Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican? 805
Reader Ant wrote to mention the article entitled Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican? The author argues that media companies are systematically ruining the MuniWiFi efforts across the country, likening the community initiatives to a form of communism. From the article: "Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise"
Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Insightful)
It will have the opposite effect.
No way! You mean that our elected officials are being paid off by corporations so that state citizens get the shaft? Who would have thought?! Personally, anyone responsible for cheating and lying to the citizens of the states involved in this should be ousted. Why aren't we revolting against this crap now? Oh yeah, we're lazy, sorry; I forgot.
A nation that once prided itself as the global pacesetter in technological innovation and affordable communications is now held in the thrall of corporations eager to keep a basic 21st Century right--the right to connectivity--from citizens who can't afford their exorbitant access fees.
How has America fallen so far back?
Because we take the word of the conglomerates as the word of God, that's why. People see a price tag and they just accept it as reality. Most people are uninterested in shopping around for better service, better prices, etc. It's just easier to plop the good old CC down and have it paid automatically every month.
People don't realize that 1500/256 is crappy service for DSL and that 5000/384 is just as bad. People say, ooooh, Cable is faster than DSL and less money! They don't bother looking into the hidden restrictions and commonplace bullshit that the ISPs pull (such as UNLIMITED SERVICE - as long as you don't pass over our unknown bandwith usage threshold).
Some people say, "but there is no alternative." Sure there is... Become active and do something about it. Oooh, but that would take away from your time watching Survivor and The Apprentice. Perhaps the Cable company would even come and shut off your precious mind-numbing TV delivered drugs. Wah.
Americans are lazy, undereducated about technology, and just don't give a shit about making their own lives better. As long as it is easy and they are told it's acceptable they are good to go.
To this mix of industry sock puppets add a gullible media. In a finely targeted media campaign, the "evils" of municipal broadband were pressed upon local journalists who were willing to echo corporate concerns without digging for an opposing view. Too often, local papers failed to follow the money that linked their sources at the Cato Institute and NMRC to the industry--taking at face value comments and data from these think tanks without revealing the conflicts of interest that would impugn their research.
Welcome to the Georgenium! The one where people believe everything they see on TV and do no self-research into finding out what might be true and what might not be. Why should they form their own opinions? There are two sides to every story but the news media is fair and balanced right?
Realize that we have not only corporations funding false research and presenting it as true we have our own government doing the same thing. Sadly people fall for it and even want more of it!
The corporations are going to quickly realize that what they are doing is going to cause even more problems for them. Yeah, you are going to shut out competition from the municipalities... Just wait until the residents of that municipality cre
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes down to a question of "how much is your time worth?" for most people. Most people don't want to spend hour hunting around the internet to save a few bucks a month on service or shave a percentage off a particular item. They just want to get what they want and get on with their lives.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, *some* reasearch should be done by the customer, but you can't expect them to do the work that the companies that want us to buy their crap should be helping with. (if that made any sense)...
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Informative)
Where I live there are 2 choices, countem, 2. Cable (Time Warner) or DSL (SBC). No 3rd party DSL provider can get there. They have this fake "competition" nonsense which is as transparent as plastic wrap. SBC and Time Warner "compete" for the "lowest cost" combined TV/Broadband/Phone package, but then if you look closely you'll realize a few things: 1) You don't want the package they offer on TV, it's the lowest quality, lowest feature offering that 2) To get anything above the bare bones you have to spend 2 hours on the phone with each vendor to get an estimate for what may or may not be what you asked for 3) The price tag jumps exponentially with each new feature, no matter how simple it is (ex. static IP), and the vendors are ultimately within $5/month of each other 4) There is a significant price disadvantage to picking and choosing between providers for the three services. For example Dish Network + Time Warner broadband is a poor choice. SBC Broadband + Cell Phones + Time Warner cable = real ugly. I recently moved and went through this excersize, just to figure out what the better deal is. There IS NO advantage, the deeper you dig, the more you realize it's a sham.
This is not competition, it's a joke. Yet, as the article points out, SBC and TW spend a lot of time advertising on TV about this new "competition" and how prices have improved. They have even bought TV news times to talk about how great this new competition is (for them). It's complete bullshit.
So yeah, I advocate the Marxist part of communism where the people overthrow the monopolies and take over the means of production, and figure out a better way to offer these services, as capitalism is failing us.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Informative)
What you've described doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, so your claim (in the context of your post) is baseless.
Max
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Funny)
That's not just wrong, I find that statement morally repugnant! I'm going to write my congressman about this!
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Interesting)
Realize that we have not only corporations funding false research and presenting it as true we have our own government doing the same thing. Sadly people fall for it and even want more of it!
You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. We are too comfortable in the United States but that is gradually changing.
It's old saw in the I.T. community that you can give something to people, but you cannot take it away without suffering major consequences. The same is true of government.
