or fourth most important issue,,,

      ...but it was the only one that people weren't willing to compromise on. As an example, the North wanted high tariffs, and the South wanted them low; over the years, they went up and down as different factions got enough power to change them. States Rights and Federal Authority clashed over and over, with varying results, but on Slavery, neither side would budge and eventually, the southern hot-heads got their way and we ended up with the Civil War.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    24. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Part of the dispute comes down to articles - it is true that slavery was *a* central issue, but it is also true that it was not *the* central issue of the war. In Lincoln's own words,

      "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

      he makes clear that the goal of the war was to restore/preserve the Union. In that respect the Civil War was a conflict on the relative powers of the Federal and state governments.

    25. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      Also, West Virginia has a lot of small wirless phone companies that managed to grab the frequencies that were used by the larger carriers resulting in spotty service. They simply didn't invest money in infrastructure, so the citizens of WV were stuck with substandard cell service.

      LTE should improve that since the feds sold those frequencies to big players like Verizion Wireless & AT&T who will likely invest a lot more in cell towers and improve service.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    26. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama invented bombing civilians. It had never been done before. Not in Spain. Not in England. Not in Germany. Not in Japan. Not in Vietnam. Not in Iraq. Never.

      Americans are completed screwed in the head. If someone says they are opposed to military spending and growth, they are called weak. If politicians want to ban landmines which kill more civilians than drones (currently), they are called perjoratively called a pacifist who kowtows to the UN. If, however, they follow through on a campaign promise to use drones in undeclared wars over the airspace of friend and foe alike (listen to the Obama/McCain debate) people are surprised, shocked, and downright offended when it actually happens when in the back of their head they know that if not for the drones we would be sending more troops and launching more destructive cruise missiles and the like.

    27. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My guess is when the check showed up some one said "yeah internet routers, please" and put the money into his brother's company that fills pot holes.

      Could be. We have all the same problems in Northern California. My county is currently involved in a lawsuit with the pavers over malfeasance...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My sister voted for him because he's black. What's worse: Putting a corrupt politician in office because you feel we all owe it to his race only to have him bomb civilians, or vote him out because you're a racist.

      I don't know your sister, so maybe she really is that dumb, she's related to you after all. But I think most of the people who voted for Obama because he's black did it not out of guilt but out of superstition, believing that because he was black he would somehow have to be less evil than the other guy, and/or the last guy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really do not understand how asking for an ID to vote when you need an ID to buy cough syrup is considered voter suppression.

      It doesn't affect large swaths of population, but it can be a specific burden for people with fringe living conditions. People who don't drive. Elderly people in assisted living/nursing home. Long-term homeless. They are voters that most people never see, and so ID laws don't seem like a burden. Sure, you may hear about some 95-year-old lady who had to wait two hours for a wheelchair accessible bus to take her to the county ID office, then wait three hours in line there, hoping that her oxygen doesn't run out. Or who just didn't pay enough attention to the new law to get an ID in time to vote, but it's such a small proportion.

      Of course, in the swing states, or swing districts, the margin of victory is under 1%. In North Carolina, Romney won by 15,000 of 4.7M (registered) voters. You don't need to impact a lot of people to impact the election.

      Voter ID laws mostly came out of claims that huge numbers of illegal immigrants were voting. eg, Florida "estimated" that their voter rolls contained 180,000 illegals, or about 0.15% of their 12M voters. That claim was eventually whittled down to 36, or 0.0003%. How many people is it "ok" to inconvenience or intimidate to make sure that those 36 people can't vote? Most of our country is based on the idea that it is far better to allow some crime than to convict a person wrongly, but that attitude seems not to apply to elections.

    30. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even you are being to overly generous to the parent. The only

      point Lincoln would not bend on was not allowing slavery into new territories.

      So when the South seceded to pursue their "God given right" to push slavery into new territories, where exactly were these territories going to come from? The CSA was boxed in on the north by the Union, the West by Union owned territories, the south by slave-free Mexican, plus the growing list of slave free nations in the Caribbean.

      The southern states seceded specifically because living in peace was insufficient.

      The CSA was built on a promise of spoils of war. Unless the southern politicians were all liars, there was no logical reason to believe that peace was possible. The CSA offered war, war, war, and more war from the get go. Once the southern started up the shooting and murdering*, raising a Union army was Lincoln's only reasonable option.

      * Yes, murdering. For example, secession was hotly contested in Texas. Dozens of pro-unionists were murdered in broad daylight for voicing their political views. That is hardly the only example.

