Slashdot Mirror
Louisville's Fiber Internet Expansion Opposed By Koch Brothers Group (usatoday.com)
Slashdot reader simkel shared an article from the Courier-Journal:
A group affiliated with the Koch brothers' powerful political network is leading an online campaign against Mayor Greg Fischer's $5.4 million proposal to expand Louisville's ultra-fast internet access... Critics argue that building roughly 96 miles of fiber optic cabling is an unnecessary taxpayer giveaway to internet service providers, such as Google Fiber, which recently announced plans to begin building its high-speed network in the city. "Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems," said David Williams, president of the taxpayers alliance, which is part of industrialists Charles and David Koch's political donor network... The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
But money will talk and the Koch Brothers will 'own' another bit of the USA.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
We've seen how well private industry does it. In the places where taxpayers fund the internet, you get gigabit speeds at rates around a quarter of what private industry offers for any internet service at all. Private industry might complain that it isn't "fair", but private industry won't step up and do it, either. And if life were "fair", you'd die penniless in the gutter after spending a lifetime enriching yourself by destroying the planet. So I'm not going to worry about that too much.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...I think most people here on /. agree that fast internet access *is* vital infrastructure. We may disagree on how best to pay for this, of course, but it's essential.
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems
What a stupid fucking asshole. We're struggling to keep our business afloat because neither of our two ISP's (TWC and AT&T) can provide us with stable Internet connections at one of our locations. Everybody needs government funded, government regulated Internet access ASAP.
I don't respond to AC's.
Kentukywired intends to wire the whole state. The Kochs have strategically chosen to pick this fight in Louisville, a classic (D) run bed of corruption.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Fiberoptic is infrastructure.
If the city owns the fiber then they can rent it out to which ever operator that is interested in that area. Even two competing operators.
The ones complaining the most about towns and cities running their own fibers are the ones that want to control the consumers the most.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I saw on Youtube when my local power company was working to get the law changed so they wouldn't have to pay for the extra power solar installations put back into the grid. It was a bunch of old people sitting around talking about something scary that was gonna happen and it ended with "Vote No on Prop such and such". The law passed, no problem
The gov't's been paying for expanding broadband for decades. The Koch bros own companies continue to suck up subsidies left and right. They couldn't be any more transparently hypocritical if they tried. But old people vote. They're easily frightened because they're brains go in old age and this stuff works.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And treating it as such is the only way to get decent competition among ISPs.
"Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,"
Translation: Fundamentally, instead you should let us rake hundreds of millions per year from these same taxpayers with our inferior service.
Ang that for those lucky enough to get anything reasonable at all.
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
What we can do though, is to work to roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Unfortunately that means we have to play their game, form our own legal entities to do the speaking, to push for that change, and as we've seen they're a lot better than we are at organizing these kinds of things.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that aren't them.
Hah, you make a fine point but unfortunately we can see that the Internet is a utility, whether or not law treats it this way. The internet is not long just a thing that can be had or not had, it has become as much a part of society as electricity is. Much of what someone does from day to day, be it work or otherwise depends on good internet access. You can't buy food unless those local businesss have an affordable (read, not a significant portion of their monthly expenditures) internet connection that allows fast transactions. Not just so you can swipe a card but so the store can account for inventory (it's true cash can be used but as you I'm sure know we don't have enough paper notes for everyone to use cash as their primary spending method). Lots of philosophical conversation can be had beyond this sure but let's keep things focused on what is reality vs what we as a society might be.
Now that infrastructure should not be given away but access could be granted in exchange for either steep discounts or perhaps a munisciple broadband offering.
Or, because the infrastructure belongs to the public, we can then dictate rates to the businesses. Meaning each Mb/s costs a certain amount per month (note I'm referring to rate, not an additive sum). This would allow a competitor to offer more than just access, maybe offering adblocking or offering opendns as the default dns so malware could go away.
They could even take the approach that was originally required for DSL, where you pay one entity for the physical infrastructure usage, and pay a different entity for the final connection to the backbone of the Internet.
