If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   The government moves to block broadband internet access. Is the government in a. China, b. Iran or c. Kansas?   (dailykos.com) divider line 113
    More: Asinine, Iran, Kansas, laws of science, red states, Bender B. Rodriguez, Andrew Breitbart  
•       •       •

10524 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 1:32 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 12:02:11 PM
Well of course. The bible doesn't mention broadband, so the government should not be doing it.
 
2014-01-31 12:20:18 PM
Kansas: boldly marching into the 19th century
www.ngmweb.com
 
2014-01-31 12:28:17 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Kansas: boldly marching into the 19th century
[www.ngmweb.com image 350x350]


Quickly approaching the point of no return.
 
2014-01-31 12:29:42 PM
First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.
 
2014-01-31 01:18:45 PM
It's the tool of the Debul!
 
2014-01-31 01:20:47 PM
Oh good grief.


Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

I doubt they care. They'll do yet anyway and the yell about activist judges when it gets thrown out by the courts.
 
2014-01-31 01:25:38 PM
Part of this may be to make sure their little children's little minds don't have access to evil information, but I think it's more about taking money out of the hands of the job-creators™. Because hey, if AT&T doesn't get the contract and cities do it themselves, then all the jobs they would have created won't be created because cities will magically just make fiber appear without creating any jobs. Because only job-creators™ can create jobs.
 
2014-01-31 01:35:31 PM
Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.
 
2014-01-31 01:36:43 PM
What happened to the divine powers of the free market.  Is Kansas going into trade protectionism?
More hypocrisy from Republicans.
 
2014-01-31 01:37:03 PM
Let me guess.

If Obama's fer it, they're against it.
 
2014-01-31 01:38:51 PM
ITT a bunch of people who don't live in Kansas make assumptions about the partisan nature of the Kansas state legislature.

Damn the man or something.
 
2014-01-31 01:39:59 PM
guessing that someone's precious snowflake saw some h00-haw on the intert00bz
 
2014-01-31 01:40:15 PM

meat0918: Let me guess.

If Obama's fer it, they're against it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM
 
2014-01-31 01:40:58 PM
Yet another ALEC abomination of a bill.  The have one going in Georgia which this story references and I think there is at least one more, but I could be wrong.  However, since NC has now become ALEC boot lickers, I get to have the fun of seeing which one of our honorable Assemblymen will float this in our state.  The only joy I get anymore is calling the shot.  I tell those that think these tea partiers are salt of the Earth, about what bill will be coming up, and where it comes from so when it does I get to go... watch him do it.. sold you out for a few bucks from people not even living here.    Then I laugh.  It is all I got right now... I am going to the big march next weekend, and I have basically become a free IT consultant to the progressives here in Raleigh.  Using my geekdom for good, I guess.
 
2014-01-31 01:41:00 PM

Speaker2Animals: Well of course. The bible doesn't mention broadband, so the government should not be doing it.


Neither does the Constitution...which means the authority to regulate/deny it automatically reverts to the States, via the 10th Amendment.  Or something.

This is just one more item in the long list of things that, together, help form the answer to the question, "what the fark is wrong with Kansas?"!
 
2014-01-31 01:41:36 PM

AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.


Exactly this. They've been pushing similar legislation all over the country because they're getting their ass handed to them every time a municipality lays fiber and provides broadband at reasonable prices and speeds.
 
2014-01-31 01:41:46 PM

AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.


With anti trust immunity! PDF Warning, pg 4.

Free Markets for some, little American Flags for others
 
2014-01-31 01:43:33 PM
As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."
 
2014-01-31 01:43:49 PM

Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?.


Are you shatn me? You had to bring the first amendment into THIS? We've had the first amendment long before broadband was even dreamed of, you don't get to magically include it into it because you feel so.
 
2014-01-31 01:44:07 PM

buzzcut73: AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.

Exactly this. They've been pushing similar legislation all over the country because they're getting their ass handed to them every time a municipality lays fiber and provides broadband at reasonable prices and speeds.


