Slashdot Mirror
Rural America Is Building Its Own Internet Because No One Else Will (vice.com)
New submitter bumblebaetuna writes: In many cases, it's not financially viable for big internet service providers like Comcast and CharterSpectrum to expand into rural communities: They're not densely populated, and running fiber optic cable into rocky Appalachian soil isn't cheap. Even with federal grants designed to make these expansions more affordable, there are hundreds of communities across the US that are essentially internet deserts -- so many are building it themselves. But in true heartland, bootstrap fashion, these towns, hollows -- small rural communities located in the valleys between Appalachia hills -- and stretches of farmland have banded together to bring internet to their doors. They cobble together innovative and creative solutions to get around the financial, technological, and topological barriers to widespread internet.
Rural communities helping themselves? Not to be allowed in todays Corporate America.
Yet another reason to support smaller government whenever possible, and not allow a centralized monster to take over that can be controlled by any remote faction of people...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe if they had reliable internet they'd be more educated and exposed to the outside world and possibly not vote for Trump in the first place.
We're going go build our own Internet, with blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the blackjack!
#DeleteFacebook
Internet access should be treated like a utility. Everybody in the US should have access to affordable, reliable Internet access.
If the red state rubes want to keep voting against their best interests, then fuck 'em. Let them pay for their own Internet access.
I don't respond to AC's.
The implication is that Clinton would have been different. She wouldn't have been, and would probably be worse, since her entire political career was made on the backs of Corporate and International Cronyism. Google "Clinton Foundation pay to play"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Better than having access to that Rachel Maddow twat-waffle, or thinking that John Oliver is a real journalist.
If two are equally corrupt (assuming that's the case), I'd prefer the competent one who has a history of at least getting positive laws passed.
Even if you agree with Trump's platform, his ability to actually bring forth any progress on implementing it has been...disastrous.
Clinton at least acknowledged that some of the industries in question (ie. coal) were dying, and that the Federal government should do more to assist in economic diversification. Trump just told a bunch of people he'd somehow magically make it 1950 again.
Now of course a lot of that would be up to Congress, and maybe Congress wouldn't have been interested in any economic diversification and job retraining that a Clinton Administration wanted to put into action, but then again, it's not as if Congress is showing very much interest in helping out Trump, so maybe you're right, maybe it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference, but at least Clinton showed some reason and realization of the economic reality of areas like the Appalachians.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Corrupt competent is worse than corrupt incompetent. Positive laws? Bullshit.
As to what he's gotten done? He's already saved the second amendment for a generation. Something Hillary was dead set against. When 'old what's her name' kicks off, the supreme court will be good for many decades.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I view Trump as rejecting more of the same. Clinton was the very definition of more of the same, particularly as she had already lived in the Whitehouse. It's trying to force change rather than muddle along with corrupt but maybe competent. Not much difference between the frustrations of the Trump voters and the Bernie voters, they both were rejecting more of the same.
It's not forcing change. You were upset about the system ignoring you and catering too much to rich buffoons who don't deserve the power they've inherited and won't use it to help anyone but themselves... so you elected a rich buffoon who doesn't deserve the power he's inherited and won't use it to help anyone but himself. All you did was cut out the middleman. There is no vote that is more in favor of "more of the same" than a vote for Donald Trump. Trump is everything that was already wrong with the system.
Actually, Trump motivating Three Percenters and other racist groups to openly brandish guns to threaten people in public spaces is probably the best thing that has happened to the argument for restricting gun ownership in decades. They're making the clearest possible argument for why people like them should not be allowed to own weapons. Also, I don't know how you got to thinking that you being too ignorant to know people's names or policy records reflects poorly on your opponent instead of yourself, but it doesn't. Just a tip.
I can't speak for Canada but my home country of Australia has all the population centres on the coast, it's not a valid comparison to draw my country in to a talk about density.