Rural America Is Building Its Own Internet Because No One Else Will (vice.com) 246
New submitter bumblebaetuna writes: In many cases, it's not financially viable for big internet service providers like Comcast and CharterSpectrum to expand into rural communities: They're not densely populated, and running fiber optic cable into rocky Appalachian soil isn't cheap. Even with federal grants designed to make these expansions more affordable, there are hundreds of communities across the US that are essentially internet deserts -- so many are building it themselves. But in true heartland, bootstrap fashion, these towns, hollows -- small rural communities located in the valleys between Appalachia hills -- and stretches of farmland have banded together to bring internet to their doors. They cobble together innovative and creative solutions to get around the financial, technological, and topological barriers to widespread internet.
Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Rural communities helping themselves? Not to be allowed in todays Corporate America [arstechnica.com].
Yet another reason to support smaller government whenever possible, and not allow a centralized monster to take over that can be controlled by any remote faction of people...
Re: (Score:3)
Why do assume smaller government is the answer? It is usually the smaller communities, with less knowledge and resources which are easier to co-opt than larger entities.
Re: (Score:2)
It is usually the smaller communities, with less knowledge and resources which are easier to co-opt than larger entities.
Perhaps. But if you don't like the government, it is easier to move to a different town than a different country.
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny. In Europe, people trust the government more than corporations. So it's usually the government screwing them over.
In the US, people trust companies more than governments. And it's usually the companies screwing them over.
Just because it's not a "government" doesn't mean it can't get big and centralized enough to become abusive. Especially when it provides what, in the first world, has become a near-essential good/service. See, for example, Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny. In Europe, people trust the government more than corporations.
I'm an American, and I trust the government more than corporations. Not that either of them are all that trustworthy, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe people see the government as their agent, not some external force that they have no ability to influence. Politics isn't quite as fucked in Europe as it is in the US yet, although the UK is trying really really hard to get there.
Anyway, when you look objectively as European governments, or at least the more progressive ones and the EU, they tend to look out for individuals and protect them from corporations. Consumer law and human rights are much stronger than in the US, largely thanks to the EU a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Smaller or larger government is the size of the entity, not the quality. I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!". It is just like any other organization of people. A major difference between a government and a corporation is the government has to interact with a number of people and groups on things it has no knowledge about. That somehow a smaller government, which has broader responsibilities and fewer resources is going to out perform or negotiate someone like C
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Going by that logic, you'd be better off hiring 100 people to go cut your lawn, because a larger lawn cutting team is more likely to outperform a smaller one. And this way, you get to pay for all 100 people, and you don't get to pick them, and if they burn your grass or don't show up on time (or drunk), you can't do anything about it because you didn't hire them.
But every 4 years you get to decide if you want to hire the group that says the reason they can't get your lawn cause is because they need another 10 people to do study on why the other 100 are useless, so they need to raise the rate you pay them by 10%. Of course the other group which may just put 98 of those 100 useless government workers (I mean lawn care specialists) out of a job, but that seems like the more logical choice to me.
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
By YOUR logic, all work should only be done by a single person ever to avoid hiring too many. I do trust it's harder for a nefarious player (eg., ISP lobby) to bribe a thousand people than to bribe one person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main conclusion from your comment is not that government has to suck, but that the current algorithm for democracy needs to be replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the other group which may just put 98 of those 100 useless government workers (I mean lawn care specialists) out of a job
So fire anyone who could keep them honest, keep all the money for themselves and your lawn still won't look any better.
Maybe it's possible that there is some good number in between 2 and 100, and corporations aren't magically able to divine it any better than government can.
Also, if government does end up with a few too many people because it has really strong worker's rights, I'm actually okay with that because the pay tends to be below industry levels and their conditions set a benchmark to measure the pr
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it is easy to focus on that rather than "how smart the government is!".
It's a lonely position you have if you're trying to say that the government is smart. Counter examples abound and even when the government is smart in a narrow area (ie NSA tapped the entire friggin internet and just about every device with a microphone, pretty amazing) they fail in the larger sense (think deficits and social security promises that can't be kept).