With modern routing you could even do it without having to result to changing physical patching, assuming that equipment used at the customer premises and at the network-equivalent of the neighborhood exchange or central office is capable of sub-line-rate service to the level that the customer is paying for and that the backbone linking NX or CO locations is sufficiently high-throughput.
If anything this approach would allow for more players, not fewer players, as providers would only have to cable-in infrastructure to the central offices instead of worrying about the last-mile links. This could allow for less expensive private WANs between multiple facilities within the metro-area; the customer with multiple locations could pay for their own private metro optical MLPS network without having to to onto the Internet for simple site-to-site networks.
Lastly it might make it easier for customers in less-desirable areas from a service-provider point of view to actually get service. This can affect both poor neighborhoods where an ISP might not expect enough adoption, and even some wealthier neighborhoods where the housing density is too low to make for a good return on the trenching or other infrastructure requirements to put the network in even if a lot of households want it.
I don't see any losing proposition except for ISPs that want monopoly or effective-monopoly positions in markets.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In New Zealand, the government (in conjunction with a private company Chorus) is putting in Fibre to something like 90% of the population and high speed wireless elsewhere.
ALL ISPs get to rent it out at the same price.
We have tiers in pricing based on speed and data caps but a 100/20 is available with unlimited data for NZ$95 or less.
Different ISPs offer different packages, i.e. free Netflix, Cheaper SkyTV, Local support, etc etc etc
We have net neutrality, data is data no matter where it comes from.
Here's the thing, the government is elected by the people, for the people. The taxes we pay SHOULD be benefiting us so the government putting in decent internet in this day and age IS what they are there for.
"And what was it that happened to the inventor of the guillotine again?" - He survived!
Rather appropriate since according to Wikipedia "Guillotin was opposed to the death penalty and hoped that a more humane and less painful method of execution would be the first step toward a total abolition of the death penalty". However someone else with the same surname was executed by a guillotine.
Joseph-Ignace Guillotin
...
Towards the end of the Reign of Terror, a letter from the Comte de Méré to Guillotin fell into the hands of the public prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville in which the Count, who was to be executed, commended his wife and children to Guillotin's care. The authorities demanded Guillotin inform them of the whereabouts of the Count's wife and children. As Guillotin either would not or could not give the information, he was arrested and imprisoned. He was freed from prison in the general amnesty of 9 Thermidor 1794 after Robespierre fell from power and abandoned his political career to resume the medical profession.
...
The association with the guillotine so embarrassed Dr. Guillotin's family that they petitioned the French government to rename it; when the government refused, they instead changed their own family name. By coincidence, a person named Guillotin was indeed executed by the guillotine – he was J.M.V. Guillotin, a doctor of Lyons. This coincidence may have contributed to erroneous statements that Guillotin was put to death on the machine that bears his name; however, in reality, Guillotin died at home in Paris in 1814 of natural causes, specifically from a carbuncle, and is now buried in the Père-Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.
...
It's certainly possible for a project to go wrong, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It means there needs to be better support for small munipalities to do it well. From an interesting article about how it works in Wisconsin:
The Village of Jackson, she said, also sold its system for pennies on the dollar because it did not keep up with the advances in the technology required for the utility; in short, the system was nearly obsolete within five years.
>The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds
Louisville is apparently 3/4 of a million people, so this comes to seven dollars per person. Surely less than 1% of anybody's property taxes. Louisville undoubtedly spends that on road maintenance every couple of weeks.
But that's just operating, this is capital. If they're spending less than $54M replacing pavement and wires and pipes every year, the city would be a shambles. This is probably about a 2% hit on one year of capital spending.
...roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Here's why you will fail:
We're not going to let the government ban books.
The Constitution doesn't reserve free speech for particular people. It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".
These bastards must hate the environment, as much as they oppose any regulation to protect it. I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to spew idiocy in defense of the Koch Brothers. Now they want to oppose efforts to improve infrastructure in Louisville. At what point do we decide that these people are just evil and seize their assets for the public good?
If you are OK with the cable monopolies that exist in many cities, then you have a point because this is set up basically the same. Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that. I don't know of any cases where a company is such a position has been displaced. Or maybe you saw 'Koch' and decided your position based solely on that?
