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  
•       •       •

10518 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 1:32 PM (10 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 02:18:16 PM
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-31 02:18:32 PM
There is no corporate ball too hairy for a Republican to lick.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-31 02:19:21 PM
Then when you think things can't get any dumber in derper government.

If this goes through then you can pretty much guarantee no businesses relocate to Kansas ever.  I can't think of one business that doesn't need decent Internet.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-01-31 02:22:19 PM

rugman11: 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, fat bald-headed guys who think the Earth is 6000 years old don't realize that the Internet is just about a the level of other utilities.  I got it.  No... the distinction doesn't make it any better here.  They are making a move that will make Internet service unreasonably costly for poorer people.  And, yes, the poor need communications and resources just like anyone else.
 
2014-01-31 02:22:49 PM

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


They were more progressive back then.
 
2014-01-31 02:23:47 PM

Diogenes: 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.


Remember: broadband companies aren't common carriers and can't be regulated by the FCC because they are already regulated by market competition, but they also are well within their rights to set up exclusive monopolies with local government to prevent competition from springing up because they provide a service.

Mock Stevens all you want, but the "series of tubes" analogy was true in the sense that like plumbing internet access is a utility that needs an established backbone to operate properly. Nobody would dream of having two water companies duke it out to see which set of pipe systems you want to be attached to, but at the same time the idea that one would be given exclusive control of laying pipes in the area and then be left to operate as they see fit because competition could theoretically exist is insane. There are the situations where a government monopoly is ideal.
 
2014-01-31 02:25:20 PM

rugman11: 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.


However, it's so broadly worded as to prohibit even extremely basic "assistance" - such as allowing wires to be strung on city-owned utility poles or buried under public streets. That would be "maintaining a facility to allow a private entity to offer" service.
 
2014-01-31 02:25:56 PM

The.anti-Larry: There is no corporate ball too hairy for a Republican to lick.


Poignant and perfect.
 
2014-01-31 02:28:32 PM
Can't have voters well informed. They might figure out they can do better.
 
2014-01-31 02:28:46 PM
Kansas has internet??
 
2014-01-31 02:32:28 PM

Enigmamf: rugman11: 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.

However, it's so broadly worded as to prohibit even extremely basic "assistance" - such as allowing wires to be strung on city-owned utility poles or buried under public streets. That would be "maintaining a facility to allow a private entity to offer" service.


without that they could not disallow Google, as that was all Google asked for.
 
2014-01-31 02:32:44 PM
Ars Technica has a much better article.

Basically, they are trying to ban municipalities from rolling their own, or even providing tax incentives for new providers, essentially to keep Google out of the market.
 
2014-01-31 02:34:02 PM

thaylin: 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.


Which of course would piss off the Libertarian corporate ass kissers.
 
2014-01-31 02:34:05 PM
I really, really hope the FCC reclassifies it as a utility.
 
2014-01-31 02:39:41 PM

Dragonflew: Kansas has internet??


Nope. Hopefully we get cars soon. I read in the newspaper the other day they are right nice. And my horse is getting old.

; )
 
2014-01-31 02:43:30 PM
Almost have to wonder if it has anything to do with these guys being headquartered there:

i.i.cbsi.com
 
2014-01-31 02:44:51 PM
thaylin:

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.

Um, the cities don't own easements. Easements are granted by land owners, cities govern and control public right of ways through resolution. I am looking out the window (as I type this) at the google subcontractors installing the conduit pipes along the public right of way.  Hello Google, hey TW, seeya
 
2014-01-31 02:45:20 PM

Enigmamf: rugman11: 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.

However, it's so broadly worded as to prohibit even extremely basic "assistance" - such as allowing wires to be strung on city-owned utility poles or buried under public streets. That would be "maintaining a facility to allow a private entity to offer" service.


