Bill to ban muni broadband

[Barty]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...5mbps-service/

Broadband providers want to prevent city from building muni network if just one house in area gets 1.5mbps.

I call B.S. If the taxpayers decide to spend money on building their own network because the telco/cable companies ain't doing the job, that's up to them. These companies just don't want the competition.

And 1.5mbps is pathetic.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Barty

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...5mbps-service/

Broadband providers want to prevent city from building muni network if just one house in area gets 1.5mbps.

I call B.S. If the taxpayers decide to spend money on building their own network because the telco/cable companies ain't doing the job, that's up to them. These companies just don't want the competition.

And 1.5mbps is pathetic.

That's 1.5Mbps or above.

Incumbent broadband providers are pushing legislation that would restrict Georgia towns from building municipal broadband networks. Under the proposal, if a single home in a census tract has Internet access at speeds of 1.5Mbps or above, the town would be prohibited from offering broadband service to anyone in that tract.

[QuantumIguana]

Why not ban municipal water and sewer while we are at it?

[Apache]

Cable companies tried to prevent municipalities from putting up their own cable back in the 1980's.
Apache

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Why not ban municipal water and sewer while we are at it?

Because those are essential services with respect to public health. You cannot say the same about Internet service.

That said, I do believe that the citizen's within a municipality should determine whether or not municipal broadband goes ahead. Claiming otherwise would be denying democracy in preference of far more dangerous ideologies. Municipal broadband also has several advantages, ranging from lowering the digital divide to providing the foundations for economic development.

[K. Molen]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Because those are essential services with respect to public health. You cannot say the same about Internet service.

While internet service naturally isn't on the same level as water and sewage, I most definitely think it should be considered an essential service. I applaud countries like France and Estonia that are taking steps to making internet connectivity a basic human right.

[teh603]

Rural America has always had to rely on socialism to get basic services- they still have Rural Electric Cooperatives because the electric companies didn't want to string power out to rural areas.

So its ultimately no surprise that big internet companies want to outlaw it.

[Fbone]

nevermind ...

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Would you trust an unsecured internet connection?

The people who "steal" wifi sure do.

[Fbone]

Sorry, I thought it was WIFI but the article mentions fiber lines.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Why not ban municipal water and sewer while we are at it?

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Because those are essential services with respect to public health. You cannot say the same about Internet service.
...

Well, sort of. Homes in our neighborhood, one of the older neighborhoods in town, all have wells. Built, maintained, and operated at homeowner expense. Almost all the rest of the town got municipal water. Us having wells didn't stop them, and we're not getting municipal water because we have wells and don't need it.

Originally Posted by cromag

Well, sort of. Homes in our neighborhood, one of the older neighborhoods in town, all have wells. Built, maintained, and operated at homeowner expense. Almost all the rest of the town got municipal water. Us having wells didn't stop them, and we're not getting municipal water because we have wells and don't need it.

True. I forgot about that. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that well managed municipal water systems are safer since wells and septic systems place a greater onus upon the homeowner to test and maintain them. While some people are up to that, others are not.

Still, I think it's kinda silly to regard the Internet as an essential service (never mind a human right). There are certainly strong arguments to fund the Internet, from an economic perspective, since it is an important tool for modern businesses and provides educational opportunities. On the other hand, there wouldn't be a negative impact upon quality of life if it disappeared tomorrow. Things would have to be done differently. But different is just that: different, not worse.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

o regard the Internet as an essential service (never mind a human right).

You may think that, but the United Nations General Assembly disagrees with you, and has passed a resolution that Internet Access is a human right. See here (PDF Doc). (Although it's actually saying that states must not prevent people from accessing the Internet, not that it has to be provided free of charge.)

[Ekaros]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Still, I think it's kinda silly to regard the Internet as an essential service (never mind a human right). There are certainly strong arguments to fund the Internet, from an economic perspective, since it is an important tool for modern businesses and provides educational opportunities. On the other hand, there wouldn't be a negative impact upon quality of life if it disappeared tomorrow. Things would have to be done differently. But different is just that: different, not worse.

Atleast here more and more service are online, and some almost mandate using like online banking. Also many goverment services are available online.

[Kumabjorn]

In Sweden banks are essentially forcing you to do your banking online. If you want to pay a bill over the counter at the bank they charge you a $10 service fee




per bill you are paying.