Louisville's Fiber Internet Expansion Opposed By Koch Brothers Group (usatoday.com) 230
Slashdot reader simkel shared an article from the Courier-Journal:
A group affiliated with the Koch brothers' powerful political network is leading an online campaign against Mayor Greg Fischer's $5.4 million proposal to expand Louisville's ultra-fast internet access... Critics argue that building roughly 96 miles of fiber optic cabling is an unnecessary taxpayer giveaway to internet service providers, such as Google Fiber, which recently announced plans to begin building its high-speed network in the city. "Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems," said David Williams, president of the taxpayers alliance, which is part of industrialists Charles and David Koch's political donor network... The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
Ban money in politics (Score:1)
US really need ban all "political donations" which comes out of constant election costs. Have the government pay for the election funding where each candidates will get fixed amount for their campaigns.
Re:Ban money in politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
What we can do though, is to work to roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Unfortunately that means we have to play their game, form our own legal entities to do the speaking, to push for that change, and as we've seen they're a lot better than we are at organizing these kinds of things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.
Here's why you will fail [reason.com]:
Re:Ban money in politics (Score:4, Interesting)
There should be no issue with laws restricting corporate speech. Such laws don't remove any right to free speech. People can still speak collectively, just without the special benefits given to corporations. To answer your specific claim, "It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech," I'll note that the Constitution also doesn't mention corporations at all, so they have no right to exist. The law which allows them to be created simply needs to say that speech is not an allowed purpose of a corporation. Organizations of people can then make their choice - free speech rights, or the legal benefits of incorporation. The Declaration of Independence wasn't published by a corporation. As I said, they're entirely a figment of the law, and there's no reason they should have any rights at all, only the privileges and benefits defined by law.
And yes, the above includes for-profit media.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There should be no issue with laws restricting corporate speech. Such laws don't remove any right to free speech.
But they do abridge those rights.
The law which allows them to be created simply needs to say that speech is not an allowed purpose of a corporation.
That's not how rights work. Governments can't make people give up their basic human rights in exchange for some exemptions from some laws. If they could, then "everyone's salary is taxed at 97%, but it's only 10% if you give up the right to due process" would be permissible. It's clearly not. Courts aren't generally that easily fooled. Rights are rights, they're not some minor inconvenience for the government to easily work around.
As I said, they're entirely a figment of the law, and there's no reason they should have any rights at all, only the privileges and benefits defined by law.
The individual people have the rights.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if it were true. It isn't.
"Governments can't make people give up their basic human rights in exchange for some exemptions from some laws."
Really? Really?? Are you claiming that exemption from law should come at no cost? Be specific, and provide examples of how that law would be effective if everyone were exempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you claiming that exemption from law should come at no cost?
It can have a cost. But that cost can't be the abridgement of free speech or the loss of other fundamental human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
That's eithe false or meaningless. If you want to understand what you're talking about, here's a quick explainer:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Put it a different way: Can Congress prohibit corporations from performing or arranging abortions? Why not?
Re: Ban money in politics (Score:2)
Umm...
Planned Parenthood is an incorporated entity.
Re: (Score:2)
So Congress can say no corporate abortions? Or Congress can say corporations can't act as suppliers for anyone who performs abortions?
Or are incorporation laws not a legitimate workaround for Constitutional rights?
Re: (Score:2)
See my other reply. Sheesh...
Re: Ban money in politics (Score:2)
Wait, no. They are but I read you wrong. Weed is likely a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hells yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it's an explicit limitation on government power rather than something about who has which rights.
Parrots can talk, and Congress is prohibited from abridging their freedom to do it.
Corporations are legal entities, not humans
So they don't have the right to an abortion then? Can Congress prohibit corporations from performing abortions? Can Congress prohibit corporations from supplying or doing business with anyone who performs abortions? Why not? Getting an abortion as an individual, using the services of other individuals, would still
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations can be prohibited to everyone. But they can't be allowed on the condition of giving up fundamental rights.