The U.S. is heading for a huge fall, sooner than most people think. I'll leave it to those who read this to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. But I predict we'll see at least one major bank failure in the next five years along with a major crash of the real estate market.
Why? Because the real estate market now is speculative, as is fuel and food. Once you put those necessities in a speculative position all hell breaks loose.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Interesting)
Steel, Copper, wood, have all tripled in price in the last two years. The moment the people can't affoard to build new houses, is the same time when this country goes down into a massive recission. If it is bad enough I fully expect Fanny-mae or one of the mortage programs like it to crash and burn within ten years.
I work in Electrical industry. All winters slow down. This past winter has hundreds of contractors still sitting at home. Last year most were busy for 40 hours a week all winter long.
Sure it's only one state, but it only takes one domino.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Dollar sucks world wide. Very much so. A slightly depressed dollar is okay, but we went from 1 pound equalling a $.80 ish to 1 pound equalling $.50 in a year. Now a Euro is 1 to $.77 dollars. When bush took offive it was
I hadn't heard about OPEC. If they switch it will hurt this country a lot. Of course a swift kick in the ass would prob
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean every American used to think for themselves before George W. Bush arrived on the scene? I think you're giving the man far too much credit. Popular culture is to blame, not this lone man. The masses demand mediocrity, and mass media is more than happy to deliver. Why else would a story about a Republican congressman taking a junket (unfortunately a relatively common occurrence on both sides of the aisle) trump a story about Clinton's former National Security Advisor
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't have quality choices, they have the "choices" that the providers have given them. Over time, people succumb to the lack of quality choices, resign themselves to their powerless position and settle for the cream of the crop of the shit buffet. Humans being social animals, we will congregate into groups around that which we've chosen...the headcounts of those groups implies popularity, broadcasters feed this data to
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Insightful)
We've had stories about corporations talking politicians into useing emenent domain to take land, painting open-source as anti-corporations and anti-american ("it's communist!), and, of course, any service the government might offer on its own is anti-corporation.
The implication of all this is that the companies are saying big profits are neccessary for our coutry's well being. Small profit or no profit opperations are being painted as violating the Great American Spirit. Nothing should be free. Ever. And anyone who suggests they can get along without buying very much is the economic equivilent of a pervert.
I like capitalism. I think it's generally good. But we must realise that it's not the most important pricipal we live by. Cooperation should not be demonized. If we fall for this, we will be the losers.
TW
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, antidepressant drug commercials and, especially, the _horrible_ Zoloft commercial that makes it seem like a medical problem simply to be sad, are a real problem in our society.
I have no problem whatsoever with public service announcements telling people the signs of clinical depression. I hav
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:4, Insightful)
You do a lot of rant-filed postings that are in the same vein as this. I agree with much you say most of the time (which is why I "friended" you long ago). However, what are you going to do with your umbrage? You're right: a majority of people are so content being apathetic, they don't make the effort to even look away from their TVs. But there's nothing that I can do about it. I've tried screaming and I've tried waxing philosophical. It doesn't help. Why should I try to help these people "see the light" when they don't even want to listen?
This radical change in my ideology has been rather recent. I just got tired of being pissed at things that I couldn't change. You and me (and a lot of slashdotters) are among the minority that "get it". We only have finite amount of energy and time on this planet. I feel that those resources are better utilized trying to directly better my situation rather than trying to improve it by proxy of helping everyone else. Some may call it selfish, but is it really? How can I be selfish when these people don't want my help? Remember, these people are completely happy bitching about the laws, yet they never vote. They bitch about their jobs being offshored and then they shop at WalMart.
Screw 'em I say. I exited the corporate world, switched off my TV and started my own business. I'm carving my own destiny and haven't looked back since. I grew tired of being a modern-day Sisyphus. If this country ever wakes up and opens their eyes, I'll be back to help. Elsewise I'm not wasting my time.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely agree with the carriers. Governments do not provide service; they take money from taxpayers and use it to pay for services that not all taxpayers want. In this case, this is a wealth transfer from people who don't use wi-fi to people who do, so the beneficiaries of this policy are quite likely wealthier than the people it hurts.
The taxing power of the state is the power to throw someone out of their home at gunpoint if they can't or won't cough up the money. It should be used only where absolutely necessary, for the benefit of all, not just that of gen-X yuppies so they can download tunes onto their IPODS without stopping at Starbucks.
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Insightful)
Places like Philly offer the wifi for $16 a month to pay for the infastructure.
So do we take away water and sewer next? After all why should I pay for your sewage? Why don't we sell it for the highest possible bidder to monopolies instead?
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference, of course, is that this network was set up by volunteers who put their own time and money (and any donati
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Interesting)
First, when it comes to implementation, it's not hard to set up the payment structure in such a way that it doesn't overburden the poor. For example, set the sticker price higher, but allow users to apply for income-based rebates. Since taxes will probably subsidize the cost, it's helpful to consider that most forms of taxes are disproportionately paid by the wealthy. So I don't think it's reasonable to try and turn people off the idea of municipal wifi using hand-waving about higher taxes hurting the poor.
