23 ms·

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/gop-plan-for-broadband-competition-would-ban-city-run-networks-across-us/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/0

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/gop-plan-for-broadband-competition-would-ban-city-run-networks-across-us/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/gop-plan-for-bro... Remember that Republicans tried to ban municipal broadband federally only two months ago! Just an absurdly, transparently corrupt move.

grecy 5y ago
How anyone thinks corporate lobbying is good for anyone other than corrupt politicians and corporate giants is a mystery I will never understand.
- parineum 5y ago
  Actual lobbying is such a small part of the money that goes to politicians that it's a red herring. The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually). You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
  - grecy 5y ago
    I'm not really interested in discussing semantics, but rather the root issue. Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions. Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed. Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    I'm inclined to treat "you got a million dollar ad buy on your behalf from Municipal Broadband Sucks PAC" as a form of lobbying, personally.
    - anaerobicover 5y ago
      To our misfortune the Supreme Court does not agree, and where they are the opinion that counts. (As you know no doubt already.)
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I see no difference between "We'll give you $X to vote for this bill" and "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill".
    - parineum 5y ago
      > "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation. In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it. I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
      - Cederfjard 5y ago
        > The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.
      - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
        > The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.
  - pkghost 5y ago
    While lobbyists write actual laws and work for the same companies + industry groups that fund the PACs, I find it difficult to agree with you.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    Well actually repositions glasses, lobbying is a big part of it: you are a politician for a part of your career. If and when you quit, you can just go work for the lobby that had lobbied you while you were in office. It's an amazingly well planned out safety net that all but the most disgraced politicians (see Anthony Weiner) can rely on. It means that even if you and I and our closes 1000 friends got together and each kicked in $1000 to donate to a politician to, say, vote for municipal broadband, it might not mean nearly as much as $25k from a lobby group that later will hire the politician with a very cushy salary.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    A lot of people immediately think this type of thing is corruption, but consider that these people might actually believe in this stuff and that it's easier for companies to find and support like minded politicians than it is to convince someone who holds an opposite view.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Politicians around the world regularly flip flop on issues in lockstep with their party. That’s not the behavior of someone that actually holds personal views on the subject, suggesting that something else is influencing decision making. Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    You're making a distinction where one doesn't exist. Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators. PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Plus threats to pull or create jobs, fights for tax incentives or other 'free' stuff like special infrastructure or zoning changes. Messaging attacks & earned media are near free, healthcare industry is culpable here. Military seems to be the worst in all of this. Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Lobbying and campaigning are tightly coupled. Splitting hairs is moot.
fallingknife 5y ago
Free market / small government party, lol
- goatcode 5y ago
  Opposing something that's government-controlled does not contradict that. I'm not arguing against it, by any means, though. If municipal services are governed by the Bill of Rights primarily, I'd be all for it, at this point. However, in world in which the FCC is in constant violation of the Bill of Rights, I'm not holding out any hope.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IncRnd 5y ago
> Remember that Republicans tried to ban municipal broadband federally only two months ago! Just an absurdly, transparently corrupt move. The article you posted said something else, that the bill was to ban government-run broadband in an area that has private competition. From your link: The bill "would promote competition by limiting government-run broadband networks throughout the country" and States or municipalities that already offer Internet service may continue to do so if "there is no more than one other commercial provider of broadband Internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area."
- Jotra7 5y ago
  You say this like it's a good thing.
- tzs 5y ago
  > The article you posted said something else, that the bill was to ban government-run broadband in an area that has private competition. Not quite. It bans new government-run broadband everywhere regardless of whether or not there would be private competition in the area. In areas that already have government-run broadband, it allows that to continue as long as that area does not have more than one private provider.
  - tzs 5y ago
    BTW, my source for the above is the text of the bill itself, which the Ars Technica article links to. It says in 2(a): > Except as provided in subsections 3(b)(1) and (c), a State or political subdivision thereof may not provide or offer for sale to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a commercial provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service. Subsection 3(b) starts thusly: > Any State or political 9subdivision thereof providing or offering for sale, either to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service, before the date of the enactment of this section and continues in 3(b)(1) (the first exception mentioned earlier): > notwithstanding subsection (a), may continue to provide or offer for sale such service if the Commission finds there is no more than one other commercial provider of broadband internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area and on 3(c) contains the second exception: > Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority
topspin 5y ago
In my state the Republican legislature passed legislation to enable both municipal broadband and require power companies to allow data services on utility poles, which power companies invariability blocked.
- cure 5y ago
  Wow really! That is great. Those are some enlightened Republicans. Which state is this?
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    Probably Arkansas SB 74, which was passed unanimously by the Arkansas state legislature, which has a Republican majority.
  - farfalle 5y ago
    If it’s Arkansas, then they might be “enlightened” on municipal broadband but are certainly missing the mark with the recent anti-trans law.
    - cure 5y ago
      Yeah, indeed.
CountDrewku 5y ago
"In the face of compelling pandemic-driven evidence that affordable broadband Internet access is essential to modern life, that tens of millions of Americans are being left behind, and that an emergency requiring immediate action exists, five enlightened Arkansas Republicans recently persuaded their overwhelmingly Republican legislature to vote unanimously to give local governments significant new authority to provide or support the provision of broadband Internet access." We'd be better served by providing the names of the ones who introduced it instead of a blanket statement making it sound like all Republicans supported this, especially when at the local level where it really matters they did not support it, they did the exact opposite. Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) The general idea that there should be competition is good, just not going about it by blocking attempts to create municipal broadband. I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs. It doesn't make sense to run multiple companies' fiber to each home.
  - gleenn 5y ago
    Most carriers already share lines don't they?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I’ve never seen it in the US. It’s always been two options, buy from the company that owns the phone line (DSL)/fiber to your house, or buy from the company that owns the coaxial line to your house (cable).
      - karlshea 5y ago
        That wasn’t always true at least for POTS, I think it was called “dry DSL”? The phone company owned the line but your internet was through another company.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Being for a free market is great, if it's better than the government run internet won't it win out in the end anyway? I've yet to see anyone prove it's a better idea to not allow the extra competition. Seems like other countries have a mix and it's fine, what is so unique about the USA that we can't try what has worked in other countries? I'll never understand the Republican reptile brain feature that is so opposed to change.
koheripbal 5y ago
This is an extremely biased assessment. The GOP tried to ban municipal broadband providers IF they established a state owned/run monopoly and prevented private companies from competing in the market. That is not "blatantly corrupt". In fact, closing a market to the public companies and forcing everyone to use a city-run broadband is a lot more concerning.