By the same token, government owns roads. Government can't grant access to roads only to people who agree to give up 4th Amendment rights. Courts don't generally allow simplistic workarounds for fundamental rights.
Re:Ban money in politics (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think we'll ever get there so long as the ability to spend money is legally considered protected speech.
The Koch Brothers opposed Donald Trump and opposed Obama. Their track record of buying election isn't so good. There are many many examples of the best funded candidate losing. Perhaps the voters are not as dumb as you think they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why Hillary raised almost double what Donald did. I bet those people are kicking themselves for having bought someone who isn't even in office.
Re: (Score:3)
The Koch brothers also didn't spend a single penny in 2016. After Trump won the primary they stopped all spending because they felt it would not be a worthwhile investment.
This tells you a few things:
1) They normally get a good return on their investment -they wouldn't usually spend money if they didn't
2) You can't use the 2016 election as a measure of how much their money influences outcomes since it wasn't a factor - while it was a big factor in 2000 and 2004 (both of which the democrats lost).
More import
Re: (Score:2)
Read the whole thread, you know - so you you reply to sentences in context ?
Re: (Score:2)
each candidates will get fixed amount for their campaigns.
Then you would have thousands of people filing for every elective office, just to get the free cash. Or will the cash only go to "established parties"?
Re: (Score:2)
Same way Austria solved it. To get your campaign money back, you need (IIRC) 0.5% of the general vote. That ensures that pretty much everyone who really means it has a chance to recover his expenses while at the same time excluding people who just want some "free" advertising time.
They also have a cap on how much you may spend on your campaign based on the amount of voters that you can reach (i.e. for general elections you can spend more than on elections for mayor or governor, simply because there's fewer
Re: (Score:2)
True. But a decent grassroots movement goes a long way considering the rather low limits what you may sensibly spend.
Isn't Fibre BB part of the Infrstructure? (Score:3)
But money will talk and the Koch Brothers will 'own' another bit of the USA.
Because (Score:5, Insightful)
Or (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
... But regardless the internet connectivity got better, so isn't that mission accomplished?
Re: (Score:1)
... But regardless the internet connectivity got better, so isn't that mission accomplished?
Only if it stays better.
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly possible for a project to go wrong, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It means there needs to be better support for small munipalities to do it well. From an interesting article [dailyunion.com] about how it works in Wisconsin:
The Village of Jackson, she said, also sold its system for pennies on the dollar because it did not keep up with the advances in the technology required for the utility; in short, the system was nearly obsolete within five years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It means there needs to be better support for small munipalities to do it well.
Or more generally:
The Ayn Randians have defined the debate about government involvement for the last 40 years. They've made it about small government versus big government. But that's a misdirection. What really matters is good governance versus bad governance It turns out that one of the surest ways to get bad governance is to capriciously hamstring government. "Starve the beast" is a surefire recipe for ineffective and often counterproductive government.
Nope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By definition we should see governments creating better services than any private corporation ever would. Simply due to logic. Corporations provide services as a means to an end, the service is the necessary evil for their actual goal, profit, while governments' primary concern is to actually provide a service, with the fees for it being often just an afterthought and way to direct demand rather than an actual attempt to generate revenue.
So why is it we don't observe this in reality, too?
Well, most of the t
Regardless of your political affiliation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Lets look at some words:
"... misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety."
Todays word is infrastructure, fibre is infrastructure, which can also be used for public safety.
Re: (Score:1)
Who says they give it away to google and comcast? Do you mean RENT IT out to whoever wants to bid on it and pay for it? That's a bit different.
At least they are transparent (Score:1)
The last portion of this article stood out the most.
Basically put:
The only way we can truly be a big brother society is by installing high speed internet everywhere to connect the devices.
We feel you should pay for it because this will make you feel safer.
Fuck you. (Score:5, Insightful)
What a stupid fucking asshole. We're struggling to keep our business afloat because neither of our two ISP's (TWC and AT&T) can provide us with stable Internet connections at one of our locations. Everybody needs government funded, government regulated Internet access ASAP.