Ah, thank you.  I was wondering why ALEC wanted this.
 
2014-01-31 01:44:40 PM

gunslinger_RG: Yet another ALEC abomination of a bill.  The have one going in Georgia which this story references and I think there is at least one more, but I could be wrong.  However, since NC has now become ALEC boot lickers, I get to have the fun of seeing which one of our honorable Assemblymen will float this in our state.  The only joy I get anymore is calling the shot.  I tell those that think these tea partiers are salt of the Earth, about what bill will be coming up, and where it comes from so when it does I get to go... watch him do it.. sold you out for a few bucks from people not even living here.    Then I laugh.  It is all I got right now... I am going to the big march next weekend, and I have basically become a free IT consultant to the progressives here in Raleigh.  Using my geekdom for good, I guess.


NC has had this for years, after Wilson got municipal broadband the incumbents got scared.
 
2014-01-31 01:44:56 PM

AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.


That's exactly what's going on here.  I've been following this one.

They don't want to provide it, but they don't want anyone else doing it either.

True capitalists.  Why compete when you can make competition impossible?  Free markets my ass.
 
2014-01-31 01:46:11 PM

Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.


When has the right ever cared about amendments unless it affects there guns?
 
2014-01-31 01:47:15 PM

walkerhound: As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."


Means that while you are stuck with ADSL for $100/month at 1.5M up/500K down, Your neighbor across the street will be enjoying 1000x the speed for only 70% of the cost.  But you'll be happy that mom and pop operations like AT&T weren't squeezed unfairly out of the market.
 
Ant
2014-01-31 01:47:39 PM
img1.imagesbn.com
Seriously
 
2014-01-31 01:48:30 PM

StarSys: Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.

When has the right ever cared about amendments unless it affects there guns?


Or religion, as long as it is only THEIR religion, all others should be abolished.
 
2014-01-31 01:48:49 PM
Wait until the decision in favor of Verizon just recently regarding accessing premium and streaming content over broadband starts to filter down into the broadband payment plan options.
 
2014-01-31 01:49:24 PM
So...what the f am I reading?

They want to mandate that only private industry can do this work, but private industry has no desire to actually provide the service?
 
2014-01-31 01:50:29 PM

rev. dave: What happened to the divine powers of the free market.  Is Kansas going into trade protectionism?
More hypocrisy from Republicans.


This IS free market at its best: The politicians (both parties) are now free to accept bribes from service providers to make broadband monopolies possible.
 
2014-01-31 01:51:00 PM

walkerhound: As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."


No competition in the broadband internet market.  Whoever lays the fiber optic cable in your area first is the only one who can provide broadband internet in that area, and if you want it, you have to pay what they tell you to pay.  Also, if they put in the fiber optic, but decide not to service your area, too bad, you can't have broadband internet.
 
2014-01-31 01:52:38 PM
Good news indeed!  It had been a while since I had been able to something to my "1000 Reasons To Never Move To Kansas" list.  I've been stuck at 999 for quite a while.
 
2014-01-31 01:53:21 PM
Didn't they pass this in North Carolina after one of the cities there built its own network?  And in Tennessee after Chattanooga's municipal power company built its own network?  You know, that's the whole point of having a market - people with lower costs can sell products at lower prices, and drive out the inefficient providers.  Unless the inefficient providers have political pull.  In the 1900s that would mean that Standard Oil's kerosene would have kept municipal electricity out of the market. But back then we busted up trusts and monopolies.  Now, we enshrine them in law.
 
2014-01-31 01:53:25 PM

Rapmaster2000: buzzcut73: AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.

Exactly this. They've been pushing similar legislation all over the country because they're getting their ass handed to them every time a municipality lays fiber and provides broadband at reasonable prices and speeds.

Ah, thank you.  I was wondering why ALEC wanted this.


Ah, the difference between the Fascists and the Commies.  Who owns the assets.
 
