Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Networking

Kansas Delays Municipal Broadband Ban 156

Posted by Soulskill
from the hold-up-cowboy dept.
Mokurai writes with an update to a story from last week about legislation in Kansas that would have banned most municipal broadband, including the expansion of Google Fiber. Now, after the public backlash that erupted online, government officials have postponed the legislation's hearings, putting it on hold indefinitely. From the article: "Senate Bill 304 would prohibit cities and counties from building public broadband networks. The Commerce Committee, which [Sen. Julia Lynn] chairs, was scheduled to have a hearing Tuesday, but Lynn released a statement that hearings have been postponed indefinitely. 'Based on the concerns I heard last week, I visited with industry representatives and they have agreed to spend some time gathering input before we move forward with a public hearing,' Lynn said in a statement. 'We'll revisit the topic when some of these initial concerns have been addressed.' Lynn elaborated while exiting a Senate Judiciary hearing. The senator said she has instructed 'the parties' involved with the bill to address the public’s concerns. The bill was introduced by John Federico, a cable industry lobbyist."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kansas Delays Municipal Broadband Ban

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:54PM (#46154443)

    Comcast_blackhat_01: "They've got a better product, we'd better lobby to have them kept out for no reason. We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285)
      Say what you will, but Comcast is the only broadband provider in some of my very urban-one-of-the-largest-cities-in-the-US area. Not the suburbs, but minutes from downtown. Verizon is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. ATT is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. So there is clear oppotunity for a third party to come in and compete and acutaly make life better for many people. To provide a broadband service for those who really don't have it. But what did Google decide to do? Go
      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:07PM (#46154619)

        This is why I do not believe google fiber is the answer. They are not going into dense cities who are underserved. They are going into over served areas and trying to take the low hanging fruit.

        Well, they're going into areas that are already served and putting the garbage existing providers (Comcast, Time Warner, etc) to shame.

        They have to prove that this is workable and profitable before it can go everywhere.

        • by Mashdar (876825)

          You're telling me they won't put the pilot in a market telecoms won't touch with a ten foot pole? Evil!

        • by PRMan (959735)

          Google isn't trying to get into the broadband game, as much as many of us would like that. They're trying to raise US broadband speeds overall in the cheapest way possible. And they're succeeding. Even a year ago Comcast and TW were acting like they were doing us a big favor giving us over 10.

      • by PRMan (959735)
        Maybe not enough people promised to sign up with them. Maybe they see that it's a low-income area where few people would even get broadband. Maybe everyone sees that.
      • by symbolset (646467) *

        Comcast is the only broadband provider in some of my very urban-one-of-the-largest-cities-in-the-US area.

        Comcast paid well in concessions for other territories to ensure this, likely. The cable companies swap service areas like they are trading cards.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by wizkid (13692) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:39PM (#46155151) Homepage

        Say what you will about the big telcos that have buildings and pop's in the area. They won't provide broadband. Yes they're there and selling services to businesses. they won't touch broadband though. That would create competition. The only way to open up competition will be to encourage small business to come in and provide a better product. The telco's would rather spend money on lobbyists then put fiber in the ground.

      • by jader3rd (2222716)

        Say what you will, but Comcast is the only broadband provider in some of my very urban-one-of-the-largest-cities-in-the-US area. Not the suburbs, but minutes from downtown. Verizon is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. ATT is building huge in the area, but not everywhere. So there is clear oppotunity for a third party to come in and compete and acutaly make life better for many people.

        Then Comcast probably has a monopoly contract with the city disallowing any competition.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zaelath (2588189) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @06:40PM (#46156073)

        When did Google become a charity again? At best their move into fiber is a highly capitalized risk venture, and your suggestion is they should "create markets" by providing incredibly expensive data runs to people the rest of the industry can't be bothered servicing because there's not enough of them to make a profit on.

        Traditionally that kind of folly is a role for government, perhaps you should be lobbying them to create a public network to compete with the privates. /laugh

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by guevera (2796207)

          by providing incredibly expensive data runs to people the rest of the industry can't be bothered servicing because there's not enough of them to make a profit on.

