Slashdot Mirror


The Farmer Who Built Her Own Broadband (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a BBC article: "I'm just a farmer's wife," says Christine Conder, modestly. But for 2,300 members of the rural communities of Lancashire she is also a revolutionary internet pioneer. Her DIY solution to a neighbour's internet connectivity problems in 2009 has evolved into B4RN, an internet service provider offering fast one gigabit per second broadband speeds to the parishes which nestle in the picturesque Lune Valley. That is 35 times faster than the 28.9 Mbps average UK speed internet connection according to Ofcom. It all began when the trees which separated Chris's neighbouring farm from its nearest wireless mast -- their only connection to the internet, provided by Lancaster University -- grew too tall. Something more robust was required, and no alternatives were available in the area, so Chris decided to take matters into her own hands. She purchased a kilometre of fibre-optic cable and commandeered her farm tractor to dig a trench. After lighting the cable, the two farms were connected, with hers feeding the one behind the trees. "We dug it ourselves and we lit [the cable] ourselves and we proved that ordinary people could do it," she says. "It wasn't rocket science. It was three days of hard work."

6 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And if you tried this in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    So your saying Tennessee Republican attorney general Herbert H. Slatery III didnt sue the FCC over the ruling that allowed local internet service providers?

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/technology/tennessee-fcc-internet/

    Or that states dont have laws preventing local internet service providers?

    https://consumerist.com/2016/08/10/appeals-court-municipal-internet-is-great-but-states-can-still-restrict-access/

  2. Free enterprise used to be legal in 1910 by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the Twentieth Century Magazine, Vol II, 1910

    CO-OPERATIVE VERSUS COMPETITIVE TELEPHONES

    A VALUED friend, Mr. Arthur E. Harris, of Boston, has kindly given us the following impressive illustration of the difference between a public utility controlled by a modern commercial corporation, and the same monopoly under co-operation. In the one instance we have avarice as the master spirit actuating the promoters, huge dividends for the favored few and poor service for the people being the result. In the other case we have a fine illustration of fraternalism in business, in which the interest and benefit of the people is the first concernâ€"something that should ever be insisted upon in a government that pretends to represent the rule and interests of the people.

    "Some twelve or more years ago," says Mr. Harris, "in the town of Mercer, Maine, where I was born, and where my father still lives, a telephone system was installed among the farmers as a branch of the New England Telephone Company. Stock was sold and the rent for an instrument and the use of the line was fixed at $10 per year.

    "Several of our neighbors bought some of the stock and took great delight in boasting to the less fortunate in the neighborhood that it was paying 18 per cent dividends.

    "But they were not satisfied with making that profit by the exploitation of their neighbors and began to talk of raising the rental fee.

    "The promoter, a man from an adjoining town who had the line put in and who was a member of the trust, was overheard to say: 'We've got to get this up to $15 before we quit.' ' But,' he was asked, 'will the people stand for it?' 'Of course they will. They like it and can't get along without it. We've got themâ€"now squeeze them.'

    "Well, in the country money does not come easily and some, including my father, felt that they could not afford to pay any more, much as they wanted to keep the telephones.

    "They talked it over and an indignation meeting was called.

    "There were two Socialists present, who organized the farmers and put in an independent line upon a Socialist basis - for use, not for profits.

    "Each member contributed $25 in money, material or labor, and received an instrument which he owned, and was entited to one vote at all business meetings.

    "This amount ($25) from each member of the organization paid all the expense of putting in the new line and left something in the treasury. It was a success in every way and has been running about ten years and costs less than $2 per member each year to maintain it.

    "They bought instruments that were much better than those put in by the trust - in fact, two-fifths better.

    "In the place of six, as with the trust line, 20 could now talk without the use of the switch, and could hear better than the six could with the trust line because of the superiority of the instruments.

    "There are no restrictions upon its use and all are satisfied and contented; whereas with the trust line they were kept in a state of irritation by the mean acts of the managers, who were always on the watch for every penny they could grind out. If company - a visitor or a friend - was heard talking, the question promptly came from central 'Who's that talking?' 'Well, collect ten cents.' Their methods and purpose were like those of all big corporations and trusts - their motto, 'First profits, last use'; or, in other words, the maximum profits for the minimum service.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=v0fZAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PR4&ots=puFXQk-1BD&dq=twentieth%20century%20magazine%201910%20competitive%20telephones&pg=PA364#v=onepage&q&f=true

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  3. Re:And if you tried this in America by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Informative

    You would be arrested and thrown in jail for endangering the livelihood of some mega corp.

    Correct, this could never happen in the US. Definitely, never in a million years.

    Or, you could JFDI.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. Re:Where's a telco when you need one? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Have you actually read the Canadian Supreme Court decision against Schmeiser? It's a complete repudiation of all of Monsanto's claims except for their claim of patent ownership of the seed. And that claim was later disproven.
    • The lower court judgement against Schmeiser was reduced to just $1. Why? Because (and the Monsanto apologists never tell you this) Schmeiser never used Round-Up on his crops. He only used Round-Up to kill weeds in the gulleys between his crops and the road. Never on his crops. As such, there was no way for him to benefit from using Monsanto's patented gene (and in fact no incentive for him to steal it).
    • He "acquired" the seed when he noticed that some stray canola which was growing in the gulleys survived his anti-weed spraying of Round-Up. Since his canola crop was not Round-Up-Ready, the only way the Round-Up-resistant canola could've gotten there is by falling off a passing truck (the explanation the Court decided was correct), or via natural cross-pollination of his crop with a neighbor's Round-Up-Ready crop (the explanation Schmeiser gave for his behavior).
    • The Court decided for Monsanto (5 to 4) because Monsanto claimed it was impossible for the gene to spread by natural cross-pollination as Schmeiser claimed. The Court took Monsanto at their word and decided in their favor because Schmeiser "ought to have known" that any canola which survived spraying with Round-Up was Monsanto's patented seed, not the result of natural cross-pollination.
    • Monsanto's argument was disproven a decade later when researchers found the Round-Up-Ready gene could spread to weeds via cross-pollination. Basically, Schmeiser was right and Monsanto was wrong. The gene could spread through cross-pollination, meaning the Round-Up resistant canola he found next to his fields may very well have been the result of natural cross-pollination, and not Monsanto's patented seed. And the only reason the Canadian Supreme Court decided in Monsanto's favor was erroneous.
  5. Re:And if you tried this in America by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    In this case note that they had to connect a local university network. The main broadband providers in the UK, basically BT and in some areas Virgin, won't supply service to people who lay their own fibre. I know because I asked. Their green boxes, where their fibre terminates and they go back to shitty old copper, are fairly close to my house. Even if I lay in fibre to the cabinet myself, they won't allow it to be connected.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. Re:And if you tried this in America by Bigbutt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now now, this is all Main Stream Media and fake news. Got anything from breitbart or infowars? :-/

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!