I guess I hadn't thought of that.  I was thinking that "maintaining a facility" was akin to what Kansas City did with Google, where they actually owned and the office spaces that Google was using for the project.  I was under the impression that simple right of way was still available, since it's not directly addressed in the bill.

d23:
Again, fat bald-headed guys who think the Earth is 6000 years old don't realize that the Internet is just about a the level of other utilities.  I got it.  No... the distinction doesn't make it any better here.  They are making a move that will make Internet service unreasonably costly for poorer people.  And, yes, the poor need communications and resources just like anyone else.

I completely agree with you about the likely outcome and that it's actually the intended outcome.  But I've lived in this state long enough to figure out how state and local politics work and people here will latch on to any exaggeration, real or perceived, and drive it into the ground in an attempt to paint the opposition as liars.  When you say this bill means "no competition in the broadband internet market," supporters (if there are actually any) will spin that statement as a lie and say things like "we're not ending competition, we're preventing the government from coming in and killing the existing private market with your tax dollars."  And that crap works far too often.

In the end, you're absolutely right.  This bill will result in less competition.  But you have to phrase it right, saying things like "this bill will change the playing field in favor of existing companies and prevent new, lower-cost companies from entering the market the same way that established providers did."  Now you're getting the government aspect out of it and turning it into a discussion of fairness.
 
2014-01-31 02:45:37 PM

Felgraf: I really, really hope the FCC reclassifies it as a utility.


That's what's crazy to me: when he was head of the FCC, Michael Powell classified telecoms as "information carriers" instead of "common carriers", hence why the courts have said FCC attempting to enforce net neutrality is outside their jurisdiction as they don't cover information carriers. Can't the FCC reclassify the telecoms as "common carriers" instead of "information carriers"? Well, apparently they can't, because choosing to change the rules of the game would be the government declaring "World War III" against businesses according to... Michael Powell, head of the NCTA, one of the biggest trade associations lobbying for the telecoms.

That's right: he changed the rules to favor the telecoms, joined the telecoms, and now says changing the rules back shouldn't be possible since the rules should be set in stone.
 
2014-01-31 02:48:46 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.


It's not a misrepresentation to say you're not going to get fiber.  If the companies don't want to provide it, you don't get fiber.  And they don't.  You get internet from the cable company and it goes up $5 a year.  Or you get DSL from the phone company until they turn off the copper wire (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/att-plan-to-shut-off-publ ic -switched-telephone-network-moves-ahead-at-fcc/ )  There is no competition, so no incentive to improve.
 
2014-01-31 02:50:39 PM
Is there something in the water there? It's like the entire state is being dosed with weapons-grade stupid
 
2014-01-31 02:53:58 PM

doofusss: thaylin:

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.

Um, the cities don't own easements. Easements are granted by land owners, cities govern and control public right of ways through resolution. I am looking out the window (as I type this) at the google subcontractors installing the conduit pipes along the public right of way.  Hello Google, hey TW, seeya


My mistake for confusing the two as substantially the same, what Google wanted was access to the right of way, but that still does not make my overall statement incorrect.
 
2014-01-31 03:04:23 PM

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

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


This kind of crap has been going on for a while in  a lot of places.  About 5-10 years ago a lot of US cities were contemplating making Free Wi-fi access a city service to attract businesses etc.

the Telcoms, particularly cable companies,  have been running to pet state legislators ever since to make that illegal.  Ignoring the fact that they have monopolies in may places   precisely BECAUSE of such public private partnerships
 
2014-01-31 03:12:04 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-31 03:17:55 PM

AngryDragon: 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.


I just moved here, and I've got 12mbps for about $35/month.  I know this because I've spent a grand total of 5hrs on the phone with att over the past few weeks trying to get their shiatty service straightened out.  So I guess I'm still not sure what it means :shrug:
 
2014-01-31 03:20:16 PM

JeffMD: 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.


You're not arguing that the first amendment only applies to literal, spoken speech are you?
 
2014-01-31 03:22:14 PM

Mega Steve: Is there something in the water there? It's like the entire state is being dosed with weapons-grade stupid


What part of GOP super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, all of the executive, and all of the judicial not make sense to you? The Conservatives have been in full control since Sebelius left.
 
