Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government United States

Ohio GOP Ends Attempt To Ban Municipal Broadband After Protest From Residents (arstechnica.com) 207

Posted by BeauHD from the real-grassroots-movement dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: After coming close to imposing a near-total ban on municipal broadband networks, Ohio's Republican-controlled legislature has reportedly dropped the proposed law in final negotiations over the state budget. The final budget agreement "axed a proposal to limit local governments from offering broadband services," The Columbus Dispatch wrote. With a June 30 deadline looming, Ohio's House and Senate approved the budget and sent it to Gov. Mike DeWine for final approval on Monday night, the Dispatch wrote.

As we wrote earlier this month, the Ohio Senate approved a version of the budget containing an amendment (PDF) that would have forced existing municipal broadband services to shut down and prevented the formation of new public networks. The proposed law was reportedly "inserted without prior public discussion," and no state senator publicly sponsored the amendment. It was approved in a party-line vote as Democrats opposed the restrictions in municipal broadband. The House version did not contain the amendment, and it was dropped during negotiations between the House and Senate.

Lawmakers apparently relented to public pressure from supporters of municipal broadband and cities and towns that operate the networks. People and businesses from Fairlawn, where the city-run FairlawnGig network offers fiber Internet, played a significant role in the protests. FairlawnGig itself asked users to put pressure on lawmakers, and the subscribers did so in great numbers. "We had a real grassroots movement here in Fairlawn. We are thrilled our residents, subscribers, and businesses came together and helped us defeat this amendment," Fairlawn Service Director Ernie Staten said yesterday, according to an article by the Community Networks team at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). "We appreciate that the State of Ohio recognizes that municipal broadband has a place in this state and we hope to continue this great endeavor." Fairlawn subscribers sent more than 700 emails telling lawmakers, "Don't take this (municipal broadband) away!" Staten said. The report notes that while Ohio's legislature isn't banning public networks, at least for now, it "is apparently not letting municipal networks apply for a new round of funding."

"While Staten celebrated the removal of the budget amendment, he called the victory 'bittersweet,' as municipalities and electric cooperatives in the state do not have access to the proposed $250 million broadband expansion grant program that will be established when, and if, Gov. Dewine signs the budget into law," the ILSR wrote. The outcome of that isn't certain yet. "We have been asking for a small definition change to add municipalities and electric coops, but unless they changed the language, I believe the House version stands," Staten told the ILSR.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ohio GOP Ends Attempt To Ban Municipal Broadband After Protest From Residents More

Ohio GOP Ends Attempt To Ban Municipal Broadband After Protest From Residents

Comments Filter:

  • Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:42PM (#61535926)

    To try and make sure their rich donor corporations have a tilted playing field.

    • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:51PM (#61535960)

      Indeed. Any republicans want to weigh in on why municipal broadband is so scary that it must be banned?

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:22AM (#61536134)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CaptainLugnuts ( 2594663 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:49AM (#61536162)
          Well, yes. So long as it doesn't interfere with the ruling class making money.

        • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @02:13AM (#61536252) Homepage

          That hasn't been an actual tenet of US Republicans for nearly 30 years

        • I thought taking responsibility for your own shit was a core tenet of republicanism.

          It sounds good, but not quite sure recent Republican politicians ever really bought into that.
          They certainly didn't after President #45 was elected -- nor does he ...

        • No, the ruling class not having to take responsibility for their shit and making it your responsibility is. You're supposed to take responsibility for their shit.

        • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:4, Insightful)

          by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @05:16AM (#61536458)

          Yeah I don't get it either. A bunch of people decided to take responsibility for their own broadband. I thought taking responsibility for your own shit was a core tenet of republicanism.

          Don't confuse "responsibility" with "attacking established revenue streams of the Donor Class."

          There is a difference. Greed sure as hell sees it.

        • I'm glad that amendment didn't pass.
          I don't think the overall affect of it would have been good, because in areas that already had broadband available, it would have totally banned cities from setting up their own ISPs.

          On the other hand, the other six pages of the amendment largely answer the question of why some people are concerned about how muni broadband has been done. If anyone actually wants to understand the concerns, they are laid out in the amendment's requirements for new muni projects. I'll go ov

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            Requiring that they be honest with residents is another good idea.

            Not if it's a special law just for broadband it's not a good idea.

            There should just be a general requirement that cities be honest and charge reasonable rates - Especially when billing for essential services. E.G. a $100 Water bill is unreasonable.

