Skip to main content

View Diary: Kansas moves to Stop Broadband Internet to residents (392 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The goal is not "no internet service" (27+ / 0-)

    The goal is "only private businesses provide internet service".

    The GOP is very big on bills to prevent the government from being involved at all in a thing that would put it in competition with the private businesses that have bought GOP votes.  Even to the point of utter absurdity where the government isn't even allowed to provide the services for its OWN government-mandated paperwork like filing taxes.  Lobbying by companies like H&R Block is the reason the government isn't allowed to provide a nice easy to use online form to type your information into the cells of a 1040 form.   Of all the things that are quite obviously GOVERNMENT functions you'd think filing taxes would be one of them.  But no, the most they're allowed to do is subsidize a private company to do it on their behalf and that's the most they're allowed to do.

    So that's all this is.  It's not "keep people off the internet".  It's "Force it to be done privately regardless of what the voters in the town want".

    •  The end result though.. (17+ / 0-)

      Is the same.  As pointed out above, so many communities (small ones) have no companies interested; but under this guideline, if you can get a cell phone, the city rules are still preventing them from providing.

      I understand the difference (legally) the results, though, are the same.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:27:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Auctioning off gov't services for fun and profit (5+ / 0-)

      Once upon a time, a lot of people thought that "public/private partnerships" was good public policy.

      We've had about 40 years experience with this now.  And it turns out that mostly, privatization is just a way to sell off parts of government to either the highest bidder (rarely), or to the highest briber/campaign donor (SOP for the GOP and too many damn Democrats as well).

      It's far past the point where you can say it's being done for efficiency.  If you want efficiency, look at a service like the Veteran Hospitals, or Medicaid.  If you want pure, corrupt waste, privatize it and hand it over to insurance companies.  Which even Obama decided was a good idea, sadly.

      It's corruption as large as any we've seen in US history.

      Sometimes, letting the city or the state do it is the least of many very potent evils.

      Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

      by mbayrob on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:16:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  False. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb, Eddie L

      If there was money to be made, the private corps would already be in there.

      Really,  stop ignoring that fact.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:28:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bull. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee

        It's impossible to stop doing a thing that I haven't started doing.

        I'm not ignoring a fact.  You're ignoring the fact that a statewide law applies to more than just the nonprofitible towns within the state that the private companies have written off.  It also applies in more profitable places, which are the main motivation for the law being like it is.   If the law allowed small towns to have government internet service the same law would allow larger (profitable) cities to do it too.

        •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

          So, do explain, if there's money to be made, why aren't they already in there?

          C'mon.

          We're waiting.

          Tap tap tap.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:03:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Next time try responding to what I said (0+ / 0-)

            instead of pretending I never said it.  The answer to your question is entirely contained in the previous comment I already made, and I kept it short and simple so you won't get anywhere with me by lying by pretending you didn't understand it or didn't see it.  If you want to argue against it then argue against it instead of pretending it was never said.  That's a trolling tactic and I won't put up with it.

      •  Wireless broadband (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burlydee

        They are already "there", they offer wireless broadband in most rural areas.  $80/month gets you 10GB of internet access.  You may need to buy an external antenna and amplifier from the telecom to enjoy this generous service.

        What the telecoms fear is rural communities setting up their own broadband services that threaten to end their rapine.  The beauty is that the rural citizens agree with the telecoms - they HATE gubmint, and want it OUT of their lives.  So they pay the telecoms and grumble about Obama.  It's a win-win for the GOP.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 08:30:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wireless is not broadband. (0+ / 0-)

          10G per month is not broadband.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:04:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  quibbling over the definition of "broadband" (0+ / 0-)

            is shifting the goalposts of the argument.  This isn't about how fast the service is.  It's about who's providing it and not allowing the government to be that someone.  Private companies would much prefer low-speed internet with no government competition to high-speed with government competition.  It's the government competition they're most concerned about and if shutting that out has the side effect of keeping rural access speeds slow, they don't care, because that's the side effect of their goal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site