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on the problem. If you're talking about large scale multi-regional infrastructure, well, that's what the Federal Government was designed for when it was rebooted after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Now I applaud these people in rural areas for taking the initiative (and hope they don't run afoul of the same Big ISP attacks that their urban cousins have suffered when daring to put in their own infrastructure), but the fact that they have to cobble together their own solutions to get access to 21st century communications systems is a sad testament to state and Federal level failure to take the lead on delivering such access.
Re: (Score:2)
We just have to recall the similar situation before rural electrification (sponsored by the Rural Electrification Act, 1936, and an alphabet agency in FDR's New Deal).
Mostly, cities had local power companies at the time, but those companies had no plan for long-range power lines (hadn't developed suitable transformers or studied the problem, even). So, a task force was set up to consider the technical and financial challenges, using a central plan a
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the government did not have the power to grant and enforce a monopoly... Government gets that power when it gets the power to overregulate. If a government only had the power to punish a corporation for unfair business practices (like hiring hired killers to entice ranchers to give up rights of way to railroads if we want to go that far back in history for the abuses) and didn't have the power to grant the railroad exclusive access into an area in the first place...
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Think that one through. We'd be without:
1. Non-cluttered public streets.
2. National parks.
3. Non-cluttered, no-charge freeways.
4. Patents.
5. Copyrights.
6. Cell phones and radios that work 10% of the time.
Say what you want about how poorly they're implemented in the US, those things have uses in a modern society. You can look to some areas of India to see what a cluster-fuck letting anybody build anything they want on shared public land will do.
Re: (Score:2)
" Non-cluttered, no-charge freeways."
I can tell you don't live any where near a metropolitan area.
"Non-cluttered public streets."
See above.
"Patents."
Good. Get fucking rid of the abused things.
"Copyrights."
Good. Get rid of it.
"Cell phones and radios that work 10% of the time."
Good, give me one that works 100% of the time.
The only real negative out of that entire list of yours is the national parks. Let's try making a better list to prove your point, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government should own no property other than military bases.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is collusion between government and businesses that are causing the problem. BIGCORP lobbies congress for protection from competition, paying huge campaign donations, and getting laws that prevent small cooperatives from ever forming.
No, the problem isn't where you think it is, because a free economy has no artificial barriers. Think about it, the Franchise agreements between cable companies and municipalities are government/business ventures that prevent actual competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is collusion between government and businesses that are causing the problem.
Bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't even have somebody else to enforce your property rights, but have to go with the government."
Who would you recommend?
Yourself? Easy to overcome, two or more people wanting what you have, and you don't have anymore. Even one person, better armed, sneaker, luckier, etc'ier.
Yourself and a private army? You have to have money/power/etc to make this work. I don't know about you, but I can't see this as leading to anything but a feudal system of warlords battling to defend what they have when relat
Re: (Score:2)
Companies like to strong arm small communities as presented in the article you linked to...
That is not what the article says. It describes STATE governments placing restrictions on local governments.
that's not the government doing that..
Yes it is.
it's the private sector.
The corporations are only able to do this because the government is too big and too centralized.
So you think that weakening the government and strengthening the private sector ...
Power to make broadband decisions should be at the local level, not the state level. States that leave the decisions up to local jurisdictions have better coverage and lower prices.
Re: Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:2)
What do you lobbying leads to?
Regulatons are not formed in a vaccum. The smaller government is, the less lobbying matters to ANYONE.
Re: (Score:2)
How does small government help when the corporations just write the law. You can have a one person legislature, rubber stamping the corporate (or trust or other large private organization if we get rid of corporations) written law. We can shrink the government down to one judge. If that judge is corrupt and always rules in the favour of whoever pays him off, how is that better. History already shows that one corrupt judge can empower private, non-government police forces (Pinkertons) to act just as bad as a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voting out politicians who clearly don't have the American people's best interests at heart for another.
Shotguns loaded with rolls of dimes, and guillotines, if necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be an argument for smaller government. It is an even better reason to completely disallow corporate influence over government at any size.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up a history book sometime. You will be astounded.
I have. That's why I prefer small, constitutionally limited government over all-powerful states.
Re: (Score:2)
The C.S.A. was in no way a limited government, its constitution mandated slavery be allowed in all states.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How will a small community project be taken over by a big corporation? It will only happen if the small community's government agrees or if the larger government around the small community (state or more likely federal) uses overreaching regulatory power to force the small community to acquiesce. I doubt that you can find any modern examples of a big corporation forcibly taking over a community project using hired killers and such. But making nonsense claims about the evilness of corporations sure does make
Re:Don't worry, regulation will end that nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll just make sure the state government makes the project illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, having the "Central Committee" run the show is a worse solution as you then having a single corporation controlling everything. I haven't seen that the European feudal model works any better.