            Use of the money people are required to pay in order to obtain an essential utility For any purpose unrelated to providing the utility people signed up for should be limited.

            Also, a high pric

            • "E.G. a $100 Water bill is unreasonable."

              Not if the occupant has a leak they don't address or a pool they refill. I used to have a regular sized pool (18x36ft ~25k gallons). Water is cheap where I live (bill is usually $20-$30), but on the occasion I had to empty/refill my pool I saw a $50 bump in my water bill. It only happened when the winter cover failed and the water got so dirty that it would cost $300 in chemicals to get it right, so $50 in water was the best solution.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mysidia ( 191772 )

                Not if the occupant has a leak they don't address or a pool they refill. I used to have a regular sized pool

                Well filling a completely pool is 25000+ gallons. So at about 0.0004 it's pretty reasonable.

                Yes, of course, under extreme circumstances a $100 water bill might be reasonable. I mean in general for the crucial usage of the average household; Swimming pools are mainly for enjoyment and rarely need to be refilled, so keeping them filled with water is more of a one-off cost not part of the basic day-

          • Re:Government forced you to isn't "people decided" (Score:4, Insightful)

            by noodler ( 724788 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @10:08AM (#61537142)

            For a typical muni broadband deployment, building it is funded by requiring everyone to pay about $30/month for the construction bond. Operating it is funded by an additional charge of around $30 more if you want to actually get the service.

            When the government forces you to buy/pay for mayor Pete's ISP project, that's not "decided to take responsibility for your own". That's "mayor Pete forced everyone to pay for his internet project, whether they want the service or not"

            Meanwhile the big telcos get subsidies left and right. I don't think it's optional not to pay taxes so a lot of people have had their money poured into these entities, 'whether they want the service or not'.

            Another angle is that you can compare internet infrastructure to roads or utilities. Just about everyone will need them and so it makes sense to pay for it through some communal effort. It makes a lot of sense to do the local distribution/consumption part by a local government.

            Again, I don't like the part of the proposed amendment that would have outright banned muni ISPs from operating in areas that have other broadband options. That's a step too far, imho.

            I'm pretty sure this was the only goal in the amendment. The rest, the arguments you cite, are there to justify the goal of completely shutting off municipal networks.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            So basically it sounds like you don't like the idea that a city decides to start an infrastructure project without that project paying for itself. You also seem to suggest that people should have an option as to whether they use the service or not. So let's put Internet service aside and look at water instead.
            Should the municipality make sure that the water service pays for itself or is it ok to have the service funded with other tax dollars? Is it ok to allow property owners to opt out of hooking up to the

          • Requiring that cities write down their projected numbers before signing up the residents to pay millions of dollars sounds like a good idea.

            Duh. That's why they all do it. Have you ever seen a municipality float a bond without some paperwork behind it to say what the money is for and how it will be paid back? No, you haven't because no one would buy the bonds if that were the case.

            Kind of a crappy straw man there, did you use grass clippings or what?

        • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @09:04AM (#61536960) Journal

          That is among the list of "core tenets" that used to be a part of the Republican party, and no longer is.

          I would make a list, but it's starting to get too long. Easier to make a list of what they are still "for":

          - opposing Democrats, regardless of issue or how popular it might be
          - cowering to the only twice-impeached citizen of Florida praying silently that he will shut the hell up and go away

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          People can still do that: as long as it's not a municipal entity that they organize under. Well, to an extent... In my state they also banned the electrical co-op non profits from providing broadband: which is ashame, because there are many rural areas where no broadband is available, But of course the electric company has to pay to maintain all these service lines, and it's easy for them to include fiber with the power lines as well -- in fact the POCOs already run fiber with the transmission lin

        • A bunch of people decided to take responsibility

          That ended with community TV antenna systems. When Congress decided that these were a viable means of shifting funds to their "must carry" buddies in thd MSM. Even though nobody wanted to watch their shitty content.

          It's not just the left wing. There's a Jesus channel in my town thst has been broadcasting nothing other than a test pattern for about a year.

      • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @03:39AM (#61536352)

        I live in a place where two different cable companies have deployed full fiber optic networks. The competition between them is awesome. Even DSL is decent here - the phone company doesn't have fiber to each house, but generally has a fiber-connected DSLAM within a block or two of each house.

        It is extremely unlikely that you will get that sort of competition to show up in a place that has an existing municipal network. If your municipal network is good, that isn't a big deal. If it is bad, well...