    31. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of you had better go back and re-read your sources, and research your subject again. But this time go back to the Newspapers of the time. Just like now: they have the yellow press. Just like now, the yellow press was pushing war, as the way too settle any difference of ideas. Don't look at the name of the paper, just as now there were a few influential news services that they (the new) subscribed to. Just like now, those few sources were the gateway to the next war. And this was back in the time of the horse. The fastest one idea could travel was a hundred miles a day. War is not a social idea, killing your brother is not a social idea. Racisism is not a social idea. Village,City,County and State are social ideas. Country for mutual protection of our collection of societies is essential. We didn't want the king back. Guess some still do.

    32. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Superstition? You've obviously never been to downtown Atlanta or Memphis. He could have ben eating babies instead of kissing them, and still gotten all the votes.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    33. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Americans are completed screwed in the head. If someone says they are opposed to military spending and growth, they are called weak. If politicians want to ban landmines which kill more civilians than drones (currently), they are called perjoratively called a pacifist who kowtows to the UN. If, however, they follow through on a campaign promise to use drones in undeclared wars over the airspace of friend and foe alike (listen to the Obama/McCain debate) people are surprised, shocked, and downright offended when it actually happens when in the back of their head they know that if not for the drones we would be sending more troops and launching more destructive cruise missiles and the like.

      An alternate term for this drone-only strategy is "losing". When someone is more worried about soldiers dying than getting a good outcome out of a bitter fight, then they will lose that war. Soldiers are going to die anyway since the enemy (of even moderate competence) will exploit that desire.

    34. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by linefeed0 · · Score: 1

      Verizon sold their (2g/3g, dunno about the 4g stuff) frequencies in half the state (the northern/northeastern half) to US Cellular. Those were B-side (or A-side, i forget which, it's the one originally handed out to incumbent wireline LECs) allocations in the 800 MHz blocks back in the 80s. Bell Atlantic had them, but didn't keep them -- there, or in the western panhandle of Maryland either (and in MD they are wireline ILEC for the entire state, no exceptions). So it's not that they were outbid; they unloaded them deliberately. They wanted the cash to serve a more lucrative market. They kept all the Pennsyltucky ones though; I guess Bell of PA was a better funded division than C&P back then.

      That half of the state is pretty much served only by US Cellular and AT&T, with a smattering of nTelos/Sprint near major highways. And that's before you get to the radio quiet zone near the VA border. Ain't nobody got time to keep hundreds of cell towers from interfering in any way whatsoever with the radio telescopes in Green Bank, or the ECHELON spy station in Sugar Grove. (So actually, you sort of *can* blame bad wireless service in a few counties directly on the NSA here.)

    35. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I really do not understand how a chickenshit law infringing on the rights of tweakers to screw themselves up justifies targeted infringement of voter's rights.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    36. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The *South* made it an issue? It was fucking *legal*. They weren't the ones stirring the pot. I'm not condoning slavery, mind you, but they were in the right legally.

    37. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were in the wrong. Slavery is morally repugnant. Laws that protected it were acts of injustice.

      In any case, abolitionists were trying for years to come up with gradual methods of removal of slavery, the pro-slavery advocates could never tolerate any of that, and eventually turned to armed force to defend their amorality.

    38. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Yes, West Virginia's actions were good in the American Civil War (unless you are pro-slavery, which some staunch modern Republicans apparently are if CPAC is any indication).

      Here are some reasons why I think we can legitimately hate West Virginia now:
      - Large areas of it are run by the feudal lords known as "coal executives".
      - Many of the residents today are quite racist.
      - It's an area of the country that tolerates and even applauds ignorance.
      - It's an area that has been, by all appearances, deliberately held back in its progress by the aforementioned feudal lords.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    39. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Ya and North Carolina wouldn't join the new United States until a Bill of Rights was codified and accepted but that doesn't change the fact that now they're trying really hard to shit on the rights of some of their people now.

      One act of ethics and morals by people long since dead does not give a State's government free pass to be assholes over 200 years later.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    40. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Thank you!

      We even know, from the historical record, when the "It wasn't about slavery" revisionism started: late 1865. The major figure in starting that effort was Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, but several other prominent Confederates also were heavily involved in creating the Lost Cause mythology, which included that "not about slavery" lie. By 1890, "The War Between the States" or even "The War of Northern Aggression" was basically the standard version of the Civil War history in many areas of the country, despite the fact that nobody had used those terms during the war. It took until after the Civil Rights Movement for high school history textbooks to make it clear that African-Americans were in any way a significant factor in the war!

