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.

26 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      Why do assume smaller government is the answer? It is usually the smaller communities, with less knowledge and resources which are easier to co-opt than larger entities.

    2. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So ironic that you are confusing regulation and lobbying... it's the regulation that PREVENTS the very thing you're whining about. Companies like to strong arm small communities as presented in the article you linked to... that's not the government doing that.. it's the private sector. So you think that weakening the government and strengthening the private sector (who is doing the strong arming) is the solution????

    3. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is collusion between government and businesses that are causing the problem. BIGCORP lobbies congress for protection from competition, paying huge campaign donations, and getting laws that prevent small cooperatives from ever forming.

      No, the problem isn't where you think it is, because a free economy has no artificial barriers. Think about it, the Franchise agreements between cable companies and municipalities are government/business ventures that prevent actual competition.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny. In Europe, people trust the government more than corporations. So it's usually the government screwing them over.

      In the US, people trust companies more than governments. And it's usually the companies screwing them over.

      Just because it's not a "government" doesn't mean it can't get big and centralized enough to become abusive. Especially when it provides what, in the first world, has become a near-essential good/service. See, for example, Comcast.

    5. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think that one through. We'd be without:

      1. Non-cluttered public streets.
      2. National parks.
      3. Non-cluttered, no-charge freeways.
      4. Patents.
      5. Copyrights.
      6. Cell phones and radios that work 10% of the time.

      Say what you want about how poorly they're implemented in the US, those things have uses in a modern society. You can look to some areas of India to see what a cluster-fuck letting anybody build anything they want on shared public land will do.

    6. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by Herkum01 · · Score: 2

      Smaller or larger government is the size of the entity, not the quality. I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!". It is just like any other organization of people. A major difference between a government and a corporation is the government has to interact with a number of people and groups on things it has no knowledge about. That somehow a smaller government, which has broader responsibilities and fewer resources is going to out perform or negotiate someone like Comcast, is just unlikely.

      So a larger government is more likely to outperform a smaller one it is just not a guarantee, like everything else in life.

    7. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends on the problem. If you're talking about large scale multi-regional infrastructure, well, that's what the Federal Government was designed for when it was rebooted after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Now I applaud these people in rural areas for taking the initiative (and hope they don't run afoul of the same Big ISP attacks that their urban cousins have suffered when daring to put in their own infrastructure), but the fact that they have to cobble together their own solutions to get access to 21st century communications systems is a sad testament to state and Federal level failure to take the lead on delivering such access.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'll just make sure the state government makes the project illegal.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Going by that logic, you'd be better off hiring 100 people to go cut your lawn, because a larger lawn cutting team is more likely to outperform a smaller one. And this way, you get to pay for all 100 people, and you don't get to pick them, and if they burn your grass or don't show up on time (or drunk), you can't do anything about it because you didn't hire them.

      But every 4 years you get to decide if you want to hire the group that says the reason they can't get your lawn cause is because they need another 10 people to do study on why the other 100 are useless, so they need to raise the rate you pay them by 10%. Of course the other group which may just put 98 of those 100 useless government workers (I mean lawn care specialists) out of a job, but that seems like the more logical choice to me.

      Enjoy.

  2. Fuck you, AT&T and others! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're going go build our own Internet, with blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the blackjack!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Fuck you, AT&T and others! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      I didn't fuck the quote up at all. I had to change it because the original phrasing makes no sense if you replace "theme park" with "internet". Without internet you got no blackjack (gambling sites) and no hookers (porn sites).

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  3. Regulated as a utility by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Why? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Why? by dasgoober · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Better than having access to that Rachel Maddow twat-waffle, or thinking that John Oliver is a real journalist.

  6. Re:Why? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    As soon as you educate an Appalachian, they realize that the sensible thing to do is to move somewhere else.

    I grew up in the Cumberland coal region of eastern Tennessee, and in my HS graduating class, everyone with better than a 3.5 GPA has moved elsewhere.

    We graduated on a Wednesday. I left on Thursday.

  7. Re:Why? by imgod2u · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Why? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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'
  10. How do they get around by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2
  11. Re:Why? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Why? by Noamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Americans writing about Internet == Funny by rbrander · · Score: 4, Informative

    "We have crappy Internet provision because of Big Government!"

    "Yeah! Let's make our government even less like those in France, Germany, and Scandinavia where the Internet access is several times as good."

    And to fend off the inevitable "But we have it harder because the US is less dense than Europe!"

    1) You are not less dense than Canada and Australia
    2) US Internet provision sucks in US cities, too, and they are quite dense

    You do not have crappy Internet because of "corrupt Clinton-style government". You have it because of not-technically-corrupt government that is *influenced* by large corporations that have an oligopoly on service provision. This influence is bipartisan, with a slight preference for Republican. (Until Trump, whose level of revolving-door state/corporate appointments has hit a new level.)

    1. Re:Americans writing about Internet == Funny by Dunavant · · Score: 2

      I would invite you to do a quick google image search for "Cell coverage in canada" and "cell coverage in australia" and "cell coverage in the united states". Do the same for "population density". Canada's north is mostly empty. Australia's interior is the same. The US has people basically everywhere except a few small locations because most of the US is habitable land. Per-capita they may be less dense than the US, but their actual populations tend to be clustered making the statistics misleading. The US has a lot more people that are spread out a lot more. The US really is harder to provide land-based infrastructure for people in these rural areas, but at least for cell coverage, they are arguably doing better for providing access in rural areas than either of your examples.

    2. Re:Americans writing about Internet == Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  14. Re: Why? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw some video of people carrying firearms. They weren't waving them about in a threatening manner, in any of the video that I saw. I carry a firearm fairly frequently. I'm not even remotely a threat.

    If you're curious, I'm very politically left and not white. I'd hate to have you thinking I am a Nazi, or something.

    At any rate, do you have some specific footage you'd like me to watch?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."