Re: (Score:1)
We need dependable internet infrastructure just as much as roads and sidewalks. If we can use the internet for services, then we use other infrastructure less, which means the roads will last longer, less pollution from driving and maintaining infrastructure, less demand for gasoline and so on. Oh, wait, less demand for gasoline? maybe that is one of the Koch Bros concerns right there?
If the Koch bros think other things should be funded, then they should be doing the funding. They certainly have the money t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fuck you. (Score:5, Informative)
Unlimited data, no traffic shaping, net neutrality, access to multiple ISPs , no port blocking.
100/20 comes in around NZ$75-95 a month, but you can pay higher if you want more bandwidth.
Turns out that governments SHOULD be looking after those that pay taxes and get to vote.
Thats one of the advantages of proportional representation, those elected are more likely to get voted out if they screw up, so they do more to keep the voters happy and less to keep big business happy.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they're still doing so much better than America in nearly every metric that matters.
Except perhaps yacht racing.
Re:Fuck you. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main overseas income earner for New Zealand is Tourism. Dairy is 2nd.
Oh, I have Family who are Maori, and step kids who are Samoan, however I am unsure as to how what ethnic groups are in New Zealand makes a difference to broadband availability.
New Zealand actually took a stand with Nukes, against pressure from Australia, the USA, England, France and to this day Nukes are still banned. Our armed forces are highly regarded around the world because we get along with anyone.
Actually most of the noise about bad trade deals comes from the USA, Trump is especially loud on this.
New Zealands economy is one of the most open in the world.We don't use huge tax payer subsides for our agriculture, unlike the USA where about 10% of famers income comes from subsidies.
Monoculture means one culture, New Zealand has many cultural groups here, Maori, English , German, French, Samoan, Tongan, Chinese,etc etc etc etc. Again, US education system.
Please tell me you are not one of the 7% of Americans who thinks Chocolate Milk comes from brown cows.
And as for the size of our country, well in most things we out perform the expectations based on the population size.
Re: (Score:2)
I just got done telling you that we aren't smart. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3)
But then again as a country we are less corrupt than the USA, and generally out perform the USA on things like Education, Health, Welfare, Social mobility, freedom of the press, free speech, "happiness", crime, etc etc etc etc.
Re:Fuck you. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have gun control
We have a MUCH lower murder rate
We dont have the death penalty.
Per 100,000 people, we have fewer police officers
Per 100,000 we have fewer people in prison (the USA is about 1% of its adult population)
Our rankings for Health, Education, welfare, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, honesty, corruption, happiness, etc etc etc all typically are BETTER than those of the USA, sometimes by a large margin.
And looking at your anger issues, I would say that we are far better off than you. Money and size has not made you better off.
Re: (Score:2)
Our Native parrot is inquisitive , intelligent, and destructive, it can remove the rubber trim off a car in minutes !
There are no carnivorous animals in NZ apart from the introduced ones (Cats, Dogs, stoats, ferrets, rats)
There are no snakes, none, nada, zero, zilch.
There is one mildly poisonous native spider (The Katipo) though Australian Red Backs are here to now, but rare.
No Crocs or Alligators
Sharks, yep we have them, but attacks are very rare.
The most da
Re: (Score:2)
On behalf of all New Zealanders who like to keep all those great benefits you listed:
Shut up.
Koch Anti-Innovation Reversion Industries (Score:1)
"Old monopolies are the only free market you deserve"
Kentukywired (Score:5, Informative)
Kentukywired [ky.gov] intends to wire the whole state. The Kochs have strategically chosen to pick this fight in Louisville, a classic (D) run bed of corruption.
Excuse me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would fall into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm reminded of an ad (Score:5, Interesting)
The gov't's been paying for expanding broadband for decades. The Koch bros own companies continue to suck up subsidies left and right. They couldn't be any more transparently hypocritical if they tried. But old people vote. They're easily frightened because they're brains go in old age and this stuff works.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why synchronization clocks, power demand limiters, and crowbar systems are required on back feeding power into the grid. As a last resort, the grid operator can blow the fusible links via the crowbar system either automatically or manually.