      The real story is this: A lot of people in the South took up arms to defend slavery. The slaveholder's motivations were obvious - they wanted to keep what they saw as their property, although their class didn't do all that much of the fighting. For some non-slaveholders, they were motivated by racism and the desire to maintain white supremacy (basically, thinking "I'm broke, my life's miserable, I'll never be like those plantation owners, but at least I'm not a n*****"). Some non-slaveholders were told lies and convinced that the Union was going to take all their property, not just the slaveholder's "property" (i.e. slaves). And some non-slaveholders fought for the Confederacy because they were drafted into the army by force. And some Southerners refused to serve in the Confederate Army and dodged the draft.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    41. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      ...unless you are pro-slavery, which some staunch modern Republicans apparently are if CPAC is any indication

      Citation needed.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    42. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another FYI I got a lot of nasty looks for daring to point out West Virginia was a northern state when I was growing up. Most of my mother's family still considers it part of the south.

      Depending on how you interpret the definitions, WV is the most northern of the southern states and most southern of the northern states since 'nothern' and 'southern' states were generally defined by the Mason-Dixon Line where the nothern panhandle protrudes north of. Delaware would take the stance if it had more longitudinal range but it falls between WV's bounds. There's also a lot of other political and economical reasons the state shifts between the two, not that any of this really maters for anything ;)

    43. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, go back to trolling girlintraining.

    44. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      My favorite illustrative example of racism in action during elections is in the neighboring Ohio:
      2006 election for governor: Ken Blackwell (Republican, black) versus Ted Strickland (Democrat, white). Blackwell gets 1.47 million votes and loses 36%-60%.
      2008 election for president: John McCain (Republican, white) versus Barack Obama (Democrat, black). McCain gets 2.68 million votes and loses 48%-51%.
      2010 election for governor: John Kasich (Republican, white) versus Ted Strickland (Democrat, white). Kasich gets 1.89 million votes and wins 49%-47%.
      2012 election for president: Mitt Romney (Republican, white) versus Barack Obama (Democrat, black). Romney gets 2.66 million votes and loses 48%-51%.

      Question: In 2006, what accounts for the sharply lower Republican vote? Yes, different years and the circumstances were a bit different. Yes, presidential politics is different than governor's races. Yes, the turnout was different. But the primary difference between Blackwell and Kasich, McCain, and Romney was race, not policies or political style or party, and that alone appears to have convinced something like 1/5 of Ohio's Republican-leaning voters to not vote.

      Also of interest: In 2006, black voters in Ohio overwhelmingly supported the white Democrat over the black Republican. This seems like a strong indication that the loyalty among black voters to the Democratic Party (mostly a legacy of Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) is greater than the loyalty to other black people. That's also why you didn't see huge numbers of black people voting for Herman Cain in Republican primaries.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    45. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup - that's why I basically ascribe zero loyalty to corporate brands (whether they be governments, companies, whatever). Decisions are made by people, and I might trust a person who makes good decisions to continue to make them, but I won't trust a company to do the same.

      When people say "how could the company that brought us ... end up doing ...?" they are failing to understand this principle. The reason the same company behaved in completely different ways was that completely different people made the decisions (usually).

      Likewise, we can applaud the Republicans of the 1800s who fought to end slavery without having to agree with the modern-day ones who have a completely different agenda. The two are not the same. Heck, I can vote for one Republican and vote against another in the same ballot.

      Decisions get made by people. Companies might have legal recognition as persons, but just because our government is dumb doesn't mean that you and I need to be - a promise made by a corporation should be considered as dependable as your ability to sue them when they break it. A promise made by a person should be weighed against that individual's character and history.

    46. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by oiron · · Score: 1

      In 1776, it was the law that the 13 colonies had to submit to King George.

      In Saudi Arabia, it's the law that an apostate from Islam is put to death.

      Somehow, neither of those seem to be very good arguments to me.

    47. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Citation provided, both with video of the most notable incident.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    48. Re:West Virginia is the butt... by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      I'm a staunch Republican. And I think we could agree that most of the people at CPAC are also staunch Republicans. And it is overwhelmingly clear, per that video, that the vast majority of staunch Republicans were appalled and outraged over the comments of one ridiculous lunatic. You don't think we should hold all Democrats to the views ridiculous lunatics within their ranks, do you?

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  11. Too Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not a legitimate reason to refuse request under FOIA.

    In fact, it's explicitly not a legitimate reason.