The less control a government can take, the less power it has and the less reason for corporations to control it.
Re: (Score:2)
the less reason for corporations to control it.
Exactly, because in that scenario, the corporation already have the power and become the defacto government.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, ( radical notion, I know ), give the government the correct amount of power to do it's job, make it answerable to the general populace, and remove corporate influence over the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is neither the only source of education nor the best source of education.
Government is not the source of food safety. Government does not make the food I grow safe.
Government is not the primary source of medical care, and in a free society very little medical care comes from the government.
You got that right. When the government is in the picture, people die. For instance, in gas chambers.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is the only thing that has made education something available to the general populace. Sure, technically, individual parents can educate their kids, but not evenly and to a great extent. Not well, in general. Not past the very basics ( speaking the native language, maybe a bit of math and writing ). Do for profit entities do it better? Sure, if you can pay. And that leads us straight into a whole lot of ugly. Class divisions. To the extent that our democratic trappings work, they will sur
Fuck you, AT&T and others! (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going go build our own Internet, with blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the blackjack!
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't fuck the quote up at all. I had to change it because the original phrasing makes no sense if you replace "theme park" with "internet". Without internet you got no blackjack (gambling sites) and no hookers (porn sites).
Regulated as a utility (Score:2, Insightful)
If the red state rubes want to keep voting against their best interests, then fuck 'em. Let them pay for their own Internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody in the US should have access to affordable, reliable Internet access.
... then fuck 'em. Let them pay for their own Internet access.
These two sentences express opposite views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That statement is demonstrably false to the point of being silly..
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody in the US has access to reliable, affordable electricity, no matter where they are.
No they don't. Nor should they. If you choose to live on a remote Aleutian island, that is YOUR choice, and nobody else should be forced to subsidize you.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Exchange (Score:2)
I would be interested in wireless internet myself. There are some condos near my house that have gigabit but I "only" get 250mbps/10mbps internet. (Honestly upload is the only thing that still bothers me with the internet). I would happily pay someone to put a small 7" antenna in their window for a wireless gateway and pay them like $10 a month or something for the window lease.
There should be a craigslist section for connecting people with gigabit to those who want it.
Re: (Score:2)
Would ten bucks a month, plus collection hassle, be enough for your trouble if the positions were reversed?
There's your problem. Offer them half and they might start to consider it.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I was assuming I would pay the $100/month for their bandwidth too.
Modem -> EdgeRouter -> PTP Wifi & local AP -> PTP Wifi -> AP.
Their own Internet? (Score:2)
Really?! I wonder if they'll continue to use TCP/IP as the protocol for this new Internet that they're building.
Isn't it... (Score:2)
How do they get around (Score:3)
all the bought and paid for state politicians? [arstechnica.com]
I can't imagine this will go unchallenged (Score:2)
Fiber optic cable (Score:2)
... into rocky Appalachian soil
Ummm. Run it overhead?
With the power lines. On the same poles.
I was in on that sort of thing once (Score:2)
A good friend of mine was outside of broadband territory (well, he could get DSL, but it was expensive, very unreliable, and barely faster than a 56k modem), so we set up a "micro-ISP" with a microwave link relayed into the nearest town.
It wasn't exactly cheap -- I think he spent around $10k all in -- but he got his neighbors in on it to share costs. Now, there's a group of about 20 people who went from effectively no broadband to better broadband than most people in the city are getting.
Re: (Score:2)
Question: Were they able to get service without being forced to give all their equipment to an existing ISP in the nearby town?
I ask because other, similar, efforts, that I am familiar with, by groups of private citizens were refused service unless they agreed to give the system they built (and paid for) to an existing ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
The common scenario is that either you establish yourself as an ISP, or you are forced to pay the equipment cost. Most communities are better off with the latter approach, as running an ISP is a pain without scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Question: Were they able to get service without being forced to give all their equipment to an existing ISP in the nearby town?
I ask because other, similar, efforts, that I am familiar with, by groups of private citizens were refused service unless they agreed to give the system they built (and paid for) to an existing ISP.