2014-01-31 01:53:43 PM
each redstate has their own superpower, one is the fattest, one has the most diabetes, one has the most poverty, Kansas needs its niche or they can't form like voltron.
 
2014-01-31 01:59:15 PM
Broadband internet access is protected by the 1st Amendment the same way modern firearms are covered by the 2nd.

/Grabs popcorn
 
2014-01-31 02:00:00 PM

strapp3r: guessing that someone's precious snowflake saw some h00-haw on the intert00bz


Nope

AngryDragon: Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.


Yep
 
2014-01-31 02:00:44 PM

walkerhound: As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."


I'd explain, but since you don't have internet access you won't be able to read this.
 
2014-01-31 02:04:16 PM
What
In the name of everloving fark
Is the point
Of this bill
 
2014-01-31 02:04:40 PM
I'm right in the middle of this book.

ecx.images-amazon.com

We've certainly come a long way from when we first laid the first power lines.  Too bad it was in the opposite direction.
 
2014-01-31 02:06:06 PM
The really shiatty thing about this, is that there are so many damn small Kansas towns that could have went the municiple broadband route and really helped their cities. The state currently has this "Entrepreneurs Welcome" campaign going on in at least some rural counties, supposedly you can get all kinds of tax breaks or whatever if you move your pig slop factory to, say, Goodland or Phillipsburg. Think municiple broadband would have helped with that? Well tough luck, Time Warner and Cox need to keep a grip on KC and Wichita.

My home town of Canton just within the past 3 years got DSL from a local phone company, and it is just the shiattiest DSL imagineable. Like 2Mbps - maybe - and goes down all the time for them. But it was better than the "radio dish atop the grain elevator" service they had for the 4 years previous to that.Canton is a town of like 800 that is slowly dying...in another 50 years I don't think there will be more than 2-300 people living there.
 
2014-01-31 02:06:51 PM

qorkfiend: What
In the name of everloving fark
Is the point
Of this bill


Protectionism.

It's not sufficient to say government can't do anything.  We need ALEC to make sure it's impossible.

And for what it's worth, when Google was looking to do this, AT&T threw a fit.  When I said they didn't want anyone doing this, I was being very literal.
 
2014-01-31 02:07:07 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So...what the f am I reading?

They want to mandate that only private industry can do this work, but private industry has no desire to actually provide the service?


Yep. They want a de facto ban on fibre.

Do you really think the major telecoms want their infrastructure to become worthless overnight?

It isn't worth it for them to invest in new infrastructure as they will not get new customers, just move them from the old infrastructure.

And they don't want competitors to come in.

So you ban any public assistance from being provided (even when it is a major benefit to the community, which better connections at hospitals, government offices, and schools obviously are) to build competing infrastructure.

I do love how an are with anything other than dialup is considered "serviced".
 
2014-01-31 02:07:47 PM
Kansas was the last state to okay the use of tax dollars to build roads. It was actually banned in the state constitution. Over time the road situation became so painfully pathetic that the anti-government people finally gave in. It'll be the same deal with internet.
 
2014-01-31 02:08:38 PM

Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.


There is no 1st amendment issue.

They are actually saying you can't install broadband. They are just saying that the local government cannot help you in any way.
 
2014-01-31 02:10:43 PM

Datanerd: Didn't they pass this in North Carolina after one of the cities there built its own network?  And in Tennessee after Chattanooga's municipal power company built its own network?  You know, that's the whole point of having a market - people with lower costs can sell products at lower prices, and drive out the inefficient providers.  Unless the inefficient providers have political pull.  In the 1900s that would mean that Standard Oil's kerosene would have kept municipal electricity out of the market. But back then we busted up trusts and monopolies.  Now, we enshrine them in law.


The big complaint by existing providers is that muni broadband plans almost always involve taxpayer money to get it off the ground, which could give the service an unfair advantage over private companies. Which it would to some extent, although the nature of internet infrastructure means that we probably shouldn't be putting it in the hands of private companies to begin with, but that's another discussion.