        And then there is the question of management. I can't think of many people in my area that I would trust to manage what traffic is allowed. So far, none of my local ISPs have shown any interest in blocking any traffic, but if one of them did, having alternatives is a very good thing.

        Whenever a story about lousy internet access shows up, I post urging people to figure out which level of government in their area is responsible for granting an artificial monopoly to one company, and ending that monopoly. so that competition can move in.

        Most people, even here on slashdot, don't understand that government granted monopolies have historically done the most damage to the nation's high speed internet access capabilities. The average Democrat or Republican is even less knowledgeable than the average slashdot user, and they typically have no idea what the problems are or what possible solutions might be.. Generally speaking, I can bring most Republicans around to my point of view by talking to them for about 5 minutes. I have much less success with Democrats, who seem to prefer a model where the monopoly provider is paid (by taxpayers) to improve access.

        For the rare places where no competition shows up even after the monopoly is lifted, I'm in favor of nonprofit co-ops, but they should be chartered right from the very beginning to be neutral regarding member traffic, and they should be run by militant libertarians to ensure that they stay that way.

        • I'm in favor of nonprofit co-ops, but they should be chartered right from the very beginning to be neutral regarding member traffic, and they should be run by militant libertarians to ensure that they stay that way.

          The problem is that these co-ops are usually municipally operated, and there exists a type of libertarian which doesn't want to see any such thing exist. Libertarians aren't a panacea. In fact they usually create more problems by trying to make everything a free market solution. In that area they are indistinguishable from republicans.

          • Yep. And I bet this level of Libertarian would also be in favor of charging tolls for every road you drive on. Municipal systems work, as is proven by the multitude of municipally-owned water, sewage and solid waste utilities. And even the local electric cooperatives. They remain the most cost effective solution for these problems as long as the local government maintains a high level of integrity when hiring utility managers and is highly transparent about everything. I think the content providers will get

        • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @08:02AM (#61536736)

          It is extremely unlikely that you will get that sort of competition to show up in a place that has an existing municipal network. If your municipal network is good, that isn't a big deal. If it is bad, well...

          When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is a laissez-faire ideology, everything looks like it's shackled and chained.

          If your municipal network is bad, giving it up in favour of an oligopoly isn't the solution. Letting your elected representatives know that you're unhappy is the first solution; if that doesn't work, then bring out the ballot box and fire their asses.

          You seem to have missed the last many decades, wherein even the staunchest of business competitors unite against any group or law that would limit their power and their ability to fix prices, pick pockets, rape the planet, force out newcomers in a market, and on and on.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rhipf ( 525263 )

          It is nice that you have access to this level of service. It also sounds like you live in a rather urban setting. Unfortunately there are a lot of smaller municipalities that aren't that densely populated and getting one cable company to lay cable (forget about fiber) to every home is impossible. There are even municipalities that consist largely of rural residents and trying to get any commercial company to provide high speed Internet to all residents isn't an option. In these smaller town there would be n

          • I'm sorry but choosing to live in small cities (or out in the middle of nowhere) has its advantages but with that comes disadvantages such as not typically having the same resources as the bigger cities.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          For the most part those local monopolies have been gone for decades, though they're such a good talking point that I expect to see them referenced as though they were still the rule everywhere for another twenty years. Initially they were necessary when there was still competition in the cable TV industry, as no one would install infrastructure that would take a decade to pay for itself if there was a likelihood that a competitor would come in. The monopolies would then expire after a decade or two.

          What k

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        I'll answer that on the basis that I used to be a Republican. If corporations control the broadband in your area, they can be leaned upon for campaign contributions, favorable press "releases", etc. If the local communities control the broadband, it is much more difficult, but not impossible, to control for these political benefits.

        Lest the Democrat be let off, that paradigm of fiscal virtue, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy would regularly hold up budget negotiations until the F-18 was generously funded. Guess

      • Because it's government broadband, versus corporations that are government-subsidized. Yeah not really a compelling case is it?

      • Indeed. Any republicans want to weigh in on why municipal broadband is so scary that it must be banned?

        That whole public Input thing was rigged! WE're demanding an independent Audit of th responses. Biden and his crew planted fake people to make fake responses. The good citizens of Ohio demand and end to Municipal Broadband and other George Soro plots and they demand it overwhelmingly - by a lot!