grecy 5y ago

How anyone thinks corporate lobbying is good for anyone other than corrupt politicians and corporate giants is a mystery I will never understand.

parineum 5y ago
Actual lobbying is such a small part of the money that goes to politicians that it's a red herring. The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually). You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
- grecy 5y ago
  I'm not really interested in discussing semantics, but rather the root issue. Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions. Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed. Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I'm inclined to treat "you got a million dollar ad buy on your behalf from Municipal Broadband Sucks PAC" as a form of lobbying, personally.
  - anaerobicover 5y ago
    To our misfortune the Supreme Court does not agree, and where they are the opinion that counts. (As you know no doubt already.)
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I see no difference between "We'll give you $X to vote for this bill" and "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill".
  - parineum 5y ago
    > "We'll spend $X on advertising for your campaign if you vote for this bill" That's illegal. The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation. In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it. I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      > The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Or your spouse/sibling/kid/niece/nephew get a nice internship or other position.
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      > The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time. When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here? If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.
- pkghost 5y ago
  While lobbyists write actual laws and work for the same companies + industry groups that fund the PACs, I find it difficult to agree with you.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Well actually repositions glasses, lobbying is a big part of it: you are a politician for a part of your career. If and when you quit, you can just go work for the lobby that had lobbied you while you were in office. It's an amazingly well planned out safety net that all but the most disgraced politicians (see Anthony Weiner) can rely on. It means that even if you and I and our closes 1000 friends got together and each kicked in $1000 to donate to a politician to, say, vote for municipal broadband, it might not mean nearly as much as $25k from a lobby group that later will hire the politician with a very cushy salary.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  A lot of people immediately think this type of thing is corruption, but consider that these people might actually believe in this stuff and that it's easier for companies to find and support like minded politicians than it is to convince someone who holds an opposite view.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Politicians around the world regularly flip flop on issues in lockstep with their party. That’s not the behavior of someone that actually holds personal views on the subject, suggesting that something else is influencing decision making. Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  You're making a distinction where one doesn't exist. Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators. PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Plus threats to pull or create jobs, fights for tax incentives or other 'free' stuff like special infrastructure or zoning changes. Messaging attacks & earned media are near free, healthcare industry is culpable here. Military seems to be the worst in all of this. Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
- specialist 5y ago
  Lobbying and campaigning are tightly coupled. Splitting hairs is moot.