  12. They are waiting for a response from lawyers by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Funny

    They asked if "whiskey stills" can be considered internet routers. As soon as their lawyers sober up we should have an answer.

  13. Tough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Really.

  14. Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    West Virginian here. It is very embarrassing. Unless you live a couple miles away from the interstate, good luck on finding an ISP delivering more than 5 megabits down, if that. If you're one of the lucky ones, 25Mb is the high-falutin', rip-roarin', dad-gum best it gets. My cell phone often gets faster speeds than my cable connection, and your choices there are Comcast, Suddenlink, or Frontier. Huntington was in the running for Google Fiber, and had we won, it could have sparked a sort of a renaissance in this area. But instead we were too afraid of change, too paranoid of the future, too lazy to make a difference.

    Thanks for running this story. Maybe lighting a fire under their ass will encourage them to lay down some fiber. At least I wouldn't have to worry about the internet going out because some methhead is stealing copper down the street.

    1. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      I lived 1 mile from a CO in a major city in NY and could only get 2.4Mbps (down from 4 Mbps) when I had to be switched to a different line after the first one went bad. Join the club WV.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I live 100m from 100Mb Utopia (that's a city government run isp in Utah) but can't access it because my apartment complex signed a deal with Comcast. So comcast doesn't have to do shit and the best I can get is their oversold crap that still buffers You Tube in 2013. So Private Enterprise Government.

    3. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee I guess Slashdot eats text. That should have read "private enterprise (the symbol for less than) government."

    4. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Im an hour north of nyc and i am billed at 50/15, top tier is 75/30 but i get regularly between 40/15 with peaks of 60/20 I dont understand why i have better upload speed around here when most i know with the same DL have way lower UL but the speeds are just fine where we are

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived 1 mile from a CO in a major city in NY and could only get 2.4Mbps (down from 4 Mbps) when I had to be switched to a different line after the first one went bad. Join the club WV.

      Wow. We got better lines in the Alps.

    6. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      It's not the distance you are from the CO it's the length of the wire from your place to the CO. There's nothing to say that it takes a straight line.

    7. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pretty much just described Pennsylvania.

    8. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Just because it isn't copper doesn't mean it won't be stolen. I've seen bead necklaces being sold with the string made out of... you guessed it: optic fiber.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    9. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe lighting a fire under their ass will encourage them to lay down some fiber.

      If you want it, then lay it down yourself. I have no problem with West Virginia and other isolated places not having state of the art in internet connectivity.

    10. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      In my case it did since there was an old railroad right of way nearby that was used for the trunk lines and it was almost a direct shot to the CO.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    11. Re:Yeah, pretty much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see internet speeds across the board go up. I live in Alaska, and there's locations here that the only options you have are Dial-up, or Satellite. If you live in a larger city, you may be able to see decent speeds, but even then, it's questionable. Where I live, DSL lines don't go over 3Mb. I have a cable connection, but their fastest available speed is 22Mb, and you'll pay a hansome fee to get that speed. But if you live in the areas where I work, If your lucky enough to live in an area that can get broadband, Your limited to less than 1Mb. Cell coverage is incomplete, even on the main highways you drop signal, and if your not in one of the major cities, Broadband cell coverage doesn't exist.

  15. embarrassing? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I won't be embarrassing for long because they'll feel different emotions after getting fired.

    1. Re:embarrassing? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      The problem is if you elect the other guy, your two nephews will be getting married to each other.

      (I was trying to figure out how to get a family joke and a conservative joke in the same post.)

  16. This was obvious from the start by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the federal government was going to bring broadband to West Virginia, they should have gone in and installed it. Handing money to a Red State government for technology is like handing the remote control to your dog.

    Come to think of it, I'd expect more from the dog.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:This was obvious from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ummm...WV is pretty much a blue state. Dem governor, heavy labor influence, elected Robert Byrd to US House forever (Speaker)

    2. Re:This was obvious from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handing anything to a red state government is like throwing it away. They'll just make right wing tea party garbage out of whatever it is, especially if it's something that might actually work and help real people.

    3. Re:This was obvious from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's NYPD's database project going these days? How many hundreds of millions spent?

      Blue states don't exactly have the best technology record either, so before throwing stones, perhaps you should get your own houses in order.

    4. Re:This was obvious from the start by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      Except West Virginia is NOT a Red State. Their Governor is a Democrat. As is their Leutenant Governor. And both US Senators. The late Robert Byrd (D) was their Senator for almost 50 years. Polemic hyper-partisan rants should still be based loosely on fact.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    5. Re:This was obvious from the start by hyades1 · · Score: 1
      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:This was obvious from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Democrats in West Virginia are at the state level, and run by not being "National Democrats" as Manchin's election strategy would tell you.