          I seem to recall that we paid the telcos and MSOs to do just that. They then pocketed the money, bought off the regulators, and told us with a straight face that further network upgrades are too expensive and we should all just rely on LTE or something.

      • by Xicor (2738029)
        they are strategically putting fiber into places in areas where a few conditions are met: 1. cheaper infrastructure. 2. strategically placed for expansion(i.e. compass directions first... kansas was north, austin is south... dunno where the east and west will be yet). 3. a place where they can shut down an existing company(the idea here isnt to take over the internet, as they are not making any money from the fiber atm, but to get all the other companies to drop their prices to reasonable levels).
    • by jader3rd (2222716)

      Comcast_blackhat_01: "They've got a better product, we'd better lobby to have them kept out for no reason. We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

      It's not just that Google has a better product, but Google is playing by different rules. Being classified as an ISP in the US means that the FCC enforces rules which say that you can't mine your customers data. Now Google is coming along, saying their not an ISP, and can mine their customers data to subsidize the service.

      • It's not just that Google has a better product, but Google is playing by different rules.

        [citation needed]

        Being classified as an ISP in the US means that the FCC enforces rules which say that you can't mine your customers data.

        [citation needed]

        Now Google is coming along, saying their not an ISP,

        [citation needed]

        and can mine their customers data to subsidize the service.

        [citation needed]

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @06:32PM (#46155961) Homepage Journal

      Comcast_blackhat_01: "They've got a better product, we'd better lobby to have them kept out for no reason. We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

      People railed against it. This proves Kansas isn't at the forefront of ignorance people suggest. Good for the people of Kansas for holding their leaders to account. Education is alive and well in the Sunflower State, the legislators were taught a lesson.

      • That's how it is everywhere. Once someone figures out how they're getting screwed, they rail against it. Rural towns all over America are evaporating because the people there think pro-Big Ag business policies are good for them. At some point, they'll figure out that Junior moved to the big city because of those laws and not because of a bunch of marrying homersexwalls in San Francisco.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)

      by sconeu (64226) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @06:45PM (#46156135) Homepage Journal

      I didn't get a Harrumph out of that guy!!!

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Art Challenor (2621733) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:57PM (#46154495)

    'We'll revisit the topic when some of these initial concerns have been addressed.'

    We're going to keep introducing this legislation until people stop watching and we can pass it (see also SOPA).

    • Did they pass SOPA when I wasn't looking?

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:10PM (#46154669)

      And the cable companies will keep trying to buy politicians so that they can get this passed.

      Fuck them.

      Instead, get a law passed that allows the government to install the pipes and allow the homeowners to choose between ISPs that have leased those pipes from the local government.

      • by frisket (149522)
        Good luck with getting that enabled in the USA. I can hear the screams of "Socialism" already.
    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by icebike (68054) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:30PM (#46154997)

      Except, by delaying, any planned projects will be rushed through to completion, and once cities and counties start putting in fiber and public wifi that cat's out of the bag.

      The summary is a bit misleading, because this would not have blocked Google Fiber. It might have blocked Google supplying an upstream to municipal fiber at a very cheap rate, but even that isn't clear. Once the infrastructure is in place at public expense, its pretty hard mandate its sale or destruction or abandonment. Every city would have grounds to sue.

      Cities provide water, sewer, roads, fire protection, and police. In some places, you will find examples of each such service being provided by private industry. Sometimes under contract, rarely in competition. There is scarcely room for competing roads, sewer, or water. Those are things that are natural monopolies.

      I've got no problem if a city wants to provide municipal fiber, but I do have a problem when doing so blocks competition or decides what content may be carried.

      Municipal fiber, like municipal roads and water, must serve all comers, and must collect revenue from all users via one means or another. (Most people realize that municipal fiber will either become the tragedy of the commons OR it will have to charge competitive rates just to maintain the plant.) Content provision should never be regulated by municipalities. (Too much risk of "won't somebody think of the children" demanding censorship).

