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

Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#31

Post by jvanderbot »

sabbaticaldev wrote: post #13
jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a "Bitcoin will solve finance" feel to it. Not to be super dismissive, but there's just as much likelihood it will help as it won't. But in your corner: It's true that right now space-based deployment of broadband will provide broadband in locations where it's not currently available - perhaps spurring competition. It's also probably true that space-based broadband will be able to compete directly with urban…

TV made radio irrelevant, the internet made TV irrelevant. Both still exists but as money-losing mass manipulation tools

But those are new kinds. Not new providers.

There's no phone company that made all other phone companies irrelevant.

There's no tv channel that made all other tv channels irrelevant.

And there's no radio station that .. you get it.

And so it's hard for me to concolude that there's some ISP that will make all other ISPs irrelevant. Honestly most people will probably have about a 50/50 split between home wifi and phone internet. And that home wifi might have significant intrusion from space-based ISP, but not completely. (I realize spacex is also hoping to provide some phone service from satellites, but I digress)

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#32

Post by badgersnake »

sabbaticaldev wrote: post #13
jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a "Bitcoin will solve finance" feel to it. Not to be super dismissive, but there's just as much likelihood it will help as it won't. But in your corner: It's true that right now space-based deployment of broadband will provide broadband in locations where it's not currently available - perhaps spurring competition. It's also probably true that space-based broadband will be able to compete directly with urban…

TV made radio irrelevant, the internet made TV irrelevant. Both still exists but as money-losing mass manipulation tools

TV certainly didn't make radio irrelevant, radio is very relevant in situations where you can't look at a screen, or would prefer not to. It's also much lower bandwidth, takes up a lot less space, uses a lot less power on the receiver (even compared to say a modern mobile device) and audio only content is much cheaper to produce.

I've heard it argued that podcasts make radio obsolete. That is more plausible.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#33

Post by cogman10 »

sabbaticaldev wrote: post #13
jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a "Bitcoin will solve finance" feel to it. Not to be super dismissive, but there's just as much likelihood it will help as it won't. But in your corner: It's true that right now space-based deployment of broadband will provide broadband in locations where it's not currently available - perhaps spurring competition. It's also probably true that space-based broadband will be able to compete directly with urban…

TV made radio irrelevant, the internet made TV irrelevant. Both still exists but as money-losing mass manipulation tools

How will Internet access make Internet access irrelevant?

This is much like saying satellite TV made cable TV irrelevant. Or magazines made newspapers irrelevant.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#34

Post by conradev »

mrbluecoat wrote: post #2

Once space-based broadband Internet becomes widely available, I predict shortsighted ISPs will join the ranks of Kodak and Blockbuster.

Or maybe, if we’re lucky, they’ll have to compete on quality as well as price.

When Verizon laid down fiber optic cable in my (former) neighborhood, it was so much better than Xfinity’s service, and everyone I knew switched.

Not to say that the type of physical cable matters as much, DOCSIS 4.0 is in the cards, but latency and bandwidth will always be better on a (good) wired connection.

One quirk worth mentioning, though, is that WWAN did leap-frog WLAN with 5G and especially with ultra-wideband (which isn’t everywhere). Until I installed 6GHz Wi-Fi, the fastest wireless speeds I saw were on ultra-wideband connections to my phone.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#35

Post by tialaramex »

EGreg wrote: post #27
jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a "Bitcoin will solve finance" feel to it. Not to be super dismissive, but there's just as much likelihood it will help as it won't. But in your corner: It's true that right now space-based deployment of broadband will provide broadband in locations where it's not currently available - perhaps spurring competition. It's also probably true that space-based broadband will be able to compete directly with urban…

Genuinely wondering, why are so many people on HN allergic to any mention of decentralized solutions? It was precisely the opposite in 2014. Now, anything that smells of BFT consensus, open decentralized protocols, smart contracts, distributed computing, gets lumped with “Web3” and downvoted to oblivion. I was surprised Freenet got through the other day without being associated with it, despite having WASM smart cont…

Where are you seeing a "decentralized solution"?

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#36

Post by jvanderbot »

josefresco wrote: post #30

Sixteen states (down from 21), detailed here: https://communitynets.org/content/state-state-preemption-sta... Despite this ban, many communities in these states have pushed forward.

And there's more good news. Minnesota is not on that map, but Minnesota has moved in very good directions re: ISPs. My rural neighbors have community internet, and it's _good_. High quality fiber.

I have centurylink - ok not a community plan, but it competes directly with T-mobile, Xfinity (comcast), and other cell-based providers, and provides an excellent product for much cheaper.

And I know for a fact that colorado has been fighting the good fight. https://communitynets.org/content/colorado-passes-new-broadb...

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#37

Post by badgersnake »

EGreg wrote: post #27
jvanderbot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a "Bitcoin will solve finance" feel to it. Not to be super dismissive, but there's just as much likelihood it will help as it won't. But in your corner: It's true that right now space-based deployment of broadband will provide broadband in locations where it's not currently available - perhaps spurring competition. It's also probably true that space-based broadband will be able to compete directly with urban…

Genuinely wondering, why are so many people on HN allergic to any mention of decentralized solutions? It was precisely the opposite in 2014. Now, anything that smells of BFT consensus, open decentralized protocols, smart contracts, distributed computing, gets lumped with “Web3” and downvoted to oblivion. I was surprised Freenet got through the other day without being associated with it, despite having WASM smart cont…

Everything with a blockchain turns into a pump and dump grift. The only exception is things that started out as a pump and dump grift.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#38

Post by EGreg »

tialaramex wrote: post #35
EGreg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely wondering, why are so many people on HN allergic to any mention of decentralized solutions? It was precisely the opposite in 2014. Now, anything that smells of BFT consensus, open decentralized protocols, smart contracts, distributed computing, gets lumped with “Web3” and downvoted to oblivion. I was surprised Freenet got through the other day without being associated with it, despite having WASM smart cont…

Where are you seeing a "decentralized solution"?

“Communities getting together and making their own broadband”? Big Telco Cartels using Big Government to shut it down?

Why is this bad:

https://qbix.com/blog/2017/12/18/power-to-the-people/

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#39

Post by rlili »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #15
varispeed wrote: post #11

[flagged]

"Corruption" isn't a binary. It exists in the West. It's bad that it exists in the West. But it exists less in the West than in some other places, and that difference matters.

In many countries, lobbying is considered corruption. That it is legalized in the US alone, suggests to me that it actually exists more in the West.

Re: Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks

#40

Post by EGreg »

badgersnake wrote: post #37
EGreg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely wondering, why are so many people on HN allergic to any mention of decentralized solutions? It was precisely the opposite in 2014. Now, anything that smells of BFT consensus, open decentralized protocols, smart contracts, distributed computing, gets lumped with “Web3” and downvoted to oblivion. I was surprised Freenet got through the other day without being associated with it, despite having WASM smart cont…

Everything with a blockchain turns into a pump and dump grift. The only exception is things that started out as a pump and dump grift.

Everything is quite a claim.

Can you prove that?

Is that a reasonable thing to ask, or are we supposed to simply nod along and say “yes, your dogma is correct in 100% of cases”?

For example tell us how these are a grift: FileCoin. UniSwap. Aave. DID and Sidetree protocol (used by bluesky sky).

And decentralized systems go way past blockchains. Email. Heck even the Web itself. If anything I’d say they tend to centralize because of the “grift” which is capturing open protocols and doing rent extraction (eg GMail) or surveillance capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

That centralization and control over millioms and billions of people is worse than a grift. Why can’t we talk about disrupting THAT?

Post reply on HN