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by your antagonistic attitude towards taxes. It's true that ultimately only the state can use force to collect debts, they are more than happy to take money "at gunpoint" in order to enforce private contracts. I don't see that as wrong, but given that this power is frequently invoked by private parties with the state acting as their agent, I think the "only the state can use force" argument has less rational appeal than emotional.
I take a much more pragmatic view of government intervention. In my mind, they should be allowed to intervene wherever the benefits of such intervention clearly outweigh the costs. In my mind, having cheap, ubiquitous Internet access is a public good. Better access to information leads to a more efficient economy, a better informed and better educated populace, and a higher standard of living for everyone. While there are ethical issues surrounding state-run programs that compete directly with private companies, I think that the benefits of a fully wired municipality outweigh them, and those benefits are going to be the greatest for the poor, not "gen-X yuppies".
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who's for dinner.
Americans lazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the least ammount of vacation days here and don't even try and have gaps in your resume when you didn't work in your life, or you will be "required" to explain and will be labeled as lazy. Whether that's right or wrong, you decide.
Poeple here are also obsessed with making money and acquiring goods. I know you'll say, well who isn't? I would answer that I have lived in other countries and it is definetly an order of magnitude higher here. People don't like to talk about money, just like they don't like to talk about sex but they obsess about it. This is the only place I have been where it is extremely not appropriate to ask someone how much money they make, it goes beyond the "I don't know you that well, why should I tell you" it is more of a "why, are you going to come and murder me, my family and my dog and steal it?" type reaction. It just shows even where people's hearts are - with their money. I would expect that in a poor country where money is to used mostly to buy food to survive, but not here, where money is to exercise the "right to be happy" and the right to "instant gratificiation" People need to buy, see and eat more and more things regardless of how much they already bought, seen and eaten.
I am always amazed at how even the poorest people still get double digit ammounts of credit cards so they can buy luxury cars, shop at GAP and get $200 shoes. I am also amazed at the rent places that tell people that cannot afford a plasma TV to just rent one and pay a monthly fee. The credit card companies want people to dig themselves into debt and end up slaving day and night to keep up with the fees.
I know that this is offtopic and that many of you will say, well then if America is so bad, "why dontcha get the fuck out and move to Canada or France.". I don't think this country is a bad country overall, in fact it is still the best one in the world and I love living here, it just that it has some bad "habbits" and stereotypes attached to it that I wish, through better education, those would go away too. That's it. Again, sorry for an offtopic, just struck a cord...
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing will really improve until we require the following quote to be tattooed onto the forearm of every elected official:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute nor common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
-Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939
Re:Free stuff isn't, freedom is! (Score:3, Interesting)
Careful, your rant-underpinnings are showing. The "Georgenium?" All of the things you're carping about - all of them - are the symptoms of one root problem: lack of critical thinking skills. This problem starts in elementa
Re:Some comments... (Score:4, Insightful)
The complaint isn't that you're not allowed to saturate your upstream bandwidth on an inexpensive broadband account. The complaint is that they aren't upfront about it, and only tell you after you've broken their invisible limit (whatever it may be).
I think that having clearly spelled out contractual terms is worthwhile.
Co-Ops (Score:5, Informative)
Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise.
While I don't agree with the laws that are being passed against broadband, I would like to point out that most states have a type of business specifically designed for the common good while simultaneously keeping the government (and stupid laws) out of it: Cooperatives.
CO-OPs are designed to be businesses by the people, for the people, without engaging in the communist-like practice of merging everything under the government's umbrella. A lot of towns in my home state (Wisconsin) have banded together into CO-OPs to provide local utility services. Thanks to their efforts, I had DSL access long before Comcast stopped breaking their promises, and long before many city dwealers had the same services. So if your state passes an idiot law, see if you and your neighbors can do something about it on a local level. It might piss off Verizon and SBC, but that's just too bad, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the United States has slid from first to thirteenth place in national broadband penetration, falling behind South Korea, Japan and Canada, where effective private-public sector initiatives have paved over the digital divide, allowing more citizens to reap the economic benefits of the open information era at a fraction of the costs we take for granted.
This isn't really surprising. The tech started here in the US, so that made us #1. But the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Re:Co-Ops (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, sure, right... I am under a co-op for my electricity. What does that mean for me? Expensive power, a box on my house that turns on and off my A/C at the whim of the grid, and the knowledge that while it's a co-op I have no other choice but to be a part of it.
I'm not saying that all co-ops are bad but they can become just as evil as the corporations. Just because they are setup "for the people by the people" and have members that are elected does NOT mean that they are the best things for an area.