I do agree there are some challenges to backfeeding the grid, but it's all mostly older control systems. About the worst problems grid operators these days face is an over supply of power in off peak periods - that's why power demand limiters are required. It's ve
Fiber is infrastructure! (Score:3)
C'mon, guys! (Score:2)
Fundamentally (Score:2, Interesting)
"Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,"
Translation: Fundamentally, instead you should let us rake hundreds of millions per year from these same taxpayers with our inferior service.
Ang that for those lucky enough to get anything reasonable at all.
New Rule (Score:1, Funny)
Perhaps we should start having public executions for enemies of the people and progress?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Worked for Stalin and Pol Pot.
Re:New Rule (Score:4, Informative)
"And what was it that happened to the inventor of the guillotine again?" - He survived!
Rather appropriate since according to Wikipedia "Guillotin was opposed to the death penalty and hoped that a more humane and less painful method of execution would be the first step toward a total abolition of the death penalty". However someone else with the same surname was executed by a guillotine.
Joseph-Ignace Guillotin [wikipedia.org]
...
Towards the end of the Reign of Terror, a letter from the Comte de Méré to Guillotin fell into the hands of the public prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville in which the Count, who was to be executed, commended his wife and children to Guillotin's care. The authorities demanded Guillotin inform them of the whereabouts of the Count's wife and children. As Guillotin either would not or could not give the information, he was arrested and imprisoned. He was freed from prison in the general amnesty of 9 Thermidor 1794 after Robespierre fell from power and abandoned his political career to resume the medical profession.
...
The association with the guillotine so embarrassed Dr. Guillotin's family that they petitioned the French government to rename it; when the government refused, they instead changed their own family name. By coincidence, a person named Guillotin was indeed executed by the guillotine – he was J.M.V. Guillotin, a doctor of Lyons. This coincidence may have contributed to erroneous statements that Guillotin was put to death on the machine that bears his name; however, in reality, Guillotin died at home in Paris in 1814 of natural causes, specifically from a carbuncle, and is now buried in the Père-Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.
...
illogical argument in opposing the effort (Score:1)
Broadband providers already recieve federal grants to subsidize the expansion of service. This is part of a federal mandate to ensure that information can be swiftly communicated across the country. An argument that is based on the proposition that the use of tax revenue to subsidize the expansion of a service provider is an unfair burden to taxpayers is an argument that has cosmetic appeal but no legitimatimacy based on current and ongoing practices. The conclusion is that the true reason for opposing th
Telecoms Did It To Themselves (Score:1)
The Internet is a utility. It may not have started that way, but today, it is as necessary a public utility as water or electricity.
To that end, governments everywhere gave telecoms huge tax abatements to bring internet to everyone, and they basically stole that money.
So, I have no sympathy for the AT&Ts and Comcasts when they collectively steal billions of dollars from taxpayers.
What is this joke? (Score:1)
Tax payers have already been funding it federally and it hasn't moved for shit.
At least if it's done locally, it will get things moving.
These are the type of people who probably still claim Coal and Oil is the way of the future. Out with the old generation filled with morons stuck in their old ways, in with the new generation that knows what it wants instead of letting the old generation tell them what they should want. (ie nothing because it's all going to the old gen's pockets)
Infrastructure and public safety (Score:2)
The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety.
I'd think that building a publicly accessible fiber optic network does in fact meet the definition of infrastructure. I'd also think that providing a means for communication for the public does add to public safety.
Not the best argument in my estimation.
Arguing over nickels (Score:5, Interesting)
>The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds
Louisville is apparently 3/4 of a million people, so this comes to seven dollars per person. Surely less than 1% of anybody's property taxes. Louisville undoubtedly spends that on road maintenance every couple of weeks.
But that's just operating, this is capital. If they're spending less than $54M replacing pavement and wires and pipes every year, the city would be a shambles. This is probably about a 2% hit on one year of capital spending.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably about a 2% hit on one year of capital spending.