      Municipal fiber, done right, means more competition, not less. It opens the door for Road Runner, and Century Link, and Google to service what use to be an exclusive Comcast territory, because they can all use the same plant, just like their trucks all use the same street. Access fees, sure. Total throughput fees, sure.

      However, I don't think the big broadband companies want to fight this too hard. After all, if the municipality does not provide the physical plant, those companies have to make a HUGE investment in neighborhood plant before they can collect a cent of revenue. Its only where they are already entrenched (see what I did there?) that these companies are looking to prevent municipal broadband.Trying to preserve their existing monopoly.

      But I bet they are also doing the math, and realizing they can access more customers than they would lose, especially for TV, when sat dishes are dirt cheap.

       

      • by tepples (727027)

        But I bet they are also doing the math, and realizing they can access more customers than they would lose, especially for TV, when sat dishes are dirt cheap.

        But being limited to 10 GB of data transfer per month (source: exede.com) after you've switched from cable to satellite isn't fun.

        • by icebike (68054)

          Well you bring up another good point.

          Satellite is really only good for Television, and it makes a terrible internet access route.

          But big cable companies like Comcast make their bread and butter selling TV access, its more lucrative than internet access.
          Some think this is likely to be replaced by intenet tv. Others dispute this [qz.com].

          But the prospect for internet TV, where every single viewing results in a separate TCP/IP feed, scares the hell out of cable companies because even if they manage to get some revenue

          • But the prospect for internet TV, where every single viewing results in a separate TCP/IP feed

            For any channel with more than a few viewers per neighborhood, that would be poor engineering compared to multicast. Only video on demand really needs an individual TCP stream per user.

            • by icebike (68054)

              Multicast?

              Does ANYBODY use that? No, seriously, when was the last time you actually heard the term used in relation to TV over IP?

              Admittedly it would be best for scheduled TV shows, but when you start talking about TV over IP getting free of the schedule
              is sort of taken for granted. People want to watch what ever they want when ever they want without a single thought of the bandwidth that will take.

              Individual TCP/IP streams is bad enough in you own house, its unsupportable for anything other than Google si

              • by tepples (727027)

                Multicast? Does ANYBODY use that?

                Multicast over the public Internet is not used. Multicast over LANs, on the other hand, is used. The machines connected to the CMTS [wikipedia.org] (or whatever else DOCSIS calls its counterpart to a DSLAM) form a LAN of sorts.

                No, seriously, when was the last time you actually heard the term used in relation to TV over IP?

                Switched video [wikipedia.org] operates similarly in principle.

                but when you start talking about TV over IP getting free of the schedule is sort of taken for granted.

                In other words, video on demand, which the cable TV industry (or at least Comcast) trumpets as its key advantage over satellite TV. Caching the most popular VOD programs at each CMTS might help; the CMTS then doubles as a humongous DVR. But what's keepi

              • by jabuzz (182671)

                Here in the United Kingdom, BT Openreach now offer a multicast service to the vast majority of their exchanges as part of the wholesale products for ISP's.

                Admittedly the reason behind this is the retail arm of BT offer a range of TV packages now, and they want to transition people to getting that over the internet connection rather than satellite/cable/DVB as that costs money that multicast would not.

      • by sjames (1099)

        However, I don't think the big broadband companies want to fight this too hard. After all, if the municipality does not provide the physical plant, those companies have to make a HUGE investment in neighborhood plant before they can collect a cent of revenue. Its only where they are already entrenched (see what I did there?) that these companies are looking to prevent municipal broadband.Trying to preserve their existing monopoly.

        There have been too many cases where a provider has refused to serve an area, the people vote for municipal broadband, and then the very same provider sues to block it for your analysis to be correct.

        Given the cost and quality of service reported where municipal broadband has been implemented, it is more likely the telcos want to block it everywhere so it doesn't become too obvious what a poor deal they are actually offering.