2014-01-31 03:23:56 PM

walkerhound: AngryDragon: 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.

I just moved here, and I've got 12mbps for about $35/month.  I know this because I've spent a grand total of 5hrs on the phone with att over the past few weeks trying to get their shiatty service straightened out.  So I guess I'm still not sure what it means :shrug:


It means that with Google fiber you can have 40x the value.  But they want to stop that because it's anti-competitive...or something.
 
2014-01-31 03:24:26 PM
The purpose of government is to protect our corporate masters from competition.
 
2014-01-31 03:36:38 PM

AngryDragon: It means that with Google fiber you can have 40x the value.  But they want to stop that because it's anti-competitive...or something.


OK - by neighbor across the street you meant someone in another state.  I understand where this is all going, and I'll have to follow it now.

Dear Jerk: 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.


They did?  Judging by most of the roads in rural Kansas, I'd have to argue with that point.


Cepheus Crater: 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.


Come on, there are like, 4 astronauts from Kansas.  We're slowly catching up to Ohio!

jayhawk88: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.

Topeka is a major city?  I visited Topeka for the first time a couple of weeks ago, here's a picture I took of the residents:

redsarmy.com
 
2014-01-31 03:42:34 PM

walkerhound: OK - by neighbor across the street you meant someone in another state.  I understand where this is all going, and I'll have to follow it now


Well, not really.  The Kansas legislature is trying to stop any further penetration of municipal broadband in the state.  That means if your neighbor across the street is in a municipality that already allows it, they could have access to a modern network and you may no and will never be able to.  Other states are (still) open to deploy whatever they want.

Their justification is, ostensibly, that a municipal network (or by extension giving permits to new competitors) is a hardship on the existing carriers.  So basically in order to "increase competition" they're eliminating competition.  It basically eliminates any incentive for carriers to provide better service or lower cost.

I know it sounds like $35/month for 12Mb is reasonable.  In other countries though, it would be laughable.
 
2014-01-31 03:43:49 PM
There is a bright spot in this bill: if it passes, those farkers in Overland Park will NEVER EVER get Google Fiber.
 
2014-01-31 03:43:50 PM

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


============

Right, I thought that those Ayn Rand fans would be all for John Galt types stringing up fiber all over the place.   Srsly, anyone surprised by this?  These creeps got they trap-door long johns in a wad when Washington tried to send disaster relief aid to the Northeast after Sandy, but cry like the little biatches when a  tornado sets down on their God forsaken hell-hole of a state.

You wanna turn your state into a medieval, "Christian-Taliban" freak show, be my guest.
 
2014-01-31 03:45:01 PM
whassa difference?

Especially now that the USA is a rogue, facist state.
 
2014-01-31 03:52:36 PM
Apparently this doesn't violate the Telecommunication Act of 1996 according to the Supreme Court. Link

It's just another reason to stay the hell away from Kansas.
 
2014-01-31 03:55:25 PM
This must be that not-farking-with-free-enterprise stuff the Republicans are always bragging about.

Thank goodness they're looking out for us. If they weren't, we might really get hosed by corporations.
 
2014-01-31 03:55:33 PM

madgonad: Mega Steve: Is there something in the water there? It's like the entire state is being dosed with weapons-grade stupid

What part of GOP super-majorities in both houses of the legislature, all of the executive, and all of the judicial not make sense to you? The Conservatives have been in full control since Sebelius left.


Someone had to elect these clowns into power, didn't they? Thanks for not being a condescending ass about my attempt at humor
 
2014-01-31 03:55:35 PM
The great part is when ATTVerizonComCast introduce CrippleNet™, you will have the privilege to bend over and take it.
 
2014-01-31 04:00:44 PM

NateAsbestos: JeffMD: 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.

You're not arguing that the first amendment only applies to literal, spoken speech are you?