      But no, Robert Byrd wasn't Speaker, and was only in the House for 6 years, 1953-59. And his first Senate Election? He won because he opposed Civil Rights reform, while his Republican opponent had supported it.

    7. Re:This was obvious from the start by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Your knowledge saved me a lot of scrambling around for half-remembered facts.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:This was obvious from the start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NYPD? That's a Conservative organization if ever I heard of any.

      They're not an example of a liberal group that represents anything about "Blue states" as the only thing they have to do with such politics is being a state that happens to be considered blue.

  17. WeVi is North America's NoKo by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    I was looking for a new state to settle down and West Virginia's wireless coverage maps looked like that nighttime photo of North Korea. I took that to be representative of their communications infrastructure and eliminated WV from my list.

    1. Re:WeVi is North America's NoKo by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      >> West Virginia's wireless coverage maps looked like that nighttime photo of North Korea.

      That alone is enough to make me move there (it is actually quite beautiful in the mountains as well).

      Also, there is a fairly large RF quiet zone surrounding Greenbriar Radio Telescope.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    2. Re:WeVi is North America's NoKo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me know when you move there... I can take over your ID and carry on your legacy here.

  18. Better to be called by doginthewoods · · Score: 0

    West Virginia, then South Ohio...

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  19. Re:Even more embarrassing: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're related to possums?

  20. I don't like subjects by T-ice · · Score: 1

    Love it! 126 million, and last time I was still topped out at 25kbps....

  21. There were few slaves there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any part of the Appalachians had few slaves. The slave economy only made sense down on the flats. Mountain people tended to have smaller farms and a more subsistence agriculture as opposed to large commercial operations.

    The mountain regions of other Southern states came along for the ride in name only. Some of these areas are so remote that it just wasn't worth bothering. These are the kinds of places where they grow pot, and before that it was moonshine. If a boy wanted to fight, he came down out of the hills. I doubt they came up to get them.

  22. Did a great job taking it and wasting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They did a great job of taking millions of dollars of people's private property, then wasting it, didn't they. I guess if by "protect" you mean "take away and throw away" ...

  23. FOIA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please correct me if I am wrong ...

    If anyone file an FOIA request for some document, the authority has to comply ... except when the information released can lead to national security, or do harm to someone's life (like name of spy, or something)

    That is why the authority retains the right to redact the documents they release

    If W.V. decides to NOT release anything on the ground of it's "embarrassing" (or even as the GP has stated, "incriminating"), then they (the W.V. government) is in direct violation of the FOIA act.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:FOIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      FOIA pertains to federal government. Each state generally has their own versions of it or other "sunshine" laws. This is a document that really should end up on Wikileaks.

    2. Re:FOIA by headwes · · Score: 5, Informative
      The FOIA that we all know and love is a federal law that applies to federal agencies. West Virginia, like most states, has their own public records law that applies to their state agencies which you'll need to read to know whether they're in violation. Maybe they're claiming exemption #13:

      (13) Computing, telecommunications and network security records, passwords, security codes or programs used to respond to or plan against acts of terrorism which may be the subject of a terrorist act;

    3. Re:FOIA by GNious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Releasing it might put Government Officials and Elected Representatives' lives at risk.....when the general population see how poorly they've handled things.

    4. Re:FOIA by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      FOIA's have no teeth or enforcement to ensure gov't complies. There are more outs from having to release information than there are requirements to provide it.

  24. Re: "blow up his phone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this even mean?

    Where did "blow up [a] phone" come from?

  25. Re:Not that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thread you're looking for is a couple of stories over...

  26. That's what FOIA is for by Grashnak · · Score: 2

    Jesus Christ... That's exactly the purpose of the freedom of information movement - to ensure that public institutions that do stupid or embarrassing things have to account for them publicly.

    It's like refusing to investigate a crime because you might uncover someone's criminal activity...

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:That's what FOIA is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is what the 5th amendment is for!!!

  27. Re: "blow up his phone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I figured it meant an avalanche of journalists calling with such an intensity that the phone explodes. I like the expression.

  28. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I suspect it's going to be a lot more embarrassing when a lawsuit forces WV to release the report, at which point we'll also have a good idea of who was actively trying to suppress it in the first place.