There are three providers in the area that can supply internet over a microwave link. None of them required that they own any of the equipment, but all of them had specific requirements for the portion of the equipment that had to be on their site (and, obviously, some of the equipment has to be on their site -- and they are the ones who operate that part).
We went with the one that worked the best for the sightlines we had. We also had to install a repeater on the roof of a private residence in order to mak
Americans writing about Internet == Funny (Score:5, Informative)
"We have crappy Internet provision because of Big Government!"
"Yeah! Let's make our government even less like those in France, Germany, and Scandinavia where the Internet access is several times as good."
And to fend off the inevitable "But we have it harder because the US is less dense than Europe!"
1) You are not less dense than Canada and Australia
2) US Internet provision sucks in US cities, too, and they are quite dense
You do not have crappy Internet because of "corrupt Clinton-style government". You have it because of not-technically-corrupt government that is *influenced* by large corporations that have an oligopoly on service provision. This influence is bipartisan, with a slight preference for Republican. (Until Trump, whose level of revolving-door state/corporate appointments has hit a new level.)
What's that fee on our bills? (Score:2)
Haven't we been paying that fee that's supposed to cover building out internet to rural areas. Does that mean the telecos and Comcast have been pocketing the fee and not actually doing the work?
Actually, that would kinda figure, wouldn't it?
The Romanian solution, applied in the USA (Score:2)
Romania shows up in top 10 broadband speed constantly and it's not even a developed nation like South Korea. How did they do it?
They were called "neighbourhood networks". People decided to go against common sense and deployed office-rated Cat5 and office-rated switches wherever they could, without asking for permission from anybody. They spanned local city areas and helped jumpstart the speedy broadband revolution. If it were left to the national telecom company Romania would still be on expensive dial-up.
T
Why is this astonishing? (Score:2)
Who ELSE'S responsibility is it to build something for rural America?
If you don't want to live in one of the sweltering crapholes we call American cities, one of the "costs" is that you don't have as easy access to a host of services, internet broadband being one of them.
They want it, they can pay to build it. And I say this as someone from rural MN where the best broad band we could get until couple of years ago was 10/1 adsl.
Re: (Score:2)
Until some asshole big ISP that doesn't want to give you service sends a lawsuit your way stopping you from doing just that. Can't have someone threatening their monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Better than having access to that Rachel Maddow twat-waffle, or thinking that John Oliver is a real journalist.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, someone was triggered.
Re: (Score:2)
People with degrees in journalism that work for obsolescent dead-tree newspapers, reprint press releases, do no research and have no sense of humor.
Or that the government has declared are "real" journalists because they like how they report. e.g., reprinting press releases without doing any research.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
As soon as you educate an Appalachian, they realize that the sensible thing to do is to move somewhere else.
I grew up in the Cumberland coal region of eastern Tennessee, and in my HS graduating class, everyone with better than a 3.5 GPA has moved elsewhere.
We graduated on a Wednesday. I left on Thursday.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Johnson City isn't exactly a place with no opportunity. There is lots of good industry (largely medical/biotech) in the area, ETSU has a good medical school, there are plenty of cultural activities believe it or not, great food and music, etc.
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The implication is that Clinton would have been different. She wouldn't have been, and would probably be worse, since her entire political career was made on the backs of Corporate and International Cronyism. Google "Clinton Foundation pay to play"
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If two are equally corrupt (assuming that's the case), I'd prefer the competent one who has a history of at least getting positive laws passed.
Even if you agree with Trump's platform, his ability to actually bring forth any progress on implementing it has been...disastrous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corrupt competent is worse than corrupt incompetent. Positive laws? Bullshit.
As to what he's gotten done? He's already saved the second amendment for a generation. Something Hillary was dead set against. When 'old what's her name' kicks off, the supreme court will be good for many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how 8 years of Obama supposedly tearing up the second amendment simply saw record gun sales. Guess he had the door to door confiscations planned for his 9th year in office.
Re: (Score:2)
When 'old what's her name' kicks off, the supreme court will be good for many decades.
So fuck democracy and having an independent, non-political judiciary, just as long as their views happen to align with yours.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is not Australia and quite frankly there is no sensible reason in this day and age that licensing your guns would be a bad idea."
