Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Urges Cities To Build Public Broadband To Protect Net Neutrality (thehill.com)
The ACLU is calling on cities across the country to build their own public municipal broadband networks to help preserve net neutrality after the Federal Communications Commission repealed the open internet rules. From a report: In a report released Thursday morning, the civil liberties group argued that in the absence of the FCC's rules cities could give residents an alternative to private service providers who will soon no longer be required to treat all web traffic equally. "Internet service has become as essential as utilities like water and electricity, and local governments should treat it that way," Jay Stanley, an ACLU policy analyst who authored the report, said in a statement. "If local leaders want to protect their constituents' rights and expand quality internet access, then community broadband is an excellent way to do that," Stanley added. The ACLU sent the report to more than 100 mayors across the country who had spoken out against the FCC's decision to scrap the rules.
The people who use it perhaps? Or would you rather have Big Company ISP nickel and dimeing you to death for each 'tier' of service you want? Basic - email and basic web sites, ISP search engine only. Basic plus get's you a few more web sites and maybe some with embedded video. Then your social teir, twitter, instagram, facebook, snapchat, etc etc. Then streaming per each service. Oh and they get to double dip by injecting their own advertisements into your service. VPN to circumvent? Block that traffic.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
It's hard to find the time between growing my own food, home schooling my kids, and making my own clothes.
Because private business has refused to supply a necessary public service.
You are free to use a private internet service (or buy bottled water from the store to flush your toilet) if you so desire. Those of us that feel the State is better suited to provide those services will utilize them.
There are a limited number of available frequencies and places to put utility poles. This is the very definition of a Natural Monopoly which the State can choose to either heavily regulate or own to serve the public good.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
State lawmakers in 21 states, after generous brib....ahem "campaign contributions" from cablecos and telcos, have decided that cities in their states don't get to make this choice for themselves. The most embarrassing example of this is Tennessee, which restricts other cities in the state from following Chattanooga's groundbreaking example.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is false hood that needs die
I run the IT department for a municipality that already provides municipal broadband services. The fact is Public/ municipal does almost NOTHING to assist in net neutrality. IPS’s provide a conduit from the end user to the internet backbone. If the content is punished upstream, as it goes across say, Verizon’s backbone, the local pipe is already receiving degraded, delayed, punished data.
The one thing it does however, is stop your local ISP from tracking you and monetizing your online behavior which can be done more quickly and cheaply by use of a VPN.
Its not being filtered at the "Tube" level though.... Comcast isn't saying you can't have gun videos on the internet. Its the site owners who have made that decisions. A decision they would still be free to make... but by all means don't let that get in the way of some good astro turfing.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The main obstacle to municipal broadband is the high cost; not to mention lobbying and political advertising budgets of Cable companies and Telcos ---- if word gets out you will setup a municipal broadband network; the big bad cable companys' reps flock to the area to try to convince the officials No, then if the officials aren't persuaded, they'll fund the campaigns of their opponents and try to convince the local that it's a mismanagement of public funds, next the Lawyers and bureaucrats fly in and start working out every possible way they can think of to delay the project ---- from filing lawsuits, to incumbent Telecoms deliberately sabotaging development efforts by failing or being unduly slow when required to modify their wiring to accommodate the additional pole attachments.
So I could see a value for a National Non-profit to help PROMOTE municipal broadband, by:
1. Raise money for lobbying efforts, legal funds, the promotion of municipal broadband projects, and writing grants for projects.
2. Hire full time lobbyists to fight the telecom lobbyists at the state and national level and work against the regulations and laws being passed to discourage municipal broadband --- fight in the opposite direction.
3. Provide funds to be used for legal assistance and promotion of projects such as Google fiber competing against Telco incumbents, to facilitate more competition in the broken markets.
4. Produce national advertising and reports on municipal broadband projects that have been successful; Designed to make citizens who
don't have municipal broadband feel jealous - Raise awareness and encourage more and more consumers to demand these services ---- spread the word, provide service testimonials and comparisons in the (A) Performance, (B) Speed, (C) Service, and (D) Support of these services.
5. Create a grant program that can issue funds to develop broadband, subject to condition:
(a). Grant proposals compete for funds, and the ones that provide wired high-bandwidth (10 Megabits or more upload and 20 Megabits or more download) uncapped access to the most population who don't currently have reliable wired high-bandwidth uncapped access have highest priority.
(b). The project is completed by the municipality, and the rights to 90% of the infrastructure are permanently and exclusively owned by the municipality.
(c). The project must be operational before a certain deadline no more than 2 years away and service available to a specified number of households within the planned buildout, or else repayment of the funds is due.
(d). After completion of the project; a monthly fee will be assessed for X years against all households where service would be available
(whether they chose to turn up service or not) to replenish grant funds and help fund more projects.
I'm not "free" to use a private internet service when there is a competing "public" option; you're forcing me to pay for that "public" option TOO.
If the public option was paid on a monthly subscription basis (such as people pay now), how would that be forcing you to pay for both the public and private options? Don't be such a retard.