COMPETITION IS GOOD and let's end this pay-off bullshit where corporations and co-ops get to determine what competition means.
So elect new board members (Score:5, Insightful)
With a co-op, you can actually do something. You can elect new board members that will better represent your interests. Heck, you could even start a campaign to recall the SOBs. With a private utility company, you have absolutely no power and no choice in how the place gets run. With a co-op, at least you can make the bastards sweat a little even if you can't get the membership mobilized to throw the bums out.
Re:Co-Ops (Score:5, Insightful)
Strictly speaking, that's not true. Co-Ops have to compete in the market just like everyone else. (Unlike direct government services.) The real reason why you don't have a choice is that utilities tend to be monopolies, period.
You might want to talk to someone in your town government about what you and your neighbords can do to improve your services. You may actually have some control over the company and not even know it.
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Informative)
And your response leads me to believe that you're a typical raving Slashdotter. The world doesn't change to work the way you want it to just because you say so.
You may be interested in knowing that while the US was always a two party system, it hasn't always been the same two parties. Since it's inception, the US has undergone several major party shifts. Now if Librata
Re:Co-Ops (Score:5, Interesting)
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
-- George Washington, Farewell Address [yale.edu], 1796
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Informative)
Hate to nitpick, but that's actually a socialist-like practice, instead of a communist. In socialism, the government controls all means of production, in communism, the community controls means of production (and the government is abolished).
Wikipedia has some good articles: Socialism [wikipedia.org], Communism [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Co-Ops (Score:5, Insightful)
Countries like Canada?
Canada has good URBAN coverage. NO rural coverage. (Score:3, Informative)
Vancouver
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal
With perhaps, maybe, a dozen or two dozen other semi-major centers. This gets a very large portion of the populace online without much expense from the telco.
I live in a rural area and have gotten the shaft WRT broadband access, so I am working with my municipality to make a wifi gateway available to get a broadband link to an area where I can link into a commercial DSL line.
Much of the lip service to "private
Re:Canada has good URBAN coverage. NO rural covera (Score:3, Informative)
How about this:
Is that rural enough? It's the town I grew up in. It's in Saskatchewan.
Yup, broadband available.
Compare that with places in the US that are complaining they can't get broadband because they only have a few hundr
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Interesting)
But isn't something like 90% of Canada's population within 100 miles of the Canadian/US border? If population density is averaged over the entire country for statistics, but then broadband penetration is measured as percentage of population with broadband accessability it wouldn't jive.
Of course, like most Slashdotters, I didn't read the article and I did no actual research.
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and soon my friend. Check out the plan [ptbcanadian.com]
Re:Co-Ops (Score:5, Informative)
Then you believe that Western Europe is communist as well? I actually have education, basic health care and pensions paid by the government (through my taxes) even if I should be unemployed. Nor do I've to rely on Enron style pensions plan on my old age. When we have tax reforms we don't give 99.99% of the reductions to the super rich either.
This isn't really surprising. The tech started here in the US, so that made us #1. But the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
And then there is US "education"...
Not communist (Score:3, Informative)
For things which are necessities or become ubiquitous the government regulates or takes control of them as public utilities. The internet is certainly at the level where s
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, it's very, very popular. Amongst the middle classes, who can afford either a private tutor or for one of the parents to stay home and homeschool the child. Trouble is, if I'm poor and uneducated, or a lone parent, or me and my partner both have to work dead-end jobs to make ends meet.
And that pretty much guarantees my kid, no matter how smart she is, will have to be very lucky to beat the sucky public education system (and yo
Re:Co-Ops (Score:3, Insightful)
It oughta be this way (and when I am King, so will it be):
Johnny has a broadband cable connection. He also has a local WiFi network so he can use his laptop wherever he wants.
Johnny's WiFi signal reaches his neighbor Susie's house. Susie also
That "too rural" thing (Score:3, Informative)
You can get DSL even in a place like Moosonee, in northern Ontario. This is a small town of 2500 souls near James Bay, surrounded by thousands of km of forest and shrubs and not much else.
You can also get DSL in places like Magnetawan (population 1300). Grab an atlas, look up a few tiny places in rural Ontario, and look them up yourself at http://canadianisp.com/ [canadianisp.com] for yourself.
What about that dense Canadian population, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, since Canada has 1/10 the population and a larger land mass, they should be even more 'disadvantaged' and they should be using tin cans tied with bits of string.
As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." He forgot to mention greed from the wireless phone services who feel threatened by anybody putting up an antenna for an
Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the new America. (Score:5, Insightful)
When corporations see things happening that they don't like, they call the congressmen that they've bought and paid for and tell them to fix it.
Look at the bankruptcy bill. Nothing could more blatantly tell the American public that our lawmakers are only concerned with the interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Just as the article points out, this is like a public library having to ask permission from Borders before checking out books.