        We're going to use the tools God gave us, endless lawsuits and audits, and get this thing fixed. Should be finished mid-august.

      • Indeed. Any republicans want to weigh in on why municipal broadband is so scary that it must be banned?

        I'm not a republican, but I live and work among many of them. They view municipal broadband as unfair competition. There are some other smaller, faux moral reasons like using public funds to provide people with access to porn, but mostly its because a local municipal service has the potential to be high quality and would actually have to answer to the people it serves. Private companies could offer those things but it reduces their profits, thus "unfair" competition.

        • They view municipal broadband as unfair competition.

          No they do not.

          That was a lie. Was the republican saying something about a policy position? Yes? Then it was a lie. We have to learn from the last couple of decades, or we can never get out of the current political morass. You can't just keep pretending we're dealing with 1940s republicans in the current era.

          If you're now raging at me for that statement, just go and listen to Mitch talk about his legislative agendas. The dude doesn't even try to hide it anymore really - the only republican platform is and has been win at all costs.

          It is not OK to give republicans the benefit of the doubt anymore. They have lost that privilege a dozen times over at this point. We can't have any sort of reasonable political discussions if one side is lying 100% of the time and the other side gives them the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time and then is shocked that they were lied to 100% of the time.

          I come from a long line of small farm town republicans, and they are fucking batshit insane now. They're showing up at school board meetings ranting about critical race theory in farm towns with like a dozen non-white kids, and nobody else at the meeting has any idea what they're shouting about.

          Republicans now very much live in a fantasy world with fantasy problems and fantasy solutions. Unfortunately they're still wandering around in our world trying to stay in power by any means possible, and it's really important we not let that happen. There are a lot of real world problems we need to solve - we can't waste time dealing with people who are fighting for solutions to their made up problems, or fighting our solutions for real problems because they have a made up solution they want to use instead.

          When someone is unable to tell fact from fiction, treating their ideas and words as reasonable and well supported is folly. In other words, if someone hoarded ammo because Obama was going to take their guns, you really shouldn't trust their understanding of anything. If someone has brought up Bengazi unprompted in the last couple of years, don't trust that they have a rational position on anything.

          And for god's sake please don't try to convince the rest of the world that they do.

      • The thought process is that the government serving a utility is bad because a private company wouldn't be able to fairly compete against the government (since government funded businesses can be funder by means other than just fees so if they're self-funding they don't necessarily go out of business)

        It's mostly a knee-jerk reaction that basically wants as little government ran services as possible.

        Granted, I'm a Republican and vote as such but this isn't an area that I necessarily agree with the party on.

      • Indeed. Any republicans want to weigh in on why municipal broadband is so scary that it must be banned?

        Big government, and socialism.

      • The argument I've seen thrown around before was that "Government can't possibly compete, and when they fail they'll just make taxpayers subsidize it!!!"

        Nevermind that we already have municipal broadband in some places, it has done extremely well, and they could legislate directly against their fears instead of banning municipal broadband.

        So, looks like the same "must give everything to corporations" bullshit.

    • Re:Ah yes the party of Small Government strikes ag (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @10:52PM (#61535966)

      Its so blatant with these guys.

        No possible public good comes from banning municipal broadband. Not only is it a service the public wants, it can actually be a great way for municipal governments to fundraise without increasing taxes. You'd think the republicans would like that right?

      They probably do like that, in fact. Their problem is that their party funders don't like it. And with that crowd, if wall street says No, then No it is.

      • The funding is going through
        "is apparently not letting municipal networks apply for a new round of funding."
        "While Staten celebrated the removal of the budget amendment, he called the victory 'bittersweet,' as municipalities and electric cooperatives in the state do not have access to the proposed $250 million broadband expansion grant program that will be established when, and if, Gov. Dewine signs the budget"

        Maybe just "municipalities and electric cooperatives in the state do not have access" can't g

      • Highways wouldn't be allowed either (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @11:58PM (#61536086)

        Good thing the highway system was built because the GOP would block it's creation and sabotage anything that was built like they are doing against the postal service.

        Only our billionaire overlords may decide what extortion schemes are allowed to exist. We're still working towards an idealized corporatism.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You do know that US President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the US Interstate Highway System?

          And why did Eisenhower sign it? He had to? Nope.

          Eisenhower was part of a US Army Motor Convoy in 1919 that dramatized the need for a better US highway system. So he saw the need in person.

          And assuming that Wikipedia is correct on those facts.

          • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:21AM (#61536132)
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Eisenhower being a RINO is maybe what makes him the last decent president the USA had.

              • I have long argued that the reason Eisenhower was the last decent one, is because he represented the people and not the donors. He came from a very ordinary middle class background, much like everyone else at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                Of course, today's GOP considers him to be a pinko in disguise, but this is the same group that considers Bush to be a RINO. Which perspective tells me that today's GOP is so far out that they have lost all meaning.

                • Well, that's kinda true for the fringe ends of both parties. With the difference that the fringe ends of the GOP are running the show over there now.

                • Pinko? Nah, Ike was unabashedly anti-Communist. If anything he'd be seen as an interventionist, which isn't popular with the Trumptards.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cusco ( 717999 )

              I really think that Eisenhower would be too liberal even for today's Democratic party.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by GlennC ( 96879 )

              You do realize that Eisenhower, like Reagan, would be considered a RINO (hell Eisenhower maybe even a democrat) in the current republican party?

              Eisenhower would be considered too "Progressive" for even the Party's "Democratic" subsidiary.

          • All true.

            Also true: today's Republican Party is absolutely not Eisenhower's Republican Party of 1956.

        • Good thing the highway system was built because the GOP would block it's creation and sabotage anything that was built like they are doing against the postal service.

          They'd make them all toll roads with discounts for corporations. Billionaires don't travel by Interstate...

      • Well, well, forget about dividing the country in political sides!

        In the end, IMHO, broadband should eventually come to par with water, sewer and electricity which are most often highly regulated to try to prevent entities to make to much mark up like it is often the case with new technologies.

        Let's face it! Broadband is barely a new technology now and it should soon stop being treated as one where we allow free market (offer and demand) to prevail above all until the market adjust and is well defined.

    • Cute subject line, but please explain how fighting against local government EXPANDING to provide municipal broadband conflicts with a 'small government' philosophy?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      To try and make sure their rich donor corporations have a tilted playing field.

      Funny thing is they pass the laws in the name of maintaining a level playing field A.K.A. making sure the big bad government does not get involved and provide service of a quality and price that the local incumbent monopoly is not willing to provide.

  • and they got "more than 700 emails" not much of a lobbying effort.

    • Made a change and that's what's important.

      • Very true, don't have an issue with municipal broadband but maybe local services should be funded locally.

        • I'd take out the word "maybe" - why should farmers in rural Ohio fund municipal broadband in a community on the other side of the state?

          If the city of Akron wants to enter the ISP/Municipal Broadband market, they should do so relying on money they raise locally, not grants from the state or federal government. If local resources are insufficient, they can offer tax-advantaged bonds to fund the project.

    • Considering that the Ohio Republican Party keeps doing even more reactionary shit and nobody seems to care, even a slight push-back apparently can cause them to take notice if it comes from the right places. They may very well be looking at being endangered if not extinct in suburbs of Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland / Akron, and Toledo; and if that happens they're done in statewide contests.

      If they keep on with some of their shit, Ohio political maps may look quite different in 2022 than it does today.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      They got 700 emails from one municipality telling the Ohio senate not to pass the bill. I haven't seen any reference to how many emails they got in total on the subject.
      I just checked and Fairlawn, OH has a population of ~7k. So ~10% of the residents of one municipality sent emails telling the Ohio Senate that they didn't want their municipal Internet taken away.

  • it never ceases to amaze me that these "public servants" have been pulling this kind of bullshit that is a disservice to their constituents and demonstrates so clearly that their loyalties are not with the people who voted for them for decades AND THEY STILL GET RE-ELECTED!!

    • For as long as money can buy political success, this will keep happening.

    • Voters reliably fail to hold politicians accountable for their promises, so it keeps happening, and will keep happening as long as people are stupid and unprincipled.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      Well we all know that politicians are corrupt and should be tossed out on their ear in the next election. But my rep/senator did something I like/gave lip service to some issue I feel strongly about. But yes all the rest of slime.

    • In the last 20+ years, when have rural middle-class voters not been voting against their own interests?

  • Gonna keep happening... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sydin ( 2598829 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:33AM (#61536154)

    Until campaign finance/corporate lobbying get brought under control. Language gets inserted into bills at the request of corporate lobbyists all the time, and usually for a relative pittance of a campaign contribution. If you as a multi-billion dollar ISP had the chance to completely eliminate the thread of municipal broadband competition for the cost of a $4K donation, you take that gamble 100 times out of 100. And while I've got zero love for the GOP, it's not a problem unique to them and Dem politicians are just as happy to take corporate money to pass corporate-friendly legislation at the expense of the actual people they are ostensibly elected to represent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      Yeah. What is the point of voting if all decisions are made by lobbyists instead of the impacted people and their (would be) representatives ?