        • by icebike (68054)

          The cost and quality is far from convincing proof.

          Have you used municipal broadband, such as WIFI for a tablet or something? Its not a bed of roses. You've got municipal employees trying to manage things they have no training for, on limited budgets, and no ability to control load.

          • by sjames (1099)

            WiFi (often free) is not the same as broadband. Sometimes broadband is provided over wireless. Based on reports, that is no bed of roses no matter who is providing it, mostly because of the tendency to skimp and not actually map the coverage to identify weak spots.

            I have seen a fair number of success stories where I *WISH* I got that much for that little/month. Of course I'm sure not all are so successful, but then there are plenty of areas where a telco's deployment could also be described as a failure.

  • by Huntr (951770) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:57PM (#46154501)

    They didn't delay the ban because there was never a ban in place, just like last week when public broadband expansion wasn't restricted.

    There was a bill to do so. They tabled hearings on it because of public opinion. Learn the process and write intelligently about it.

  • ...politicians. How the hell do we keep doing this?

    I'm so sick of how apathetic people are.

    If this happened in my state, I'd be writing letters everyday!

    Not allowed to build infrastructure because it might put someone else out of business... Boo-fucking-hoo... We, as a country, have no obligation to support your flawed or failing business model...

    Fucking fascist politicians... Those lobbyist presents must be wonderful, indeed! Especially seeing as how they're willing to sell out the constituents for them!

    • by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:06PM (#46154597)

      No one votes on issues anymore. Everyone has been conditioned to vote based on identity politics.

      const "I am a (voting_block_01), therefore, I vote for (party_01)."

      • by Dark Fire (14267)

        Replace congressman with simple if then else voting logic?

        • if (getContribution(ATT) > getContribution(COMCAST))
          vote(ATT);
          else
          vote(COMCAST);


          That sort of thing? That's what we have now.
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          if MyPartyIsInPower()
          {
                ExpandGovernment();
          }
          else
          {
                ComplainAboutProposal();
                Vote(random());
          }

    • Elections, sadly, have little to do with this. The ban was introduced by a lobbyist group representing big telecom companies. When the outcry emerged, the lobbyist group declared they'd rewrite the bill. Then, the lobbyist group called for the bill to be withdrawn. The legislators are mere middlemen doing what the lobbyists tell them to do. We could save money and get rid of the legislators entirely. Just let lobbyist groups hash out what the laws will be. (Not saying this will be better. Just that

    • by geekoid (135745)

      well then, run for office.

      I know, it will be [INSERT EXCUSE HERE] and besides you also have [INSERT EXCUSE HERE].

  • What sort of a country, whose politicians are always going on about how much they believe in freedom, would even countenance introducing such legislation?

    • One with a tremendous amount of hypocrites? And I'm not even pretending that's just the US, humans have a slight tendency towards hypocrisy.

    • Ones that had an interest it keeping rural internet access viable. Internet access is ONLY profitable in city centers. Telco monopolies in these areas are why people in rural areas even have phone service, let alone internet. The telco is required to provide service to any existing home in the area so they spread out the cost. If cities continue to allow competition into the only part of the market that's profitable and not put the same requirements on these new ISPs as the telcos, then the telcos will fail

      • by thaylin (555395)
        These are not telcos remember, ISPs are not categorized, by their own wishes, as telcos. There is nothing that says TWC, ATT, or comcast have to provide internet to the rural areas as it stands, so I am not seeing your point. In addition the only one who even owns a telco is ATT, so what you are saying is we need to also ban all the cable operators, wait, they have not destroyed ATT yet, so your logic is flawed.
        • The majority of ISPs are in fact telcos. All of the Non-telco ISPs buy their backbones from Telcos. The telephone companies of this country are the only reason the internet exists as it is. And yes indeed the telcos are required to provide rural Internet. Not in all places, it's up to the local governments. Usually it's measured in a percentage of customers served, or based on distance from the nearest remote.

