Slashdot Mirror
More Than 750 American Communities Have Built Their Own Internet Networks (vice.com)
Jason Koebler shares a report from Motherboard: According to a freshly updated map of community-owned networks, more than 750 communities across the United States have embraced operating their own broadband network, are served by local rural electric cooperatives, or have made at least some portion of a local fiber network publicly available. The map was created by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that advocates for local economies. The Institute's latest update indicates that there's now 55 municipal networks serving 108 communities with a publicly owned fiber-to-the-home internet network. 76 communities now offer access to a locally owned cable network reaching most or all of the community, and more than 258 communities are now served by a rural electric cooperative. Many more communities could expand their local offerings according to the group's data. 197 communities already have some publicly owned fiber service available to parts of the community, while more than 120 communities have publicly-owned dark (unused) fiber available for use by local residences and local area businesses. The group's map also highlights which states have erected legislative barriers to hamper these local efforts and explains what these laws actually do.
It's hosted on a community network, so you can only expect so much.
Communists must always use the technologies developed by capitalists.
The Internet was created by the government, so it was the other way around in this case.
Instead of just using labels like "communist" and "capitalist", you should learn about evidence based reasoning. Look at the actual results. For most things, capitalism works better. For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
For Internet service, people tend to be happier with municipal systems rather than private monopolies. So maybe that is a better way to go. What is important is the results.
that as some ort of socialism, but so few people see municipal roads as such. Yet both are there for a similar reason when market forces just do not work...
Anecdote =/= data.
No one is claiming _all_ government run health care is better than private, nor that it's flawless. If you'd like to take the example of the collapsed health system that you've had problems with and show how it invalidates the claim that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less", I'd be interested.
I'd be even more interested if you could show that the failure of the healthcare system was because it was run by _a_ government, rather than being the result of being run by a government that was failing in other ways.
I assume you're referring to the British NHS. It's still better than the U.S. where your scenario would have the same result if you have reasonable health insurance. If you don't you'd be out thousands of dollars. At any rate, a better solution is what's going on in Germany and France.
ShanghaiBill makes an important point: there are some things the free-market does better, and there are some things that the government does better. People often forget that the public enables the private. Government built infrastructure keeps the economy going. Roads, utilities, and the banking system allow commerce to happen generally smoothly.
When it comes to health care, the government run systems of every other developed country provide better results at much lower cost than what we get in the U.S.
One final point. I do think this thread should be referring to communism. Instead, I think they mean socialism. Even then, you can have government run systems that do not use socialism. For example, England's single-payer health-care system is socialistic while Canada's single-payer system is not. Both get better results than the U.S. at much lower cost.
This isn't about free market, or communism, or capitalism at all. It's about communities using their own resources for infrastructure and what *should be* a common utility. If things ran they way they should, the easements, right-of-ways, the utility poles, should be owned by the municipal governments and leased to those that can show they can sustain the rent, not damage other people's stuff, and be relied on when there's damage from storms, etc.
There are easements granted and right-of-ways that I as a property owner granted to utilities. Sadly, this was done by prior owners, who benefited from the fees. But then one of the utilities changed the nature of the easement, and low and behold, I could charge them once again.
Municipalities should control their infrastructure, not some lawyer for Verizon, AT&T, etc etc. This has zero to do with communism. It has to do with the most important common denominator for most people: community, not some hackneyed description of an obtuse financial model or governmental construct.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Communism and socialism work great -- ON PAPER. You mix actual humans into it? It becomes a shit-show of corruption.
Capitalism isn't much better, really. Ideally, everyone plays above-board, observes the Social Contract (i.e., doesn't intentionally fuck everyone over just for sake of profit), and society prospers. Unfortunately, much like the microbiome in your gut, things only work really work well when they stay in balance.
Sadly, capitalism here in these United States is grossly out of balance. Corporatism is a real Thing, they have too much power and sway in everything, especially our government (which should be above and immune to such things), and to make matters even worse we now have a sitting President (such as he is, LOL) that's working like the damned to take away what little control there still is over them.