The nice thing about the first amendment is it does not care how you do it, your voice is your voice on any medium. And depending on the forum (You can't sue google or the video owner if they delete your youtube comment) what you say is protected. HOW you access that medium is not.
 
2014-01-31 04:01:38 PM

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


If I read it correctly it prevents the municipalities from construction/providing broadband/cable TV services to their residents and only allows for commercial entities to provide service.
 
2014-01-31 04:03:45 PM

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

If I read it correctly it prevents the municipalities from construction/providing broadband/cable TV services to their residents and only allows for commercial entities to provide service.


So they get to pick the winners?
 
2014-01-31 04:08:38 PM

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

If I read it correctly it prevents the municipalities from construction/providing broadband/cable TV services to their residents and only allows for commercial entities to provide service.


Only allows commercial entities if they are already in the market, or they somehow are able to lay the lines without the municipalities help, in other words no use of public right of ways, like Google did. In other words no one can now enter the market.
 
2014-01-31 04:08:46 PM
Ah yes, the Repubs, The party of big business and massively invasive government.
 
2014-01-31 04:15:28 PM

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


Offically: to ensure fair competition and to prevent the waste of government funds in order to protect the good citizens of Kansas.

Reality: to limit competition from outside companies in order to protect the current telecoms.

Even ignoring the potential benefits from attracting people and businesses and any benefit to private individuals. The municipalities want the fibre for practical purposes to improve services provided. Police, hospitals, firfighters, government offices, schools, etc all benefit from better communications infrastructure.
Some of these places tried to get the traditional telecoms to install such services (with government aid) but they get turned down.

The part where the government says that an area with sattelite internet, which is awful and expensive, or cell coverage (again, low quality and expensive and in many of these areas unreliable) is icing on the cake. The local government can't even assist with getting cable or DSL in under these rules.
 
2014-01-31 04:26:13 PM

walkerhound: I just moved here, and I've got 12mbps for about $35/month


I am still floored by this comment.  No way in hell you are getting that upload and download speed.  Have you run any sort of speed test on your connection?  AT&T DSL is dependent on the phone switching stations to be up to date - which they are not - and how close you are to one to get anything above 5MBPS.
 
2014-01-31 04:38:27 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.


Hopefully at some point we'll start busting them up again.
 
2014-01-31 05:03:09 PM

Dear Jerk: 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.


Gasoline taxes should fund highways, not sales taxes.
 
2014-01-31 05:25:50 PM

AngryDragon: I know it sounds like $35/month for 12Mb is reasonable.  In other countries though, it would be laughable.


I agree, as far as my understanding of internets goes.  It serves me well for what I need, so at the moment I have no complaints.

beakgeek: I am still floored by this comment.  No way in hell you are getting that upload and download speed.  Have you run any sort of speed test on your connection?  AT&T DSL is dependent on the phone switching stations to be up to date - which they are not - and how close you are to one to get anything above 5MBPS.


I'm not a specialist, but that is what I was told over the phone earlier this week.  Should I protest about how much I have to pay if I can find out that's not what I'm getting?  I can't wait to spend another few hours on the phone with those farkwads.  How do I run a speed test?  speedtest.net says I'm getting 95mps download speed and 73mps upload speed while I'm at work (KSU).  If that's relevant, I'll try the same thing at home.
 
2014-01-31 05:38:44 PM

beakgeek: walkerhound: I just moved here, and I've got 12mbps for about $35/month

I am still floored by this comment.  No way in hell you are getting that upload and download speed.  Have you run any sort of speed test on your connection?  AT&T DSL is dependent on the phone switching stations to be up to date - which they are not - and how close you are to one to get anything above 5MBPS.


It's called U-Verse stupid.

Geez, not hard to look it up.
 
2014-01-31 05:47:17 PM

walkerhound: Should I protest about how much I have to pay if I can find out that's not what I'm getting?


Absolutely.

walkerhound: (KSU)


Never mind, have your mom do it for you.
 
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