Slashdot Mirror
A State-By-State Guide To Restrictive Community Broadband Laws
blottsie writes On Tuesday, President Obama will unveil a dramatic push to improve broadband Internet service for people around the country through community-built municipal broadband networks. Problem is, state legislatures around the country have passed laws making it considerably more difficult for these public Internet projects to get off the ground. In some states, building municipal broadband is prohibited altogether. This piece dives into the state laws standing between us and more competitive Internet service markets.
>> deep-pocketed government entities from undercutting a private sector unable to keep up
Funniest thing I read all day.
It means you'd have to get a majority of your neighbors to vote for internet, and in the deep south that kind of collectivism just isn't going to happen except in one of them there big liberal cities, and the big cities have probably already signed exclusive contracts with the cable company.
These laws have been passed because certain municipalities have been able to successfully cover the cost and maintenance of their own networks.
On one hand, free access to information is arguably a fundamental right. The simple fact is, our governments are moving more and more towards online services. It's more painful, for example, in my state, to attempt to set up an appointment at the DMV via phone, than it is to click a few buttons on a web form. (And heaven forfend you simply show up without an appointment - hope you have a week of vacation saved up. I'm only slightly exaggerating.)
On the other hand, the Federal government has no mandate, nor any business whatsoever, backing public Internet access projects. This is solely within the domain of the powers of individual states.
On that third mutated hand, a man in a funny hat named Lincoln bitchslapped the sovereign power of states (admittedly, for perhaps worthy goals) with extreme prejudice, so screw that noise - grind the states and municipalities into dust if they want to suck the phallus of monopolizing providers.
Laws prohibiting municipal broadband are entirely anti-city. In a country where politics is such that cities are routinely decried (while ironically states redistribute their tax revenues to rural areas and suburbs), I think it is time to frame broadband rights as a freedom from government for cities.
Cities should be allowed to be more independent from the states that hold them. They should not be stripped of the competitive advantages that localized economies of scale provide. They should be allowed to offer their own utilities, to toll the interstates that cut through them, and they shouldn't have to pay a gasoline tax that largely serves rural interests, and above all, part of that independence should be to allow them to offer broadband.
This is my sig.
I'm going to ask a question and risk downmod: I wonder how many saying, "Right on!" over that are bent out of shape over laws forbidding another competitor who doesn't have to play by the rules: local government, a "company" with the power to tax, and make you pay for the service whether you want it or not.
Let's see, shall we?
Wilson, NC built its network because there was no high speed internet available to local businesses. The existing provider refused to work with Wilson to move them to something faster. So, they built their own.
So, Wilson, NC now has fiber to the home. And, it is cheaper than the crappy service they had before.
You can't refuse to provide service to a community and then whine when they decide to serve themselves.
The legislature later passed ridiculous restrictions on community broadband. Wilson is grandfathered for the most part.
educate yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
then form an opinion
do you honestly believe that if government wasn't there the big guys would fade away? with weak government, the power vacuum is filled even more by plutocrats. they *want* a weak government. without government you think monopolies don't or won't exist? less government means less *regulation*, they gobble up more, you get less choice buddy. and you get less legal recourse from being shafted
what you want, if you follow through on the coherent thought, is less corruption, not a weaker government that is even yet more beholden to money. not possible? study the laws on corruption in the nordic countries, you know, those evil socialist horrors that are actually richer, happier, and more upwardly mobile meritocracies than the usa pretends it is, but is rapidly losing with a shrinking middle class and corrupt congresswhores beholden to the financial powers that less government unleashes even more
good luck kid escaping the bullshit mythology
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And 99.9% of that 82% are likely within a larger metroplitan area........
I also pulled this from your link.... "Given that approximately 96% of the population has at most two wireline providers, there are reasons to be concerned about wireline broadband competition in the United States."
(I've told this story on here before but it needs re-telling....)
I moved to a rural NC area about 10-12 years ago and desired to start a computer shop but soon discovered that dial-up was all that was available. At that time satellite was prohibitively expensive for my meager funds and not that much faster. I heard about the state legislature enacting a new "E-NC" initiative to facilitate rural connectivity and with a cell tower only a few hundred yards across a field from me I decided maybe I could try a wireless internet service venture instead. I found a contact number and had a very interesting conversation with the director of the E-NC initiative at that time....
I explained my situation and idea to him and asked about the possibility of getting funding to try a start-up to service my local areas internet needs. He told me that they had exhausted the funds set aside on 3 projects already. They had researched each proposed area, contacted the local phone/cable companies and verified that they had no plans of pursuing high-speed internet options in the area, and then released the funds for the start-ups. As soon as the funds were released the phone companies suddenly announced they would begin DSL service in 2 of the areas, effectively killing those start-ups. In both cases it was Sprint(later to become Embarq) who pulled the shenanigans. Of course, they also controlled the area I lived in. We didn't get a DSL option for another 6-7 years when the 3g wireless options came around and finally made them move.....
Big money/corporations are(generally) evil...... jus' sayin'........
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11