It's sad that it's come to this, but there just isn't much that can be done.
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the bankruptcy bill.
Sad, but true.
The reason it's a media issue is that the media corporations can't steal more money from us if the cities provide cheap broadband.
In point of fact, it's very American to have a municipality provide cheap broadband - cities and townships were created expressly to provide common services like water, electricity, libraries - and now broadband.
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. On top of that, anything considered "infrastructure" is generally provided through the government. I think access to the internet falls more in the category of infrastructure than, say, libraries. You don't see road-building companies complaining that the government provides "free" or cheap access to roads.
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:3, Insightful)
<rant>
There is no such thing as a party of the people. There are 2 parties who basically do the bidding of the interest groups who put them in power. The closest thing we have to a "people's party" is any one of the 3 "major" minor parties (Green, Libertarian, Constitution). I think its time to get those 3 working togeth
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the new America. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet how many of you are writing your Congress Critters or your State Senate Critters? How many of you are organizing petitions and boycotts against companies who push this sort of nonsense? How many of you are *rewarding* companies who do the right thing? (e.g. iTunes) How many of you attend town meetings to give your opinion? How many of you found co-ops to cover the gaps? How many of you vote? How many of you run for office? How many of you do *anything* other than sit on your size 53 butts and complain about the situation?!?
I realize that you can't do everything I've mentioned above, but even a small fraction of "doing your part" adds up on a national level. And just think, since so many other people are sitting on their butts, you have a real opportunity to have your voice heard! Yes, it takes work, it takes perserverance, and it takes a willingness to do what needs to be done. But isn't that what America is founded on? Always doing what's too hard for others? Taking in the refugies who are willing to give up everything they have just for a chance to build their own lives the way they want them?
Be an American. Do your part.
New? Railroads, Cars, TV (Score:3, Interesting)
The most instructive example for those of us involved with the nets is the early days of radio and how our public bandwidth became anything but. Early radio loo
Re:can't buy what isn't elected (Score:3, Interesting)
And the reason the parties are able to distract us with these non-issues such as gun control or gay marriage, is there is a force even stronger than selfishness in the American psyche: The desire to impress my arbitrary moral values on someone else.
Getting back on-topic: I have strong libertarian leanings, and am of the general belief that the government at any level is the least qualified entity to provide any service. If a private enterprise cannot compete against the demonstrably least efficient c
Communist wifi? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fear of competition (Score:2)
What else would they oppose? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What else would they oppose? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would guess that bookstores aren't really happy about libraries. And RIAA. And Blockbuster, at this point.
Public libraries are a great a noble thing to help those that can't afford it get a hold of books and to make sure that non-popular books are available for research. But, when public libraries purchase 100 copies of "Da Vinci Code", start lending out popular movies, and letting people take CDs home there are absoutely complaints about it.
Bullshit! (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit! (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is such a thing as cheap wifi. Sitting around a Buffalo Wild Wings in Vegas while eating less than 10 dollars worth of food.
Re:Bullshit! (Score:4, Interesting)
If I don't have kids, shouldn't I still pay taxes to support the schools?
If I don't drink tapwater, shouldn't I still have to pay for water treatment facilities?
These are services that, even if you don't personaly use them, make your community a better place to live. You benefit from them indirectly.
Roads provide the infrastructure to deliver goods to the stores you shop in. They make your city a place buisnesses will set up shop and provide you with jobs.
Schools educate people. This lowers crime rates, increases the median wage in your area, and contributes to overall economic prosperity.
Water supplies make a city's higher density possible. Even if your house can run on a spring in the back yard, your benefit by having the water system in place. Resturants, industrial firms, to say nothing of hospitals and office buildings require running water to function. Their function makes your life easier and better. Moreover, running water decreases disease rates, making your community safer.
Why is internet access any different? It encourages trade, encourages education, brings people closer together, and creates an incentive for high paying tech jobs in your area. These jobs in turn lower crime rates, raise average sallaries (unless you live in Beverly Hills) and promotes civic growth.
Even if you don't need muni-wifi, you benefit from it being there. Given that, why shouldn't you pay for it?
Re:Bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
If I don't have kids, shouldn't I still pay taxes to support the schools?
If I don't drink tapwater, shouldn't I still have to pay for water treatment facilities?"
Actually, I would say that NO, you shouldn't. In all of those cases. The fact that you have no choice infringes on your personal freedom. Our country (I know this seems ludicrous now...) was founded as a protest against taxation!
Now I will grant that yo
Government competition (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just not right.
That said, municipal WIFI districts are not too bad an idea IMHO.
Community wi-fi should be definitely allowed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see municipal wireless broadband efforts as any different.
It's really similar to how some communities offer garbage service, whereas others do not. If the community's taxpayers are willing to pay for the service, then the local government should be willing to provide it (within the standard Constitutional limits).
