0
104

[–] JJEvil 0 points 104 points (+104|-0) ago 

They claim it will hurt the free market, but it isn't really a free market if only certain players are allowed to build and access the infrastructure.

0
22

[–] taco 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Amen to that.

0
1

[–] Siimo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If only this were being pushed in big cities as well...

0
5

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Here's a 2013 story about who is behind this. Yes, it's the telecoms and ALEC

Community-Owned Internet, Long Targeted by ALEC and Big Telecom, Under Fire in Georgia

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] FreshieD 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The problem is that one of those things is not like the others. Sewage and water are public utilities* and power is publicly regulated. Broadband really needs to be handled the same way.

* - in areas where the population density is high enough they can't be self-provided though private wells/septic systems

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] physicscat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That has more to do with the infrastructure in place. But if a company like Google Fiber wants to come in a lay it's OWN fiber network, nothing should stand in their way.

0
0

[–] Pewpewpi 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Agreed. The term to describe them is oligopoly and anything short of a monopoly is better

0
1

[–] Ben1010 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And discriminate on delivery i.e treating some websites more than others.

0
15

[–] 11amDrunk 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

The main regulations seem to stem from "selling" broadband to their communities. So why not just provide it for free like they do with roads? It'll be expensive as hell, but seems to be a sure-fire way to say Fuck You to the ISP's and these regulations

0
17

[–] JJEvil 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Or citizens who want the service could apply for a voluntary tax to pay for the service.

0
6

[–] Mendicant_Bias 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I like the idea of an "opt-in" service. If you want, you could choose to pay the tax for this. If you do, you get to use it! If you don't opt in for the tax you aren't allowed to use the service.

0
3

[–] nyraines 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Voluntary tax is a contradiction; it's a donation at that point.

0
5

[–] bill.lee [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

In particular, as the other cities who have gone ahead with broadband noted, it is a big boost to getting companies to set up shop too.

0
3

[–] Floppy_donkey_dick 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Why not just treat it as a utility? Like water or sewer service? If you arn't hooked to the utility, you don't pay. If you are, you pay for it yearly with your property taxes.

0
3

[–] Tonguestun 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Would be great if the gov wasn't so in bed with corporations. We need an infrastructure update as it is, just add in some fiber while they're at it and give everyone access. The state of our internet is embarrassing considering the pioneering we did in the past.

And if TPP passes I doubt we'd ever see broadband as a utility because the corps would sue the government for lost profits.

1
1

[–] ffs 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Eh. Having one, unified broadband network/"company" would certainly make things cheaper. Competition obviously doesn't net the usual benefits like faster developing technology and lower prices - broadband is relatively expensive - so letting the government handle what'sbasically just another utility can make perfect sense. Can, I say, since neither of us has the data to assess that accurately.

0
3

[–] cnat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Having one unified broadband company would almost certainly make Internet access more expensive, as they would be able to price fix to whatever degree they desire. There is no doubt that it could be cheaper, but as it has been proven time and time again, ISP's would rather have more revenue than be good for the consumer.

0
10

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I'm on the firm opinion that every citizen must personally own a part of the infrastructure.

Namely the infrastructure that is in his own land. Therefore each user acts as an IXP on personal level and shares data with neighbors trough peering.

This way the need for ISP is eliminated be it commercial or municipal.

0
4

[–] cnat 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is an interesting and unique idea, and I appreciate that.

0
1

[–] Tonguestun 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I really don't see how this could work on such a large scale. Every connection would have to be fiber to even have an acceptable speed. The amount of jumps to connect to a server from across the country would be crazy. Someone torrenting? Every connection in between is flooded with that traffic. The whole internet would come to a crawl.

It's neat to think about but the logistics just aren't there.

0
0

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Copper cable technology is becoming obsolete so the ground links would be fiber. There is another suitable technology which is the microwave backhaul link (the round drum like things on cell towers) These are available commercially and some require no license. Big ones are good for 100km so they can cross the English channel for example.

I think the speed won't be affected very much since we already have very many hops and the connection to the end user is almost always MUXed between thousands of people. Also there is a new technology which is designed to take advantage of mesh topology.