Exactly! Because we all know that you can just plop various bits of technology somewhere and it'll be good forever!
I mean, I'm sure the current ISP's don't spend anything whatsoever in maintenance and upgrades and are still using the same routers that ARPAnet did!
Re: (Score:1)
That would certainly explain why it's so slow and shitty. Thanks for the info!
Highways were giveaways, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, by this logic, building highways and city streets was just the government giving away taxpayer dollars as a gift to the likes of Ford, Chrysler and GM?
Re: (Score:2)
Ummmm...yeah.
Without heavy government investment in roads that started as soon as the car was invented, the industry would never have taken off.
And speaking of taking off, they also expended vast taxpayer dollars making airports available everywhere so that rich people who owned aircraft (and, they hoped, middle-class people that could rent a seat on one) would have someplace to go.
To this day, federal taxpayer dollars are expended on small rural airports that could never support themselves through user fee
Goolge Has The Money! (Score:1)
Let's play "change the name" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,
MhmmmKay. Let's whip that around a bit, shall we?
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding fire departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding police departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Public water & sewer systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Hospital systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding streets and highways,
Because, fundamentally, internet access isn't about browsing porn anymore. It's about scheduling medical appointments, getting prescription refills, it's about having a job, or looking for a job. It's about paying your bills, taxes, and doing your banking. It's about ordering things on line you simply can't get at your local brick and mortar store even if you wanted to take the trouble.
Because, fundamentally, if a person doesn't understand how all pervasive and simply necessary internet access is, they are either planning to rip off the public, or they are thinking with their fundament.
Fundamentally.
You can discern the hypocrisy in their statement by observing how fast they get on board if it's building (with tax dollars!) a billion dollar sports stadium or for a multi-billion dollar air port expansion, or a new freeway. Better watch out then, because they will leave hoof prints (like all jack asses do) across your back.
Oh, boy (Score:2)
Affiliated with their network. In plain English, at two degrees of separation from them.
This is just clickbait.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The Left (Score:5, Insightful)
If the city owns the fiber then they can rent it out to which ever operator that is interested in that area. Even two competing operators.
The ones complaining the most about towns and cities running their own fibers are the ones that want to control the consumers the most.
Re:The Left (Score:5, Insightful)
They could even take the approach that was originally required for DSL, where you pay one entity for the physical infrastructure usage, and pay a different entity for the final connection to the backbone of the Internet.
With modern routing you could even do it without having to result to changing physical patching, assuming that equipment used at the customer premises and at the network-equivalent of the neighborhood exchange or central office is capable of sub-line-rate service to the level that the customer is paying for and that the backbone linking NX or CO locations is sufficiently high-throughput.
If anything this approach would allow for more players, not fewer players, as providers would only have to cable-in infrastructure to the central offices instead of worrying about the last-mile links. This could allow for less expensive private WANs between multiple facilities within the metro-area; the customer with multiple locations could pay for their own private metro optical MLPS network without having to to onto the Internet for simple site-to-site networks.
Lastly it might make it easier for customers in less-desirable areas from a service-provider point of view to actually get service. This can affect both poor neighborhoods where an ISP might not expect enough adoption, and even some wealthier neighborhoods where the housing density is too low to make for a good return on the trenching or other infrastructure requirements to put the network in even if a lot of households want it.
I don't see any losing proposition except for ISPs that want monopoly or effective-monopoly positions in markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Modem....routing? Holy balls. 802.1q. Double-tagged traffic, with tags added at the ONT (FTTH customer prem equipment). Outer tag identifies Service Provider, Inner tag identifies Customer, or there could be other schemes. Some access equipment supports MPLS encapsulation so you don't even need to worry about VLAN assignments being unique accross ISPs. The access equipment can be connected directly to a colocated ISP on a dedicated LAG, or there could be an ENNI between routers of the facilities based ISP a
Re:The Left (Score:5, Interesting)
In New Zealand, the government (in conjunction with a private company Chorus) is putting in Fibre to something like 90% of the population and high speed wireless elsewhere.
