Gov. Supplied Broadband

[GURPS]

Virginia bill would effectively ban city-run broadband


Ars Technica notes that companies would also have the legal power to fight municipal broadband initiatives, and towns wouldn't be allowed to price below the equivalent baseline costs (such as fees and taxes) for a private business. In other words, municipal services would have little chance of undercutting the rates of their corporate rivals even if there was otherwise no legal barrier.

Not surprisingly, the bill isn't the result of a grassroots campaign. It's supported by lobbyists from the Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association, which has a vested interest in shutting down any attempts at fostering competition for existing cable/telco duopolies. As the Roanoake Times observes, Byron has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the VCTA, AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast and Verizon -- there's a strong financial incentive for her to spare these companies from having to boost speeds or lower prices.

So .... is it really a function of Gov. to provide Boardband Internet Access To people :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

So .... is it really a function of Gov. to provide Boardband Internet Access To people :shrug:

Step back a bit; these companies have paid lobbyists to get them special favors and protect themselves from one another via licensing and regulation, right? So, in effect, government already controls it. Right? Now what?

 

[glhs837]

I could make the case that it's wasn't the govts case to provide the interstate highway system. But I wouldn't, because it simplest terms, building that system proved to be for the common good. Providing a "onramp" to the national information superhighway could be said to be in the common welfare in the same way.

 

[vraiblonde]

So .... is it really a function of Gov. to provide Boardband Internet Access To people :shrug:

It's like any other utility. Like it or not, the internet is how we live our lives now.

On one hand, I like it. I'd be thrilled to get wifi wherever I am in the US without having to worry about Verizon coverage. On the other hand, if the government doles it out they will control it, and that's a no-go.

 

[Larry Gude]

I building that system proved to be for the common good. .

Did it? Based on what?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, America was great in 1950. Flush from victory and beginning to enjoy the fruits of it, income was good, optimism was high.
Fast forward to today where income is flat, people are not optimistic, etc.

Are we better off with the highway system? In general? Or was that the last straw in wiping out small town America and turning the nation over to big business and, ultimately, global commerce? Is the common man better off? Or was he better off being able to be far more important locally?

Same thing for the WWW. Are we, in general, better off? Is the common man better off because it? Same question, is the common man better off or did the web, like the highway system, make him less important? Income wise, clearly, it's hurt him. What about quality of life?

 

[Bobwhite]

I could make the case that it's wasn't the govts case to provide the interstate highway system. But I wouldn't, because it simplest terms, building that system proved to be for the common good. Providing a "onramp" to the national information superhighway could be said to be in the common welfare in the same way.

If you are talking about the Federal government, I thought their prime responsibility was to provide for the common defense and maintain our infrastructure. Isn't the interstate highway system part of the infrastructure?

 

[GURPS]

It's like any other utility.

yes, but you do not need Internet Access to survive, Water yes, electricity

- well maybe
[but people in Africa use 12v Truck batteries for light after the sun goes down]


Is 'Internet Access a right' ?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

So .... is it really a function of Gov. to provide Boardband Internet Access To people :shrug:

A municipal government can do whatever it wishes provided it doesn't violate federal laws, state laws, and county or parish laws.

 

[GURPS]

A municipal government can do whatever it wishes provided it doesn't violate federal laws, state laws, and county or parish laws.

indeed .... but people making the argument make it sound like a right to breath - you have a right to broadband in your residence

 

[glhs837]

Did it? Based on what?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, America was great in 1950. Flush from victory and beginning to enjoy the fruits of it, income was good, optimism was high.
Fast forward to today where income is flat, people are not optimistic, etc.

Are we better off with the highway system? In general? Or was that the last straw in wiping out small town America and turning the nation over to big business and, ultimately, global commerce? Is the common man better off? Or was he better off being able to be far more important locally?

Same thing for the WWW. Are we, in general, better off? Is the common man better off because it? Same question, is the common man better off or did the web, like the highway system, make him less important? Income wise, clearly, it's hurt him. What about quality of life?

Well, if we take this far enough back, that whole switch from slash and burn was maybe a bad choice...... sorry Larry, you seem dedicated to playing the devils advocate a bit much. Not playing anymore.

 

[glhs837]

If you are talking about the Federal government, I thought their prime responsibility was to provide for the common defense and maintain our infrastructure. Isn't the interstate highway system part of the infrastructure?

And at this point, isn't the net just as critical an infrastructure?

 

[Clem72]

So .... is it really a function of Gov. to provide Boardband Internet Access To people :shrug:

So you think it's appropriate for the State to ban local municipalities from setting up infrastructure if the people want it?

To be clear, there is no legislation demanding that the state provide internet access. And we aren't talking about entire cities colluding to put the bells out of business; this is most often when a small town has one (or sometimes NO) local provider and the people want to pool their resources to provide an alternative. In the past a cable company would roll in and offer to pay the infrastructure costs if they could have exclusive access to the customers (I.E. a monopoly) to guarantee a return on their investment. Sometimes its more cost effective for the city to set up their own infrastructure and allow businesses to compete for access to the custmer.

 

[GURPS]

So you think it's appropriate for the State to ban local municipalities from setting up infrastructure if the people want it?

My Initial reactions is NO. Providing Broadband is not a function of Gov., like keeping Streets Plowed, paying the dog catcher, Police / Fire.
But then this becomes a debate of Local Town Council vs State Gov. If the citizens of 'their town' want to raise taxes and supply broadband why is it anyone else's business outside the town.

where do you stop Cell Phones - another communication tool along with braodband do we give people cheap Chrome Books to use on that fancy internet connection.

68% of Adults have a Smart Phone
maybe if would be cheaper to give everyone an Android and 2 gb of data that wanted one - instead of wiring a town for Broadband.

but now we get into matters of content - is the broadband filtered or is the local goc now piping porn into every ones home.
the towns DNS Severs start having issues linking Fox News or Brieghtbart / Huffington Post or CNN to the end users - is it malicious or equipment / internet problems


States have stepped in elsewhere and told townships - No You Cannot Certain Ban Guns or Ammo