0
0

[–] Shammyhealz 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Going to be that guy. What you're describing is the Internet. Your router acts as an exchange point between your internal network, and the Internet at large. And peering with your neighbors? That's nearly identical to how you can send a signal out your router, along the fiber or copper lines over to your neighbors router. The only difference is that you are not directly responsible for maintaining a connection to your neighbors house.

On to problems with that idea.

  1. We do not have enough IPv4 addresses for everyone to have their own IP, and IPv6 support is still poor at best. We would need a NAT solution, which would have to be managed by someone, who would then have control of the network behind them.

  2. Most people don't have the necessary knowledge to manage the routing protocols or other software this would require, and those routing protocols are probably going to fall apart at this scale.

  3. How are services on the internet going to work? Where does Netflix tie into this system? Netflix pushes hundreds of gigabits per second of content, enough to saturate an entire community's connections.

  4. Who is going to maintain connections where there are no housing? There are vast stretches of uninhabited areas and isolated communities that have Internet, but no neighbors to tap into. I saw you mention microwave backhauls, but they're not going to cut it. The most recent research I've found shows capacities around 500Mbps per backhaul, or about half the speed of an average fiber cable.

Mesh networks are great for local connections, but not good for something that operates at the scale of the Internet. There are ways it possibly could work, but the average person is not technically advanced enough to operate this without some kind of governance, which puts us right back at having an ISP.

0
0

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

1- We do not need IPv4 for routing to work. Cjdns does routing over encrypted IPv6. It is also possible to design a routing algorithm that is completely cryptographic and does not rely on IP at all.

2- Most people have no idea how their existing modems work. There won't be any change in that respect. Updates and maintenance can be handled the same way Linux packet management is done.

3- The services on the network will continue to work just the same except nobody would be able to throttle them. Also each user will be able to provide his/her own services if desired. The existing free roaming agreements will apply but on personal level. "Bill and keep" system requires no arbitration.

4- Backhauls are considered more cost effective than fiber because they do not require laying cable underground. This paper (PDF 7.5Mb) from 2009 cites 1.25Gbps with >1μs latency and consuming 40W power. So operating them with solar panels in remote areas is not a problem.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] bill.lee [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Right, obviously the push-back is from these companies that hold a monopoly wanting to maintaining that monopoly. They are well aware that were real competition to enter, they would lose.

0
2

[–] holographical 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

T-Mobile contracts out the network usage from whoever is the cheapest bidder. In my area it's the ATT cellular network (Northern California).

0
1

[–] GhostCow 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure they have their own network too. It's not like they're an MVNO. All of the cell phone carriers have contracts like that with each other in different areas.

0
4

[–] Snake973 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I had municipal broadband for a few years while I was in college. I would have given anything to have an option for a different company. The service sucked, it was always slow and there were multiple hour outages what seemed like every other week.

0
3

[–] Sev_ 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

which is why any single local or regional monopoly on service sucks, and is not in the best interest of the customer.

0
2

[–] flyawayhigh 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Governments and nonprofits provide a large chunk of electricity service in the United States and they do it cheaper and reliably.

0
1

[–] heyitsfred 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It depends on your provider. I lived in Conway, AR years back, they had their own cable company, was just fine. OTOH, I've dealt with many more small local ISPs that weren't equipped to handle residential customers, but were fine for businesses.

0
0

[–] JAWheat411 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I lived in one area of Alabama that had their own cable company. They had high speed Internet (just recently bumped to 3 meg. Speed). They were owned by Cablevision, but not until recently. The internet and the cable sucked so bad and they didn't care because you didn't have a choice. Also, I worked in another town that had their own telecom company. Problem their is they owned the phone, cable, Internet and probably more. I think we should have more competition for Internet to be honest. I live in a rural area now and have no other choice but to have satellite Internet.

0
3

[–] audiomoddified 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've seen town-owned ISPs go 2 ways. The first was a buddy of mine that had a crappy DSL connection, but, per town law, that was all that he could have. And it was pricey too.

The town I live in now has an awesome co-op. For a small town, I get 25 down/3 up pretty consistently, and I've seen it much better during down times. And it's really reasonably priced.

0
2

[–] TexasWithADollarsign 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

North Carolina's attorney general argued in a suit filed last month that the "FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions."