How this pertains to the Internet, is Ajit Pai and his bald-faced pandering to corporate interests, and the American public be damned. Thus we have more and more municipalities looking to do an end-run around shitty corporations like Comcast/Xfinity and AT&T.
Fact of the matter is, the Internet is now too important and integrated into everything to call a 'boutique' or 'luxury' service; it must, sooner (preferable) or later, be deemed a public utility, with all that implies.
That's not how evidence works. You've got it backward.
In informal settings it's not unusual to reference relatively uncontested positions without providing evidence each time.
That the US has poorer outcomes per person per dollar is well known. Most other OECD countries have similar health outcomes for similar per person expenditure and have similar levels of government involvement in healthcare. Comparing the US to these countries supports the hypothesis that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less".
To the extent that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is accepted as true, then asking that an example that is offered that contradicts this be elaborated _is_ how evidence works.
If you don't consider that "government run systems tend to work better and cost less" is true or well supported, would you please say so so we can have a discussion around that. Picking points on form doesn't really add anything, here.
...have always been a lot more socialist than they'd like to admit. Once you remove the labels and just ask about principles and policies directly, most Americans exhibit quite strong socialist tendencies. This is one of many reasons why worker-owned and community-based businesses, which are inherently democratic, have always been popular and are getting more so as the government increasingly fails to protect its citizens from predatory corporations.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
I don't know much about community internet networks, but I notice that Q-Life where I live in The Dalles is listed. The touted success story is likely mostly true with Q-Life being important in bringing the Google data centers here, but the Internet service available here is about as bad and expensive as anywhere.
Well said and well reasoned, are you sure you are a on slashdot?
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
For some things, such as healthcare, where transparency is absent, government run systems tend to work better and cost less.
You haven't seen a government-run health system, have you?
Not sure about the GP but what is obvious is you haven't.
Nice story, but in reality as a foreigner you are not permitted access to free medical services anywhere unless your nation has a reciprocal agreement.
Secondly, sounds like you were travelling without insurance in a foreign country and expecting the locals to pick up the tab. Entitlement much. For all the flaws with the UK's NHS has, I much prefer it over the US's private system. First and foremost, it's cheaper. The UK pays between US$4-5000 of taxpayer money per person on the NHS and thats the end of it. The US pays between $9-10,000 USD of taxpayer money and then you (or your employer) needs to fork out more on top of that. Secondly, if I have a minor ailment I can get a doctors appointment, they'll give me the tests and treatments I need, not the ones that make the most profit. If I have a major emergency, I can go to A&E, receive the care I need and not have to worry about a cent... let alone being turned away from A&E because I dont have the proper insurance (meaning my employer didn't give me the proper insurance). Finally, I'd hate to be reliant on my employer to provide something as essential as my health care, it gives the employer an enormous amount of power to restrict my movement and remuneration.
The NHS isn't perfect, but it's light years better than an all private system.
Currently, a doctor after studies, intership and a couple years of experience (so called "resident") earns $10800 yearly ($7800 after taxes). In the middle of Europe, in an EU country. No, I'm not confusing monthly vs annual wages -- these figures are per year.
Name the country. I guarantee you made this shit up or are deliberately omitting a fact that makes your scaremongering impotent.
I.E. You mentioned the middle of Europe, so we're probably talking former eastern bloc. Lets take Bulgaria for example, middle of Europe... Check. In the EU... Check. Average salary of a Bulgarian (Average, not minimum) is 400 Euro a month before tax so, 4800 Euro a year (US$5,920). A lot of Bulgarians will be earning less than that. A doctor earning US$10,800 will be earning almost twice the average wage.
Lets compare that to a US first year graduate MD. They get US$51,000 per year, the average salary in the US is $81,400. Seems its better to be a Bulgarian graduate than a US one.
So name the country, otherwise we all know you're full of shit.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.