We're moving to energy weapons. You have fun with your inaccurate loud as fuck guns, sonny boy. Meanwhile we'l sit here with our lasers fucking your eyes with no remorse and no license required!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if she's against [the first and second amendments]? You need a supermajority to change something in the Constitution. You think anyone can get half is the Republican Party to agree to ban guns?
While I don't agree with the original premise that Hillary was against those amendments, in regards to constitutional issues the argument used by both the left and right is not that the President will push through constitutional amendments. They are worried about Supreme Court justices. A Supreme Court stacked with originalists will interpret some constitutional cases far differently than justices who believe the Constitution evolves with changes to society and culture.
Re: (Score:2)
...They argue about always keeping a round in the chamber like you're in the military.....
You don't do that in the military though, whether or not you chamber a round depends largely on your current alert state.
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid fucking argument. The 2nd amendment was never under ANY duress. I'm tired of this moronic NRA talking point. To get rid of the 2nd amendment it would take another amendment! No one anywhere has even drafted a constitutional amendment to even tweak the 2nd. No one was ever going to take away our guns.
This is disingenuous, and ignores the power of the courts. The 4th amendment has been gutted in the last few decades not by another amendment modifying it or repealing it, but by the courts allowing the executive and legislative branches to make end runs around it, or redefining what "reasonable" means. The 5th amendment's right to remain silent was threatened a few years ago (Salinas v Texas) with the Supreme Court saying you have to "invoke" your right to be silent... by saying so. If you don't say so,
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Carrying a firearm !== threat, I'm not even sure you can legitimately call it brandishing.
Re: Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw some video of people carrying firearms. They weren't waving them about in a threatening manner, in any of the video that I saw. I carry a firearm fairly frequently. I'm not even remotely a threat.
If you're curious, I'm very politically left and not white. I'd hate to have you thinking I am a Nazi, or something.
At any rate, do you have some specific footage you'd like me to watch?
Re: (Score:2)
Not just brandished - at least one was fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm hunting, yes. Slung !== ready to fire (or brandishing).
Where they pointing them at people? I've seen no video that shows this.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the Clintons only passed laws that increased chaos and decreased the right to life, I'd say I'd rather have somebody with NO history to that.
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction last year that if Trump won, his Administration would eventually become so alienated that even Congressional Republicans would turn their back on him is coming true,
Your prediction for last year was, IIRC, that Trump would never win, and that his support was only amongst racists and misogynists. Your prediction was wrong then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton at least acknowledged that some of the industries in question (ie. coal) were dying, and that the Federal government should do more to assist in economic diversification. Trump just told a bunch of people he'd somehow magically make it 1950 again.
Now of course a lot of that would be up to Congress, and maybe Congress wouldn't have been interested in any economic diversification and job retraining that a Clinton Administration wanted to put into action, but then again, it's not as if Congress is show
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was the consummate conservative who'd have kept the system as it was -- not good, but not dangerous. She was too deeply entrenched in the system to be a reckless looter. But anyway I'd like to think more educated voters would've made different primary election choices in both parties, and also considered other parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap I simply used the "not vote for Trump" from the previous post and made it into a Quest for the Holy Grail bit and you guys degenerated that into a political crap-fest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Yes all that real news. How else would the good folk of Appalachia have discovered that Obama was putting chemicals into the water that made the frogs gay
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, most house fires so thoroughly damage a house that everything that isn't concrete or brick has to be rebuilt. Fire departments save people and keep the fire from spreading beyond the house, but rarely is the house saved. Not their fault; by the time a fire is detected, the fire company alerted and reaches the blaze, the house is already mostly aflame.
Re: (Score:2)
Will you make up your damn minds. First, Trump and supporters are a bunch of communists listening to Putin. Then they are a bunch of Nazis building ovens.
Today they are back to being communists?
I remember being taught a little saying about it being very difficult to keep a lie going because it is more difficult to remember all the lies necessary to keep a lie going than it is to simply remember the truth being told.
This Trump is a communist, Trump is a fascist. Trump is a communist cycle pretty much proves
Re: (Score:2)
Most of China was moderate sized villages. The communist method of takeover was to enter a village, kill the village elders and have the village assign a new set of elders. If that set didn't obey the communists, they were killed, and so on. There wasn't much of a workforce to be communist; the country was dominantly agricultural, not industrial.