Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#81

Post by aqme28 »

WillNotDownvote wrote: post #41
jfb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.

A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'…

It's definitely an issue that will be raised, so I don't know why you're downvoted. Ideally, people would realize that it's roughly the equivalent of using public electricity for unsavory things.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#82

Post by wglb »

WillNotDownvote wrote: post #70
Jtsummers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already an issue faced by other government entities that provide access to the internet. See libraries. Their solution is to leave it open because it's not their place to censor. Parents already have (I assume faulty, never checked it out myself) software solutions to block "unsavory" content.

Right, and libraries in various municipalities are in fact censored, both in terms of publications and in internet access they allow. Why would this be different?

How are they censored? Do you have any examples of this?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#83

Post by [deleted] »

ksk wrote: post #45
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

> you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it. How so? Whether its good or bad, ISPs would be against it. Most companies do not want competition. (regardless of what they say) >by allowing the option of municipal networks. I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. >Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking You can…

[deleted]

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#84

Post by [deleted] »

justizin wrote: post #32
ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

I agree with making it possible for the common person to get involved, as well. The problem with current Title II negotiations is that they still only involve top-level government officials and corporate execs. I'm afraid of making the rules too vindictive, but that doesn't mean I don't think what's currently happening is shady. Why try to solve the internet forever in one fell swoop? Any such effort is almost certai…

[deleted]

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#85

Post by dang »

whoisthemachine wrote: post #17

That title is a little (may I say intentionally?) misleading, by leaving important context out. He is not proposing his government runs a high-speed internet project, he is proposing local municipalities be allowed to run high-speed internet projects, or rather, states be banned from banning them (confused yet?).

We changed the title to the more accurate and neutral one suggested by the article's URL.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#86

Post by [deleted] »

justizin wrote: post #32
ayuvar wrote: post #5

Municipal broadband is a great idea. A town near me, Olds, just rolled out gigabit fiber to the curb for $57/mo. Considering most of the other nearby municipalities have to live with dialup or (agonizingly slow) satellite internet, it's been a big draw to the area. I think it absolutely makes a ton of sense for rural areas; if I had a remote job it would be very tempting to head out there and get an acreage. I feel l…

I agree with making it possible for the common person to get involved, as well. The problem with current Title II negotiations is that they still only involve top-level government officials and corporate execs. I'm afraid of making the rules too vindictive, but that doesn't mean I don't think what's currently happening is shady. Why try to solve the internet forever in one fell swoop? Any such effort is almost certai…

[deleted]

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#87

Post by warfangle »

tzs wrote: post #18

It's not clear that the FCC can preempt state laws that prohibit municipal broadband. From the Wikipedia article on municipal broadband [1]: In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission endorsed municipal broadband as a "best practice" for bringing broadband to under served communities. The FCC also addressed the question of whether a municipality was an "entity" under the Telecommunications Act which mandates that…

Yeah, looks like the courts agreed that municipalities, as a subsection of the state, are not considered an entity: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1238

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#88

Post by Shivetya »

nostromo wrote: post #11

Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs. Municipal governments: the cause of, and solution to, your ISP woes. It reminds me of housing. 1) Governments restrict new housing. 2) Housing becomes unaffordable. 3) Government builds public housing because "the free market has failed."

thank you. So many are quick to demonize the companies that spent their money to expand high speed internet do not realize just what you won't get with municipal anything.

First is service, second is new technology, and third is support. They simply have to offer the baseline requirement and all responsibility after that is farmed off. Farmed off to companies which meet very politically correct setups.

Want to see corruption hit an all new level, mandate this. It will turn into the same mess many city airports have become. Home of political friends and family. Serving the places THEY live, you might get some if your in the right zip code.

This is the same national government which people blame for everything wrong but suddenly they think it will get this right?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#89

Post by GhotiFish »

ksk wrote: post #75
jfb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you have an asymmetry in resources between e.g. local officials who might want to stand up a fiber network and a company the size of Verizon, who very badly do not want this to happen. You need countervailing size, and in the US only the federal government has it.

The problem of asymmetry of resources exists in all domains that have high sunk costs. To reduce monopolies, using your logic ("you need countervailing size") the government would have to get involved in all of the other industries like shipping, oil refining, TV networks, etc. Instead, why not change the law (if needed) to prevent monopolies from happening?

Friendly reminder to people of HN. Please don't downvote to disagree. Is your objective to discourage dissenting opinion? Seriously? That's not healthy for a community.

ksk's comments were not out of place.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#90

Post by freehunter »

jfb wrote: post #72
WillNotDownvote wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'…

It seems to me that the right level for government to be involved in these sorts of questions is the municipality itself, rather than running back to Federal statute. Which is, again, orthogonal to preventing Verizon-owned statehouses from passing laws preventing municipal broadband networks. This is a very light touch intervention to increase market-based competition. How much more quickly would there be privately o…

The Internet generally has fallen under inter-state regulations, which is governed by the federal government.
Post reply on HN