ALL ISPs get to rent it out at the same price.
We have tiers in pricing based on speed and data caps but a 100/20 is available with unlimited data for NZ$95 or less.
Different ISPs offer different packages, i.e. free Netflix, Cheaper SkyTV, Local support, etc etc etc
We have net neutrality, data is data no matter where it comes from.
Here's the thing, the government is elected by the people, for the people. The taxes we pay SHOULD be benefiting us so the government putting in decent internet in this day and age IS what they are there for.
Re:The Koch brothers are evil (Score:5, Interesting)
These bastards must hate the environment, as much as they oppose any regulation to protect it. I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to spew idiocy in defense of the Koch Brothers. Now they want to oppose efforts to improve infrastructure in Louisville. At what point do we decide that these people are just evil and seize their assets for the public good?
If you are OK with the cable monopolies that exist in many cities, then you have a point because this is set up basically the same. Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that. I don't know of any cases where a company is such a position has been displaced. Or maybe you saw 'Koch' and decided your position based solely on that?
Re: (Score:2)
"Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that"
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?
Re: (Score:2)
"What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?"
All the cases when infrastructure has been, and is being, done right.
Re: (Score:2)
All the cases when infrastructure has been, and is being, done right.
Care to give us an example, or are you just going to stick with that weak, useless generalization?
Re: (Score:2)
Most areas in Europe where the cables were put into ground by government monopolies. Usually the deal when the market was liberalized was that the infrastructure (that was paid for by tax money before the opening of the market) went into a holding company and every service provider who wanted to use it has to pay them on equal footing. Or put down their own if they so please.
Re: (Score:2)
"Care to give us an example"
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
Re: (Score:2)
"Care to give us an example"
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time.
I don't profess there is a single way it 'should be done'. And I don't even have a problem with some of the suggested (yet unproven) approaches. I'm not going to agree or disagree with an approach just because the Koch brothers said something about it. Concerns that public money often results in an giveaway to a company
Re: (Score:2)
"I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time."
If the task is a natural monopoly, say like internet infrastructure, once the equipment is installed, using some kind of non profit and clear regulations to maintain the system could work.
Re: The Koch brothers are evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ft. Collins is just figuring out how to do this. [fcgov.com]
Centennial information is probably the most detailed. [centennialco.gov] Check this out. [centennialco.gov]
There are more that have put in fiber and several others looking to do so. In general, they are taking the approach of 'wide out west'. Basically, they are installing and owning the fiber, BUT, then either sub-contract to another company to manage the fiber, while also allowing multiple companies to provide services. With this approach, you have a city-owned monopoly on the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might catch a break. It's Sunday night. SuperKendall won't be able to concentrate on typing because that's when he tunes in to one of those "special" websites to watch Koch videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Koch brothers are evil (Score:5, Insightful)
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that aren't them.
Re: The Koch brothers are evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Hah, you make a fine point but unfortunately we can see that the Internet is a utility, whether or not law treats it this way. The internet is not long just a thing that can be had or not had, it has become as much a part of society as electricity is. Much of what someone does from day to day, be it work or otherwise depends on good internet access. You can't buy food unless those local businesss have an affordable (read, not a significant portion of their monthly expenditures) internet connection that all
Re: (Score:2)
Could we add that opposing A doesn't equate endorsing B?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but when you're putting down new cables, why not use whatever is state of the art?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The Koch brothers are evil (Score:2)
Re:The Koch brothers are evil (Score:4, Informative)
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that the Koch Brothers don't own or have invested interest in.
Infrastructure spending supports companies and individuals as well. Your highway which Walmart uses to ship their products is the same highway that you use to commute to work. Upgrading to fiber will have a net improvement for the community. The big companies will benefit from it, also the individuals.
Unfortunately there are too many groups who wants the government out of everything, doesn't see the big picture, where infrastructure which is expensive, has a low profit margin to build. Needs government support to keep it running and operational, as it is one of the few things that really will pay for itself over time.