Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, Iran, Kansas, laws of science, red states, Bender B. Rodriguez, Andrew Breitbart  
•       •       •

10550 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-31 01:35:31 PM  
10 votes:
Somebody's check from Time-Warner/AT&T/Comcast must have cleared.
2014-01-31 01:44:56 PM  
7 votes:

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 01:41:36 PM  
5 votes:

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 01:40:58 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:18:32 PM  
4 votes:
There is no corporate ball too hairy for a Republican to lick.
2014-01-31 01:25:38 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:06:51 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:53:21 PM  
3 votes:
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 01:51:00 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:41:46 PM  
3 votes:

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 12:29:42 PM  
3 votes:
First, wouldn't this infringe on the 1st amendment?

Second, did Kris Kobach write this pile of garbage? Sounds like him.
2014-01-31 04:38:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:45:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:43:30 PM  
2 votes:
Almost have to wonder if it has anything to do with these guys being headquartered there:

i.i.cbsi.com
2014-01-31 02:32:44 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:28:32 PM  
2 votes:
Can't have voters well informed. They might figure out they can do better.
2014-01-31 02:25:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:14:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:10:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:07:47 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:07:07 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:06:06 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:49:24 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:48:49 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:48:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:37:03 PM  
2 votes:
Let me guess.

If Obama's fer it, they're against it.
2014-01-31 01:36:43 PM  
2 votes:
What happened to the divine powers of the free market.  Is Kansas going into trade protectionism?
More hypocrisy from Republicans.
2014-01-31 06:21:52 PM  
1 vote:

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.


This.

 I wish the feds would look into this. It's been happening (as you pointed out) in several places now.

 Of course, the feds are too busy gutting Net Neutrality...
2014-01-31 06:08:15 PM  
1 vote:

show me: 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.


I'm not a native, goofball.  My whole family is Mizzou.

Actually, I'm a displaced Coloradoan, trying to find my way back.
2014-01-31 04:26:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:15:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:08:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:52:36 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:42:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:36:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:04:23 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:48:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:34:05 PM  
1 vote:
I really, really hope the FCC reclassifies it as a utility.
2014-01-31 02:22:49 PM  
1 vote:

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


They were more progressive back then.
2014-01-31 02:22:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:19:21 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2014-01-31 02:18:03 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-01-31 02:16:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:15:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:53:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:50:29 PM  
1 vote:

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.
Ant
2014-01-31 01:47:39 PM  
1 vote:
img1.imagesbn.com
Seriously
2014-01-31 01:47:15 PM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-01-31 01:46:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:43:33 PM  
1 vote:
As a Kansas resident, what does this mean for me?  I can't tell from that "article."
2014-01-31 01:20:47 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:28:17 PM  
1 vote:

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


Quickly approaching the point of no return.
2014-01-31 12:20:18 PM  
1 vote:
Kansas: boldly marching into the 19th century
www.ngmweb.com
2014-01-31 12:02:11 PM  
1 vote:
Well of course. The bible doesn't mention broadband, so the government should not be doing it.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report