If a major city like Wichita or Topeka were trying to do this, I could maybe see the Cox/TW argument. But there's no damn reason to just pass a blanket ban, when small towns could benefit from this so greatly.
 
2014-01-31 02:14:17 PM

dywed88: Nadie_AZ: First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.

There is no 1st amendment issue.

They are actually saying you can't install broadband. They are just saying that the local government cannot help you in any way.


Which makes it impossible to install broadband. All google wanted for instance was access to public right of ways, or easements, to lay the fiber. How do you lay fibre outside of that?  You dont.. In exchange  Google provided free internet to public buildings including schools.
 
2014-01-31 02:15:42 PM

Farce-Side: walkerhound: As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."

No competition in the broadband internet market.  Whoever lays the fiber optic cable in your area first is the only one who can provide broadband internet in that area, and if you want it, you have to pay what they tell you to pay.  Also, if they put in the fiber optic, but decide not to service your area, too bad, you can't have broadband internet.


Okay, this is a stupid bill, but lying about or misrepresenting what it does isn't going to help things.  This bill just prevents city and local governments from installing their own internet or from partnering with private companies to do the same (like Google Fiber).  If a company wanted to provide internet service to residents they could, they just couldn't get any government help to do so.

Again, stupid bill that doesn't seem to actually have any support in the state, but let's be honest about it and criticize it based on the merits, not on some exaggerated fears.
 
2014-01-31 02:16:06 PM

hectomoo: ITT a bunch of people who don't live in Kansas make assumptions about the partisan nature of the Kansas state legislature.

Damn the man or something.


Yeah, those assholes. Assuming the Kansas state legislature is mostly Republican. A mere 74% of the House and 80% of the Senate are Republican! With only 100% of the executive branch Republican, I don't know how one could make the argument that Republicans are in charge of Kansas.
 
2014-01-31 02:16:27 PM

jayhawk88: Datanerd: Didn't they pass this in North Carolina after one of the cities there built its own network?  And in Tennessee after Chattanooga's municipal power company built its own network?  You know, that's the whole point of having a market - people with lower costs can sell products at lower prices, and drive out the inefficient providers.  Unless the inefficient providers have political pull.  In the 1900s that would mean that Standard Oil's kerosene would have kept municipal electricity out of the market. But back then we busted up trusts and monopolies.  Now, we enshrine them in law.

The big complaint by existing providers is that muni broadband plans almost always involve taxpayer money to get it off the ground, which could give the service an unfair advantage over private companies. Which it would to some extent, although the nature of internet infrastructure means that we probably shouldn't be putting it in the hands of private companies to begin with, but that's another discussion.

If a major city like Wichita or Topeka were trying to do this, I could maybe see the Cox/TW argument. But there's no damn reason to just pass a blanket ban, when small towns could benefit from this so greatly.


Except that is a flawed argument, all of the private broadband plans required taxpayer money to get off the ground to do it as well... So I am not seeing the unfairness of it. In fact it is the opposite, this bill is making the unfairness happen.
 
2014-01-31 02:18:03 PM

rugman11: Farce-Side: walkerhound: As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."

No competition in the broadband internet market.  Whoever lays the fiber optic cable in your area first is the only one who can provide broadband internet in that area, and if you want it, you have to pay what they tell you to pay.  Also, if they put in the fiber optic, but decide not to service your area, too bad, you can't have broadband internet.

Okay, this is a stupid bill, but lying about or misrepresenting what it does isn't going to help things.  This bill just prevents city and local governments from installing their own internet or from partnering with private companies to do the same (like Google Fiber).  If a company wanted to provide internet service to residents they could, they just couldn't get any government help to do so.

Again, stupid bill that doesn't seem to actually have any support in the state, but let's be honest about it and criticize it based on the merits, not on some exaggerated fears.


Again no, how do you lay fibre in a city without partnering with a city, how do you lay it without being able to access the easments the city owns? The only way would be to buy and tear up the buildings to lay it, then sell the buildings.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report