fallingknife 5y ago

Free market / small government party, lol

goatcode 5y ago
Opposing something that's government-controlled does not contradict that. I'm not arguing against it, by any means, though. If municipal services are governed by the Bill of Rights primarily, I'd be all for it, at this point. However, in world in which the FCC is in constant violation of the Bill of Rights, I'm not holding out any hope.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

IncRnd 5y ago

> Remember that Republicans tried to ban municipal broadband federally only two months ago! Just an absurdly, transparently corrupt move. The article you posted said something else, that the bill was to ban government-run broadband in an area that has private competition. From your link: The bill "would promote competition by limiting government-run broadband networks throughout the country" and States or municipalities that already offer Internet service may continue to do so if "there is no more than one other commercial provider of broadband Internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area."

Jotra7 5y ago
You say this like it's a good thing.
tzs 5y ago
> The article you posted said something else, that the bill was to ban government-run broadband in an area that has private competition. Not quite. It bans new government-run broadband everywhere regardless of whether or not there would be private competition in the area. In areas that already have government-run broadband, it allows that to continue as long as that area does not have more than one private provider.
- tzs 5y ago
  BTW, my source for the above is the text of the bill itself, which the Ars Technica article links to. It says in 2(a): > Except as provided in subsections 3(b)(1) and (c), a State or political subdivision thereof may not provide or offer for sale to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a commercial provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service. Subsection 3(b) starts thusly: > Any State or political 9subdivision thereof providing or offering for sale, either to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service, before the date of the enactment of this section and continues in 3(b)(1) (the first exception mentioned earlier): > notwithstanding subsection (a), may continue to provide or offer for sale such service if the Commission finds there is no more than one other commercial provider of broadband internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area and on 3(c) contains the second exception: > Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority

topspin 5y ago

In my state the Republican legislature passed legislation to enable both municipal broadband and require power companies to allow data services on utility poles, which power companies invariability blocked.

cure 5y ago
Wow really! That is great. Those are some enlightened Republicans. Which state is this?
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Probably Arkansas SB 74, which was passed unanimously by the Arkansas state legislature, which has a Republican majority.
- farfalle 5y ago
  If it’s Arkansas, then they might be “enlightened” on municipal broadband but are certainly missing the mark with the recent anti-trans law.
  - cure 5y ago
    Yeah, indeed.

CountDrewku 5y ago

"In the face of compelling pandemic-driven evidence that affordable broadband Internet access is essential to modern life, that tens of millions of Americans are being left behind, and that an emergency requiring immediate action exists, five enlightened Arkansas Republicans recently persuaded their overwhelmingly Republican legislature to vote unanimously to give local governments significant new authority to provide or support the provision of broadband Internet access." We'd be better served by providing the names of the ones who introduced it instead of a blanket statement making it sound like all Republicans supported this, especially when at the local level where it really matters they did not support it, they did the exact opposite. Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) The general idea that there should be competition is good, just not going about it by blocking attempts to create municipal broadband. I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs. It doesn't make sense to run multiple companies' fiber to each home.
- gleenn 5y ago
  Most carriers already share lines don't they?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I’ve never seen it in the US. It’s always been two options, buy from the company that owns the phone line (DSL)/fiber to your house, or buy from the company that owns the coaxial line to your house (cable).
    - karlshea 5y ago
      That wasn’t always true at least for POTS, I think it was called “dry DSL”? The phone company owned the line but your internet was through another company.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Being for a free market is great, if it's better than the government run internet won't it win out in the end anyway? I've yet to see anyone prove it's a better idea to not allow the extra competition. Seems like other countries have a mix and it's fine, what is so unique about the USA that we can't try what has worked in other countries? I'll never understand the Republican reptile brain feature that is so opposed to change.

koheripbal 5y ago

This is an extremely biased assessment. The GOP tried to ban municipal broadband providers IF they established a state owned/run monopoly and prevented private companies from competing in the market. That is not "blatantly corrupt". In fact, closing a market to the public companies and forcing everyone to use a city-run broadband is a lot more concerning.