Additionally, if a local government provides a broadband service, it should be like the public streets--open to all. I'm not comfortable with the economic exclusion of parts of the taxpaying public through the charging of a separate fee (no matter how small this fee is). Furthermore, I don't have a problem with the implementation of a "Fair Access Policy", which tacks on a surcharge for those users who utilize the network the most, so as not to penalize the light users of the network.
However, what concerns me the most, however, is the community policing of these broadband networks, including government intrusion on people's privacy and censorship of content deemed inappropriate for the community.
One more thing, by all means, the opening of community broadband should not be a dedicated monopoly on broadband service. Thus, communities should NOT be allowed to block other broadband services from coming in to service their residents. This should force the alternate broadband service providers to provide better services and specialized content to get people to want their services.
Is cheap broadband unAmerican? (Score:5, Funny)
Why the hell not, everything else I like seems to be.
Or, as we said back in the fifties (Score:3, Funny)
At long last, have you left no sense of TCP/IP"
Government Controll of Information (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not want the goverment in controll of my access to the internet. If the govenment gives away free internet access, the "for pay" services will not be able to compete and will go under. That will leave the government in full control of my access to information.
I have no problem with government agencies providing free access in libraries, parks, airports, schools, and government buildings. I consider this to be approprtiate and even usefull. I do not, however, want the government providing free wifi in my home.
What a bunch of reactionary nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you even begin to fathom the kinds of monopolies and cartels that would form if our streets, highways, and expressways were privately owned (as some extremist libertarians advocate)? If you think the Microsoft monopoly is bad, imagine a Shell, Exxon, or Ford monopoly on the street to your driveway. Want to go to the store? Better make sure it's an Exxon affiliate. Want to go to work. Better hope to God you work for on Exxon affiliate (or pay treble). Want to compete with Exxon. God (or other mythological Dieity) help you.
That is exactly the current situation with telecommunications in the United States, and the FCC's efforts to mititage these monopolies through regulation will always be inadequate as long as the underlying infrastructure, which lends itself to natural monopolies in much the same way roads do (how many wires can you physically have running up to your doorstep, and how cost effective is it to have more than one?), remains privately owned.
Network infrastructure is for digital communicatons as basic as roads and highways are to transportation. It not only makes sense to have them administered as public works projects in the same way highways are, it is imperitive if you want to have any kind of effective competition with respect to the thousands of services that use that infrastructure. Otherwise, so hello to your local telco. They own access to your communications and, by implication, you, and you don't even have the power to elect someone new when (not if) they abuse their position.
Hat's off to Ant! (Score:5, Interesting)
My gawd, that has to the the most brilliant, funny, and succinct turn-of-phrase I've read in a long time...
Next up.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big food companies are systematically ruining the Apple Pie baking efforts in kitchens across the country, likening these home baking initiatives to a form of communism.
"Pie manufacturing giants have mobilized a well-funded army of TV commercials, huge supermarkets and lazy mothers to protect their Apple Pie fiefdoms from these home kitchen initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise"
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats something I will pay dearly for.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
How much you want to bet that the government network won't allow porn - "for the sake of the children."
If the same idiots that run the building department get to run the local internet - I'll will make AOL dial-up seem like a breath of fresh air.
[Version=NPR_Snooty]
it will make AOL dial-up seem like a breath of fresh aire.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's to say that comcast won't send 404s when someone visits AdBusters or tries to download an application to protect their privacy.
The idea that a corporation is any more trustworthy than the government is ludicrous. If anything, they're even less trustworthy because we can't vote them out of office without cutting off the
City-sponsored internet and private companies (Score:5, Interesting)
The bills prevent the government from any role whatsoever -- even to let a private ISP resell excess capacity on the city network, or to use a water tower in a rural area.
Many of the projects are in small rural towns that have no broadband at all. The incumbent phone companies are holding the local economy hostage. They're saying "if we don't want to supply broadband to the town, nobody should."
I'm involved with the fight against this legislation in Texas, at SaveMuniWireless.org
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, the free market doesn't really work for things like that because it's fairly easy for companies to sell your information in secret, and if customers aren't aware of something, market forces can't fix the problem.
People are greedy (not just in capitalism mind you, but in general) and will screw you over behind your back as much as they can, and in front of your face as much as you wil
The whole point of wireless is competition (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the wireless companies compete. And not just on WiFi. Verizon has EVDO, and Sprint is starting up their EVDO. Don't take tax money and give it to an inefficient -- and potentially tyrannical (in terms of ready cooperation with snooping federal agencies) -- government-run communications operation.
Any goal of bridging the "digital divide" for the economically disadvantaged should be handled by private charities. The last thing we need is for that segment of the population to have a government-run ISP censor blogs like whatreallyhappened.com [whatreallyhappened.com] (which was classified at one point by a censorware company as being "anti-Semitic", and thus presumably unavailable at some public schools and libraries).
Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
It really is disheartening when I run into to people who don't understand the inherent value of cooperation, especially as it applies to legimate government interests. It's american in so far as it expresses the will of the population. So people unfortunately have been convinced that the people don't have the same rights/privledges as the "professions" do. Society has been sectioned off, we consume, they make and how dare we cross that line.
Other People (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it is (Score:3, Insightful)
I already pay $45 a month for Adelphia's cable service and it would make me quite mad to have to pay more taxes to subsidize someone else's connection to their home. I would mind a buck or two going to buy cable access for the local library since that is totally open to the public. Free wireless though, is something that people can use in their own homes and thus I oppose it. If they are going to get free access then it should be only in a public place where the government can scrutinize their use. The last thing I want to pay taxes for is a connection that lets some mooch run file sharing software off the public dime all day.
Oh and if the government is running the wireless service you can pretty much bet safely that the government will let the police play around with the ISP. They'll be free to log everything and scrutinize everything you do on it because it's a government resource owned and operated by a local government, not a private corporation. That means that if they want to log everything and periodically check to see who is doing what, well that's their prerogative. Your expectation of 4th amendment protection online will all but go out the window if you use the gubermint's service.
If there was a free market that's different (Score:3, Insightful)
This presumes that there are any private sector alternatives.
In which case, the private company would have to offer something more than the publicly offered service: static IP, or higher bandwidth, or some other services in o
is poisoning our language unAmerican? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a freakin' idiot would make the leap to equating this with Soviet State Communism, Stalinism, the murder of millions of people, and hence, evil. Communism isn't inherently evil, any more than most philosophies.
The fact that oppressive dictatorships arose in the last century that called themselves Communist (while doing a lot of unCommunist things, like, I don't know, oppressing the workers a lot worse than the capitalists were doing before them) doesn't make any vaguely socialist proposal the edge of a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and more than the Crusades prove that all Christians love killing Muslims.
Anyone who tries to advance their political ends through misleading labeling should be tarred and feathered.
Re:is poisoning our language unAmerican? (Score:3, Funny)
You Have No *Right* To Connectivity (Score:3, Insightful)
I absolutely, positively, and totally detest the notion of everything and everything being a "right." Connectivity isn't a right because it's not something innate to you. We're not born with the ability to access the Internet. Someone has to build the backbone, the infrastructure, and the hardware to enable Internet access. It's not like freedom of speech, in which case we're all born with the ability to speak.
Defining something as a "right" which requires one to use the labor of others isn't a right -- it's saying that you should have control over someone else's property or work. It's like someone saying that they have the "right" to take GPL software and use it commercially without adhering to the GPL -- they're taking someone else's work and using as it they wish without consideration of the author's wishes.
If a community wants to implement a "free" wireless network, fine. Let the electorate of that community make the decision. However, don't try to sell the line that one has a "right" to something that they didn't produce. That is Communism, and not only does it not work practically, it's ethically and morally unjustifiable as well.
Are roads socialist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the people making this argument also think that the government should get out of the "road" business, and that all roads should be privately run toll roads?
Broadband is the 21st century equivalent of a road. If a region doesn't have broadband, it becomes the economic equivalent of a third world country with dirt roads.
Adina Levin
SaveMuniWireless.org [savemuniwireless.org]
Re:You Have No *Right* To Connectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? When's the last time you saw a baby pop out and say, "Don't slap my ass, biatch!"
Children learn to speak, just like they learn to access the internet.
The freedom to say what you want is granted (or revoked) by others, just as the freedom to access the internet is granted (or revoked) by others.
Speech is no more innate than internet access, you're just more used to it. It's just a younger behavior, but it's still simply a behavior.
"However, don't try to sell the line that one has a "right" to something that they didn't produce."
Do communities have a right to electricity? Some municipalities have electricity coops. Is this communism?
Re:You Have No *Right* To Connectivity (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true. This "normal development" of which you speak depends on the contribution of other people, either actively or passively. This contribution imposes a cost. Whether you assert that speech develops through mimicry, direct instruction, or both, it requires other people to contribute.
we are not born with wifi receivers or tele
Re:You Have No *Right* To Connectivity (Score:3, Interesting)
We have no unalienable right to postal mail either, but somehow our nation's founders decided that the most effective way to establish a reliable post would be to make it a government service.
Glad we're all on the same page. So long as you feel that way, that one bullshit sentence from the article can be safely ignored. You s
Who said you have a *Right*? (Score:3, Interesting)
But there's no *Right* involved here... These cities are charging $20 or so a month to recoup their costs.
I don't see where you can justify the argument you are making.
Paranoia, people! (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens to wiretap laws when the gubmint is your ISP?
If I have a contract with, say, my excellent local service providers North Valley.net [northvalley.net] or the venerable Sunset.net [sunset.net], I do so with the understanding that
A) I'm contracting with a private entity, whose existence is perpetuated by the charges I pay, and
B) that the company has every legal right to examine my traffic for any purpose whatsoever, though generally it's going to be only to diagnose performance problems.