          In some counties the phone company is required to have a working phone in every home with the abili

      • Re:Freedom? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PRMan (959735) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:28PM (#46154971)
        They already took billions to get internet to rural areas and then didn't do it anyway. We're done playing that ridiculous game. If you want to live out in the boonies, it's up to you to get your own internet (through satellite or whatever means necessary).
        • by fl!ptop (902193)

          They already took billions to get internet to rural areas and then didn't do it anyway.

          That's not entirely true, I live in a state that is mostly rural, w/ a very unforgiving topography. There is at least one local telco that is working on providing wireless access in as many places as they can erect towers through grant money they received. They are offering better bandwidth for less than DSL which is what I currently have. There's no cable where I live; it's too cost prohibitive to string the poles.

        • The company I work for got some of those subsidies. We had huge projects revolving around satisfying the huge regulatory overhead they brought with them. The problem is, it's insainly expensive to do rural broadband. You've got 50 people living on the side of a mountain, so the feds come in and want you to give them internet. That means getting a remote to within 30,000 feet of every single one of them. Now you've got to lay fiber to the remote site, using easments you haven't touched in 50 years... pissed

      • Telco monopolies in these areas are why people in rural areas even have phone service, let alone internet.

        No, that's the Universal Service Fund [wikipedia.org] you're thinking of.

        Of course, it would help if the telcos would actually use that money for expanding access, and not lobbying Congress/increasing shareholder profits.

        Source: I deal with those shady fuckers (telcos) all day, every day.

      • Ones that had an interest it keeping rural internet access viable. Internet access is ONLY profitable in city centers.

        Not exactly...

        Tillamook County, OR only has around 25,000 souls living in it, yet CenturyLink and Charter are currently fighting tooth-and-nail for their business. Let me put this into perspective: the county's biggest income centers are beef, cheese [tillamook.com], some seafood, and a handful of tourist beach towns ( mostly visited by folks from Portland - 80+ miles away, but a metro area holding approx. 3 million residents).

        CL was there first (riding the DSL lines), but cannot seem to give more than 6mb/sec (if you're l

      • by Ichijo (607641)

        Internet access is ONLY profitable in city centers.

        Then we should eliminate crop subsidies so people who live out in the country can afford the true cost of their Internet.

        I wouldn't mind paying a little more for vegetables if it means less tax money is needed to subsidize farmers.

  • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:10PM (#46154677)
    The sooner these bastards get labeled common carriers the better.
    • by PRMan (959735)
      Mod this up. This is the solution to the problem.
      • by grmoc (57943)

        Sign the petition about it:

        https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P

        At least it helps it get more noticed.

  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:12PM (#46154695) Homepage

    "putting it on hold indefinitely"

    Let me translate: "We're putting it on hold until the uproar dies down."

  • well then screw you. The people want community broadband, listen to them. Industry experts are going to tell you that they have the best way an d it will only work if they control it; which is BS.

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:28PM (#46154959) Homepage Journal

    It is now time for all the states who put up barriers to or outright banned municipal broadband to look at the results and see if it serves the public interest. It does not. Everywhere these bills pass the incumbent cable companies immediately shut down investment because they no longer have to provide modern service.

    Washington state has such a law. Before it was enacted some municipalities were already started and so were grandfathered in. That is why you can have had gigabit fiber Internet to the home in Ephrata, WA (pop 8,000) for 14 years now, and Microsoft is building vast data centers out that way. It is also why you can't get gigabit fiber to your home in Seattle Metro area installed today, which enjoys a global peering point and is home to Microsoft, Amazon and a bunch of other big tech companies whose employees could really benefit from the service, and has 600 times the population density. This even though the cost of the equipment has come down by a factor of 100 in that 14 years.

    This is just wrong.

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      A January 19th story [slashdot.org] on slashdot seems to indicate that municipality internet isnt the panacea everyone wants it to be. That Iowa municipality is switching to metered broadband:

      5GB/month = $25/month
      25GB/month = $100/month
      100GB/month = $300/month

      It turns out that local political hacks arent good at setting up and running a broadband network.
      • It turns out that local political hacks arent good at setting up and running a broadband network.