  29. Federal FOIA request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I can't speak to the West Virginia FOIA laws, I know that during FOIA training for Federal Government employees we are specifically told that, although there are some justafiable reasons for withholding information, "embarrassment" (or even "incrimination") are not amongst them.

  30. Lazy journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm kinda tired of seeing the 22k figure throw around and being called the cost of the routers, which implies that the state paid 22k for just a router. They is pretty lazy journalism.

    The routers themselves did not cost 22k each. The cost of buying all 1,064 routers and installing them came out to be 24 million but that does not mean that each router costs 22k. It cost 22k per router to buy it, to pay techs to install it, to pay for gas to transport techs to install it, and no doubt to pay Verizon some middle-man cut.

    Keep in mind that these were installed across the state. So more likely than not, the overtime and gas to transport all the techs all over the state was a huge expense. It's not as though the state gave Verizon 24 million dollars and then Verizon dumped a few pallets of Cisco routers on the state's doorstep.

    Was it a wise choice? No. But it's also not wise to completely ignore the huge logistical undertaking involved in installing routers across an entire state. A project like that would have still cost millions and millions of dollars regardless of the simple cost of the router.

    1. Re:Lazy journalism by scotts13 · · Score: 1

      The routers themselves did not cost 22k each. The cost of buying all 1,064 routers and installing them came out to be 24 million but that does not mean that each router costs 22k. It cost 22k per router to buy it, to pay techs to install it, to pay for gas to transport techs to install it, and no doubt to pay Verizon some middle-man cut.

      In other words, the routers, as installed, were $22k.

    2. Re:Lazy journalism by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I'll buy the "millions" across the state, but more like 2 or 3, not 24.

      $2000 with installation, yes. $5000, maybe. $22,000, you'd have to be installing ever single one of them in a separate building on top of a tower in an otherwise inaccessible location in WV, along with setting up the entire networking system and backhaul grid. For $22,000, you can buy an exceptionally nice, industrial quality router an still pay a technician for a month to install it. One router.

      Clearly, somebody made some epically bad decisions and they are covering up the massive fuck-up and waste of federal money.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Lazy journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "other words" you mean words that completely ignore the monumental task of installing and maintaining (I forgot to mention that the state contract also covers future maintenance of the devices) equipment in more than one thousand buildings across a state then yes, those words. According to some quick googling, Cisco 3945 routers appear to sell for between 4.5k and 10k, not 22k.

  31. Re:W. VIRGINIA !! SO SHITTY VIRGINA DISOWNED IT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, West Virginia disowned Virginia. WV broke away from Virginia during the Civil War because the people of WV did not support slavery.

  32. Yeeeeah, no. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that's not a valid FOIA exception...

    I imagine that, eventually, someone's gonna swing for this mess. Denying a FOIA request isn't going to change that. ;)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  33. Embarrassing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh come now, West Virginia - it's a little late to start worrying about being an embarrassment...

  34. Re:Typo in summary (wrong typo) by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 1

    I found a different typo: delete the words "won't release broadband report because it" and you have the correct summary.

  35. Re: "blow up his phone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this even mean?

    Where did "blow up [a] phone" come from?

    You've really never heard that expression? What are you 80?

  36. Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't "it might be embarrassing" one of the main reasons FOIA requests exist? Seriously, if they aren't doing anything illegal or embarrassingly stupid, there would be no/little need for FIOA requests. Their refusal to disclose the information sound quite illegal in this case.

  37. Re: "blow up his phone" by steveg · · Score: 1

    I've never heard it. <shrug>

    I haven't hit 60 yet.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  38. Oh is that all? by TheRealDevTrash · · Score: 0

    Well then just carry on then.

    --
    I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.
  39. FOIA in WV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    File a FOIA request for the salaries of each city employee in your city and see how they handle a FOIA request. They will either produce tons of paper and not give the answer or tell you are not entitled to the information then you must come up with the money to fight it in court. Is the legal system working?

  40. Re: "blow up his phone" by v1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the term is only familiar in retail and customer service? When a customer or client makes repeated, urgent (to them) phone calls to you in rapid succession, it's referred to as "blowing up your phone". Or, if you are the one answering the phone at the IT help desk when the internet connection goes down, your phone WILL get blown up. As in, never stops ringing, rings again the instant you hang up, etc.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  41. is it really possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to have too much broadband? might as well argue that a state has too much highway

  42. Re: "blow up his phone" by steveg · · Score: 1

    That could be. The term does sound evocative, but I don't work in a very phone oriented position, so I may not have been exposed to it.

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.