I would argue that the state is unlawfully inserting itself between the FCC and its citizens. Those AGs can go fuck themselves.

0
2

[–] KyIe 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Few years ago I use to live within a 10 minute drive from a university city in North Carolina. There was no Internet provider in that area only in the city and few miles of the outskirts. There wasn’t even DSL, only Satellite and Dial-up were the only options and still are today. Cellular plans were an option, but were limited data, and their “coverage maps” were straight lies, 4G is allegedly strong at that location. However when we purchased it we rarely got 1 bar 3G on good days, rest of the time was no signal at all, not really an option for Internet. The closet ISP in that area, I think it was Century Link only built lines in one direction that connected the towns, and pretty much said they were never going to build lines in our direction, unless someone funded them millions of dollars. Even what they were offering a few miles up the road was a few mb scraps of DSL.

That said, I’m going to have to call BS on this article’s statement from “Eva VanHook” since I've experienced "slow Internet" most of my life.

For 12 years, Eva VanHook, 39, of Georgetown, Tennessee, lived with a satellite broadband connection so slow that she'd read a book while waiting for a web page to load. In order for her son to access online materials for his school assignments, she'd drive him 12 miles to their church parking lot, where he could access faster WiFi.

I’ve used dial-up and satellite broadband in the past year when visiting home. Web pages take a while to load, some more so than others, but they sure as hell do not take as long as to read a book. Hell, I did all my course work for highschool on dial-up the websites took long to load at first, not reading a book in the meantime long, but after the website’s materials were cached it wasn’t that bad. I’m not sure what materials her son needed, but a 24 mile round trip would surely take longer than what ever document he needed to access especially since he was on satellite Internet. My bet is that kid wanted to download movies, games, or something large data wise, that would use up the datacap at home on his satellite Internet.

0
0

[–] KeredNomrah 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I doubt she meant she read an entire book while waiting for a page to load. I did satellite years back before moving and being able to switch to DSL (still under 1mbps, ongoing problem with company) and I can relate as I've sat with a book while waiting for youtube videos to load or something of that sort.

There are also multiple reasons why driving 24 miles might be better for connection. Using faulty/slow internet for education when needing to take tests or possibly watch video instructions for a project can result in a 0 if something doesn't load or buffer right because the server kicks you for lag. I personally only take tests at campus locations because of past experiences which luckily I was allowed to retest on.

Also I doubt the mom would drive the kid all the way out to a church to sit there while downloading a game, would be a cool mom if she did but I can't see it happening.

0
0

[–] KyIe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I doubt she meant she read an entire book while waiting for a page to load. I did satellite years back before moving and being able to switch to DSL (still under 1mbps, ongoing problem with company) and I can relate as I've sat with a book while waiting for youtube videos to load or something of that sort.

Of course, Youtube videos are going to take much longer, web pages are not only media streaming content last time I checked though. She might have been confused with videos on sites not loading and a website not loading, who knows. If she's like my Mom, she'll just sit at the computer and wait for something to happen when she actually needs to click something, haha.

Using faulty/slow internet for education when needing to take tests or possibly watch video instructions for a project can result in a 0 if something doesn't load or buffer right because the server kicks you for lag

Sure that can happen, but this wasn't the problem she just said it was slow, not unstable. If the connection is lost the page wouldn't load at all not slowly. Tests are genearlly small content wise, I took Moodle/Blackboard straight html tests, and more advanced ones such as based on flash / labsim / pearson labs in which took a little longer to load their content. Videos on the other hand aren't and most likely wouldn't be a lot of videos to watch for homework or projects, but I wouldn't see a problem streaming them, unless of course your Internet was unstable. Most education videos or instructional videos are not professionally made nor that long and generally are under 100MB from my experience in school. Not sure what website would kick you off for "lag" though. I'm sure it wasn't as bad as she was making it out to be.

Also I doubt the mom would drive the kid all the way out to a church to sit there while downloading a game, would be a cool mom if she did but I can't see it happening.

She wouldn't know about it obviously not like the kid would straight up ask her for that reason. "Hey mom, can you drive me down the church so I can download this game... I mean do my school work since our Internet is terrible." Which sounds a lot more reasonable for her to do it.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)