6 ms·

Republicans are all for states' rights. Unless it's something they (or their corporate sponsors) want to regulate, then they have never heard of states' rights

Republicans are all for states' rights. Unless it's something they (or their corporate sponsors) want to regulate, then they have never heard of states' rights. Democrats are nearly as bad, so it's not like they can claim any sort of moral high ground here, but at least the areas they want to regulate federally are a little more self consistent. Since the telecom companies have divided up regions to avoid completing with each other, the threat of municipal broadband is one of the few competition inputs to prevent the exact stagnation and poor service that has taken hold.

duxup 6y ago
It has to be really frustrating for local municipalities / regions who want to make it desirable to life / work there ... but they're in a hole of crappy internet determined by some monopoly that isn't responsive / responsible to anyone. I know some local areas near me are just SOL as far as good service goes. The local monopoly actually has run lines across people's yards and just left them there exposed for years. Some folks just bury them themselves... they're doing work for the company, so they don't accidentally mow over their neighbor's internet connection.
snarf21 6y ago
So much for the free market. It will be interesting to see what StarLink does to broadband over time.
- theluketaylor 6y ago
  The most charitable interpretation for support of municipal broadband bans is that municipalities have a natural monopoly over rights of way and telecom installation that private companies can't compete against. Not totally unfair, but the better protection is requiring municipalities lease access to last mile lines at fair rates rather than banning them from participating in the laying of lines. I also highly doubt anyone supporting this bill is actually concerned about monopolies, since if they were they'd also be banning the non-competition between telecom companies that has municipalities considering their own broadband in the first place.
  - duxup 6y ago
    > is actually concerned about monopolies Well in a way they are, they're almost certainly sponsored in some way by them.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Yes, so much for it. It should not be worshipped at the expense of the societal good. Should private companies have some access to rights-of-way? Perhaps. Should governments be prevented by federal law from providing public services through rights of way? Absolutely not. Next, let's ban libraries, public pools and public schooling, because those are all lost opportunities for capitalists to make money.
  - virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
    username checks out (and yes, well said)
- btilly 6y ago
  The answer is not much. Satellites give you an amount of bandwidth per geographic area based on how many satellites are overhead at any time, and how good they are. If the population density is low, then that's a lot per customer. If the population density is high, then it is very little per person. The result is that satellites are a wonderful solution for getting internet to rural areas, and are not a solution for towns.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
the Democrat's don't claim to have any overarching theory of State's rights guiding them, so I don't think they're nearly as bad.
- theNYTlies 6y ago
  No, they're just galvanized by pious righteousness and a never failing sense that they are the ultimate Good fighting evil, reinforced by the echo chamber of the press and Twitter cheering them on, with absolutely zero self awareness as they embrace racial Stalinism in the teachings of Ibrahim Kendi et alia
goat_whisperer 6y ago
> Democrats are nearly as bad. I mean, after supporting the reversal of a fair and free election, leading to a violent insurrection, anyone who still engages in this 'both sider-ism' is basically a lost cause at this point. I far respect people who at least pick a side than continue the 'both sides are equally bad' argument
- theluketaylor 6y ago
  One side is filled with anti-democratic monsters and captured by corporate interests. The other side is just captured by corporate interests. For sure not equally bad, but that doesn't make one a paragon of virtue.
  - duxup 6y ago
    Nobody is a paragon of virtue.
  - s3r3nity 6y ago
    You are always going to have crazy extremists on both sides: be it Trump-truthers or socialist “China did nothing wrong in the last 50 years and Venezuela is good for poor people” leftists. Majority of people tend to be more centrist, but that doesn’t get as many clicks / ad dollars.
- theNYTlies 6y ago
  Ah yes, the insurrection which involved no military, no firearms, and involved only the deaths of the rioters by State forces (we learned yesterday that Sicknick was not killed with a fire extinguisher and the New York Times just made that up) Yes yes, that was an insurrection, but the ongoing movement detailed in Andy Ngo's new book is "just an idea" Give me a break
  - theNYTlies 6y ago
    Here's another comment so you can downvote me twice you Coastal Elite shitheads, won't make me wrong! Fuck you very much :D You can kick all the people you hate offline and censor us but don't be surprised to see more outbursts in real life when you've silenced all dissent online
chrisco255 6y ago
Obviously Republicans are a big group with diverging interests and alignments on certain issues. Both parties have been more than happy to grow the power of the Federal government over the states. That we have a bipartisan consensus of lobbyist-owned politicians in Washington is not even a novel concept. In fact, probably the most aggressive state to take advantage of states rights is California, which implements stringent regulations at the state level that are far in excess of federal regulations on many things. I don't see anyone arguing that California should be prevented from doing that. At any rate, these are 2 Republicans proposing a bill, nobody has any idea yet what kind of support it has in the House or whether it will die on the vine.