        It's a co-op, not a municipal network. It's certainly possible that the people that control the municipality also control the co-op, since rural areas have a tendency to have Boss Hogs, but it's by no means a given. This is certainly an example of co-op directors making some incredibly poor choices. Whether or not the members can hold a vote and fix the problem depends on the bylaws of the co-op (and their own motivation to do something about the situation). Neither of those things has anything to do wi

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        The specific gigabit network I referenced is quite old and costly. It was built when the tech cost over 100x as much. Regardless of this it has paid back the investment already and must return the excess to its parent power utility. Since the utility is a nonprofit municipal entity this cash must be rid of with further investment or lower power rates. Apparently it can be done responsibly even by political hacks. In addition the incidental benefits have been extreme. The presence of so much fiber has
  • Citizens Unite? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kennytosh (707149) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @05:30PM (#46154999) Homepage
    Why can a lobbyist introduce legislation into a State Legislature? There is something seriously wrong with that.
  • This is code for "whoops we have opposition so what we need to do is pretend to care about citizen input and setup some 'educational' meetings." Once that dog and pony show is done they can go back to standard operating procedure and push the bill through. When people complain the politicians who get large campaign contributions from those that wrote the bill will say "you had your say and now we have to make the best decision for all residents of Kansas and the best interest of the state" or some BS like
  • It happens so often it's surprising legislators don't put out a price list for laws that favour your business.
    • by rsborg (111459)

      It happens so often it's surprising legislators don't put out a price list for laws that favour your business.

      Why limit the upside? Value-based pricing FTW [1]. On the other hand, in competitive legislative markets, there may indeed be such a menu, it's just not for public consumption. What do you think the golf courses, resort stays and cruises are for? Private meeting rooms to divvy up public resources for pennies on the dollar.

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]

  • The real issue here is that this entire legislative package was written by the Telcos lobby group, and then pushed into the house. At what pint did we let the politicians off the hook for thinking for themselves, and just taking a corporate payoff. Democracy is destroyed when you let these scumbags corporate thugs write the laws. The only reason this got stopped is the publicity. How often is our democracy stolen by these thieves.

  • Google is killing everybody else. I moved to a working class neighborhood in KC to get a cheap house and Google Fiber. Google has the ILECs running scared as almost all of my neighbors signed up for at least the 5 down/1 up Mbps "free" option, and will be dropping their existing cable/DSL contracts when up.
    The Kansas legislature is made up almost entirely of rapid Tea Party half-wits that are taking money from the ILECs or anybody else with money to buy them off. The ONLY reason this was postponed was due
    • Honestly, ANYONE who gets in the door to challenge KC regulations crushes Comcast; even without a 1 gig pipe. They had a monopoly in my neighborhood and as soon as it was lifted, practically everyone on my street switched within the first few weeks/months to Uverse.

  • They HATE government regulations...until they're conspiring with Big Business to suppress competition. Interesting note, yesterday one of the silliest laws in the history of our country was repealed. It banned Southwest Airlines from flying outside of Texas from Dallas-Fort Worth. The law was passed to suppress Southwest Airlines when they first started out and protect existing airlines.

    http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2014/02/03/southwest-airlines-to-offer-nonstop-routes-from-dallas-to-15-cities/ [foxnews.com]

  • People are starting to get into the habit of speaking up and speaking out. They are taking action and it may start to become increasingly fashionable to do so. (In fact, I would urge for people to make it increasingly fashionable to do so.) The 80s was a period of what many thought was a renaissance but was actually a backward step for US and human culture. This whole "looking out for #1" thing really did a number on people. The sophisticated and respected wisdom of urban dwellers such as those found i

  • Koch brothers, creationism in the classroom... So glad i got out in the 90s. My home state is nothing but a source of shame on an almost daily basis.

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...