  • The goal of the grant program is to fill in that “cost gap.” The state funding would help entice companies to invest in expansion projects in otherwise hard-to-reach areas.

    While Ohio does have infrastructure-funding conditions, I don't know how outcome-based it is. Without that, it is easy to for "cost gap" to become corporate welfare.

    ... asked users to put pressure on lawmakers ... Sometimes I despair of how little pressure is needed to persuade lawmakers but in this case, residents of many "cities and towns" would lose the internet. That sort of unhappiness will persist until voting begins again in 18 months.

    A person can take only two things from the government; his labour (That is, go on strike) and his vote. The GOP knows that political polarization prevents the latter and most people aren't willing to do the former.

  • Are they so scared of socialism?

  • Defective Process (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ytene ( 4376651 )
    Reading through the linked article and others that are referenced by it, it is clear that the legislative activity that generated this article concerned the budget. So in one sense the allocation of funds to municipal broadband is a legitimate subject for discussion on budget related matters.

    On the other hand, there is an unqualified statement in the penultimate two paragraphs of this article [dispatch.com] which paints this story in a very different light:-

    "Tom Reid, a consultant with Buckeye Hills, said he general

    • Now, if the majority party campaigned and won their majority on one policy and then pushed the opposite in the budget, then the minority party would be within their rights to scream blue murder.

      Instead, the minority party stands accused of using subterfuge to introduce a last-minute change to a piece of legislation well on its way through the approval process.

      I am absolutely certain, without looking, that where Democrats are in the minority, they do the same thing.

      What?

      From the very first sentence quoted

    • This isn't a party political issue - I am absolutely certain, without looking, that where Democrats are in the minority, they do the same thing.

      Please cite an instance where a Democratic-controlled legislature banned municipal broadband.

      This isn't a both-sides problem. Attempts to make it a both-sides problem are attempts to reduce the damage caused by Republican efforts.

  • Republicans... less government control and regulation! ...
    Well, only in respect to gun control of course, everything else is fair game, we'll ban abortions, ban an attempt of people to go around our beloved telco monopolies etc etc
    (P.S. The Democrats aren't great either, but that doesn't affect how blatant the hypocrisy is at the core of the GOP).

    • Being against EXPANDING government to provide municipal broadband IS fighting against EXPANDING government.

      Not quite sure why you think holding life precious from the point of conception (being anti-abortion) has any influence on the size of government. While some republicans tolerate the paractice of aborting fetuses, republicans are almost universal in their rejection of public funding for abortions - again, they are against EXPANDING government to fund abortions, consistent with their beliefs.

      You seem to

  • municipalities and electric cooperatives in the state do not have access to the proposed $250 million broadband expansion grant program

    Typical Republicans, thwarting the free market and using taxpayer money to prop up failing private industry. How many billions have these private ISPs received over the years from taxpayers to do a job and still haven't done so, yet Republicans keep handing out taxpayer money like candy. It's as if personal responsibility doesn't come into play.

    Meanwhile, public broadband

  • They're just not taking about it. In a few months They'll quietly sneak a provision into a bill at midnight while the Dems are asleep.

  • State level campaign finance and lobbying (Score:5, Interesting)

    by baudboi ( 6454200 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @08:14AM (#61536764)
    I have an uncle who was a Texas state representative. I don't think people realize that strict campaign finance laws are a federal thing, not a state thing. He was a rep for 6 years, and LITERALLY he had an ATT lobbyist who had a desk in his office, paid for all his meals, and even bought me and my cousin drinks when we were in Austin. When that lobbyist said "we've written this bill, sponsor it and submit it to the house" he did. Corporate capture of state governments and of the republican party at the state level is 100% complete.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Can not States also pass campaign finance laws? It's how it works in Canada, my Provincial government campaigned on campaign finance reform and once elected reformed the financing laws, mostly reflecting the Federal rules, which include only flesh and blood citizens being allowed to contribute and strict limits on how much, about C$1400, it's indexed to inflation.
      There's also pretty strict rules on lobbyists spending money/doing favours for politicians. It's not perfect but seems a lot better

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close