duxup 6y ago

It has to be really frustrating for local municipalities / regions who want to make it desirable to life / work there ... but they're in a hole of crappy internet determined by some monopoly that isn't responsive / responsible to anyone. I know some local areas near me are just SOL as far as good service goes. The local monopoly actually has run lines across people's yards and just left them there exposed for years. Some folks just bury them themselves... they're doing work for the company, so they don't accidentally mow over their neighbor's internet connection.

snarf21 6y ago

So much for the free market. It will be interesting to see what StarLink does to broadband over time.

theluketaylor 6y ago
The most charitable interpretation for support of municipal broadband bans is that municipalities have a natural monopoly over rights of way and telecom installation that private companies can't compete against. Not totally unfair, but the better protection is requiring municipalities lease access to last mile lines at fair rates rather than banning them from participating in the laying of lines. I also highly doubt anyone supporting this bill is actually concerned about monopolies, since if they were they'd also be banning the non-competition between telecom companies that has municipalities considering their own broadband in the first place.
- duxup 6y ago
  > is actually concerned about monopolies Well in a way they are, they're almost certainly sponsored in some way by them.
unethical_ban 6y ago
Yes, so much for it. It should not be worshipped at the expense of the societal good. Should private companies have some access to rights-of-way? Perhaps. Should governments be prevented by federal law from providing public services through rights of way? Absolutely not. Next, let's ban libraries, public pools and public schooling, because those are all lost opportunities for capitalists to make money.
- virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
  username checks out (and yes, well said)
btilly 6y ago
The answer is not much. Satellites give you an amount of bandwidth per geographic area based on how many satellites are overhead at any time, and how good they are. If the population density is low, then that's a lot per customer. If the population density is high, then it is very little per person. The result is that satellites are a wonderful solution for getting internet to rural areas, and are not a solution for towns.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

the Democrat's don't claim to have any overarching theory of State's rights guiding them, so I don't think they're nearly as bad.

theNYTlies 6y ago
No, they're just galvanized by pious righteousness and a never failing sense that they are the ultimate Good fighting evil, reinforced by the echo chamber of the press and Twitter cheering them on, with absolutely zero self awareness as they embrace racial Stalinism in the teachings of Ibrahim Kendi et alia

goat_whisperer 6y ago

> Democrats are nearly as bad. I mean, after supporting the reversal of a fair and free election, leading to a violent insurrection, anyone who still engages in this 'both sider-ism' is basically a lost cause at this point. I far respect people who at least pick a side than continue the 'both sides are equally bad' argument

theluketaylor 6y ago
One side is filled with anti-democratic monsters and captured by corporate interests. The other side is just captured by corporate interests. For sure not equally bad, but that doesn't make one a paragon of virtue.
- duxup 6y ago
  Nobody is a paragon of virtue.
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  You are always going to have crazy extremists on both sides: be it Trump-truthers or socialist “China did nothing wrong in the last 50 years and Venezuela is good for poor people” leftists. Majority of people tend to be more centrist, but that doesn’t get as many clicks / ad dollars.
theNYTlies 6y ago
Ah yes, the insurrection which involved no military, no firearms, and involved only the deaths of the rioters by State forces (we learned yesterday that Sicknick was not killed with a fire extinguisher and the New York Times just made that up) Yes yes, that was an insurrection, but the ongoing movement detailed in Andy Ngo's new book is "just an idea" Give me a break
- theNYTlies 6y ago
  Here's another comment so you can downvote me twice you Coastal Elite shitheads, won't make me wrong! Fuck you very much :D You can kick all the people you hate offline and censor us but don't be surprised to see more outbursts in real life when you've silenced all dissent online

chrisco255 6y ago

Obviously Republicans are a big group with diverging interests and alignments on certain issues. Both parties have been more than happy to grow the power of the Federal government over the states. That we have a bipartisan consensus of lobbyist-owned politicians in Washington is not even a novel concept. In fact, probably the most aggressive state to take advantage of states rights is California, which implements stringent regulations at the state level that are far in excess of federal regulations on many things. I don't see anyone arguing that California should be prevented from doing that. At any rate, these are 2 Republicans proposing a bill, nobody has any idea yet what kind of support it has in the House or whether it will die on the vine.