Because of "A", I know that they don't have any particular interest in examining my traffic and/or violating my trust and privacy beyond "keeping me happy". If word gets out that the admin at either of these companies is reading customer email, and maybe even silently forwarding private messages to other staff, there'd be hell to pay in the court of public opinion, and in the company's bottom line.
But, if the "gubmint" does it, why, it's simply called a "security matter". Rattle off a few department names (FBI, CIA, City Police, State Troopers, whatever) and everybody turns their head silently.
In this case, I think I'm on the side of the companies, even though I dislike their reasons for doing so.
I do not want my Internet service provided by an entity with a vested interest in violating my privacy, whether that interest is in the name of law enforcement, anti-terrorism, or just shits and giggles.
How is this Different From Utilities (Score:5, Insightful)
If I hear/see the term "UN-American" one more time (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that IS "un-American" is NOT talking/communicating about things (issues, debates, ideas, etc.).
We have dealt with "corporate America" in the past and we will continue to do so.
The only thing, in MY opinion, is that the vast majority of people in government (not talking about workers, interns, secretaries, etc.) are rich... I am referring to the legislatures, congress people, the house, executive, and judicial branches. The vast majority of them are rich, again MY opinion... (don't like it, I don't care J )
THIS is a problem. It is a problem because those in power (most, not all) are only interested in keeping their power and money and therefore are not interested in the common man, woman, or child. Just look at the incredible level of poverty around the nation. MOST them are focused on gaining money from a variety of sources (corporate America, "Religious" groups, and Iraq) keeping the people of this country focused on "other things" while they do it. Again, MY opinion...
The Right-Wing used (and continues to use) the term "un-American", among others, to divert (and scare) the mass majority of sheep in our country away from the REAL issues facing our country. This is done to pass legislation that would NORMALLY not make it and to continue their greedy ends...
BUT using FEAR and BRANDING as tactics seems to be working. I am just SICK, and tired, of this CRAP!
THAT is all it is... Feces! (guano, excrement, whatever... You get the point, it's all POO!
Re:If I hear/see the term "UN-American" one more t (Score:5, Informative)
Go forth. Google.
Selling out the citizenry is American, it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
In a nutshell, we have Friedman essentially saying that among other things, having inexpensive and widespread broadband is essential to remain competitive. Countries like Japan and South Korea have encouraged this, since it is in the best interest of their economies. Us? We encourage the profits of the entrenched monopolistic telecoms.
Krugman talks about our health system, and has one astonishing statistic - that we not only pay twice what other countries with "socialized" medicine pay out per capita, with worse results, but almost half of our per capita is Medicare expenditures by the government. In other words, the US government already pays pretty same the much amount per citizen of what the French, Canadian or UK governments do - but we still have 40 million uninsured, and private insurance doubles our per capita. With worse results. This defies any kind of logic.
Why would a government promote policies that give worse results, while enriching private companies and special interests? Simple: our government serves those entities, but not the citizenry. I don't care about your party affiliation or ideology; spending more money with poorer results to benefit the few at the cost of the many is NOT something that represents American ideals. Anyone that says otherwise is simply ignorant or likewise beholden to special interests.
I'd blame the government, but the citizenry is who elected them. We get the government that we deserve.
jh
Re:Selling out the citizenry is American, it seems (Score:3, Interesting)
And as always, it's not quite that simple. Pay scales, for instance. Let's compare registered nurses in London and NYC.
London midgrade RN salary [healthprofessionals.com] - £21,605 ($40,859 at todays conversion rate)
NYC midrange RN salary [salary.com] - $59,102.
I'd say that numbers like those make up a LARGE portion of the difference in medical costs.
Re:Not Communist but Certainly not Capitalist (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Keep Gov out of it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire country is run by a handful of firms that control most of the copper and fiber backbone. That's hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines in the hands of a tiny group of firms, so you wanna tell me again that the government is over-regulating things?
Don't use the fear of bible America to push erroneous free market drivel. It's unbecoming. If the local municipality gets demands from it's constituents to provide a low cost alternative and it decides to provide it, don't go demonizing the government..point at the private entities and ask them to get on the ball and bring prices down.
Re:Keep Gov out of it. (Score:4, Insightful)
You use free hippy roads, you leave your house and drive on toll-free hippy roads and buy things from businesses, increasing trade.
Let the govt provide ISP service, private corporations who will do things like screw with third party VOIP have necessitated this.
Re:Communism (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of those oft-spoken phrases which simply is not true. Communism look abominable on paper, and works even worse in real life. If communism were all about voluntary association, it would look great on paper, but it just looks like totalitarianism on paper to me. If you think communism looks great on paper, how about your religion as the official s