wtf_man wrote on Jul 14, 2020, 16:42:
jdreyer wrote on Jul 14, 2020, 15:14:
maddog wrote on Jul 14, 2020, 14:57:
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the courts all but killed municipal broadband? I get that some municipalities have it but it's far from being common.
It's usually not the courts. It's usually telecom lobbyists pushing state-level laws banning the cities and towns from setting them up.
The biggest legitimate concern opposition reason is that it is financially risky for taxpayers because current ones mostly operate in the red.
The biggest political reason is because it "hampers the free market". (As if lack of choice / competition didn't already hamper it)
That said... since most people in the country think that broadband should be treated as a utility... it either needs to be regulated like one, or allow municipal broadband as a choice (Not sure how that would work tax-wise).
I have zero sympathy for the carriers / ISPs in this country... and I'm usually on the "fiscal conservative" side of things.
And one of the only California laws I agree with, would be an non-defanged version of their privacy law. FSCHK all these @sshat Carriers, Big Tech search and social media, and Marketing scumbags on the internet tracking everything you do without your permission. That shit needs to be stopped cold.
He'd be better served to team up with Musk and promote his Starlink
Um... MOST public utilities start in the red. That's literally one of the reasons they're often funded with public money. Society pools their resources to get the foundation in place and private companies take over.
Yknow, like large scale railroads. Large scale electricity products, especially out west. Phone lines. The internet.
I'll never understand the ultra-conservative demand that all public functions be profitable.