So, by this logic, building highways and city streets was just the government giving away taxpayer dollars as a gift to the likes of Ford, Chrysler and GM?
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
The Koch Brothers opposed Donald Trump and opposed Obama. Their track record of buying election isn't so good. There are many many examples of the best funded candidate losing. Perhaps the voters are not as dumb as you think they are.
It means there needs to be better support for small munipalities to do it well.
Or more generally:
The Ayn Randians have defined the debate about government involvement for the last 40 years. They've made it about small government versus big government. But that's a misdirection. What really matters is good governance versus bad governance It turns out that one of the surest ways to get bad governance is to capriciously hamstring government. "Starve the beast" is a surefire recipe for ineffective and often counterproductive government.
Actually all along the Colorado front range, a number of localities have put in fiber, and then have a companies bid on managing the fiber for 5-10 year contracts. As to isps hooking up, they will allow a number of them and they just compete on service.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem with Citizens United, and the claimed free speech rights, is that corporations are a special legal case. Corporations are not people, they are an artificial legal construct which provides special privileges to an organization of people - tax and liability benefits, mostly.
There should be no issue with laws restricting corporate speech. Such laws don't remove any right to free speech. People can still speak collectively, just without the special benefits given to corporations. To answer your specific claim, "It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech," I'll note that the Constitution also doesn't mention corporations at all, so they have no right to exist. The law which allows them to be created simply needs to say that speech is not an allowed purpose of a corporation. Organizations of people can then make their choice - free speech rights, or the legal benefits of incorporation. The Declaration of Independence wasn't published by a corporation. As I said, they're entirely a figment of the law, and there's no reason they should have any rights at all, only the privileges and benefits defined by law.
And yes, the above includes for-profit media.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You might catch a break. It's Sunday night. SuperKendall won't be able to concentrate on typing because that's when he tunes in to one of those "special" websites to watch Koch videos.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,
MhmmmKay. Let's whip that around a bit, shall we?
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding fire departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding police departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Public water & sewer systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Hospital systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding streets and highways,
Because, fundamentally, internet access isn't about browsing porn anymore. It's about scheduling medical appointments, getting prescription refills, it's about having a job, or looking for a job. It's about paying your bills, taxes, and doing your banking. It's about ordering things on line you simply can't get at your local brick and mortar store even if you wanted to take the trouble.
Because, fundamentally, if a person doesn't understand how all pervasive and simply necessary internet access is, they are either planning to rip off the public, or they are thinking with their fundament.
Fundamentally.
You can discern the hypocrisy in their statement by observing how fast they get on board if it's building (with tax dollars!) a billion dollar sports stadium or for a multi-billion dollar air port expansion, or a new freeway. Better watch out then, because they will leave hoof prints (like all jack asses do) across your back.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that the Koch Brothers don't own or have invested interest in.
Infrastructure spending supports companies and individuals as well. Your highway which Walmart uses to ship their products is the same highway that you use to commute to work. Upgrading to fiber will have a net improvement for the community. The big companies will benefit from it, also the individuals.
Unfortunately there are too many groups who wants the government out of everything, doesn't see the big picture, where infrastructure which is expensive, has a low profit margin to build. Needs government support to keep it running and operational, as it is one of the few things that really will pay for itself over time.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Koch brothers also didn't spend a single penny in 2016. After Trump won the primary they stopped all spending because they felt it would not be a worthwhile investment.
This tells you a few things:
1) They normally get a good return on their investment -they wouldn't usually spend money if they didn't
2) You can't use the 2016 election as a measure of how much their money influences outcomes since it wasn't a factor - while it was a big factor in 2000 and 2004 (both of which the democrats lost).
More importantly - while they may have limited impact on the whitehouse (an assertion you haven't proven but which is at least conceivable) their influence on congress is significantly stronger, and that pales in comparison to their influence on state legislatures - indeed the vast majority of bills passed by republican state legislatures are actually written BY THEM (through their pet bill writing organisation known as ALEC).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *