Republicans slam broadband discounts for poor people, threaten to kill program::Thune, Cruz complain that $30 discounts go to people who “already had broadband.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    515 months ago

    This is so sad. In Spain the government takes care of the central internet infrastructure and fiber is now available pretty much everywhere. You want to start an ISP? Just buy access to the central network and build the last mile. Every small town has it’s on ISP or two. You want fiber? Some guy will show up tomorrow and lay down a cable to your house. $20-$30 a month without any termination fees. Last time I had to connected internet in new apartment it took literally couple hours.

    USA should do the same but of course red states would block it and lobbyists for the corporations would fight it on every step. So instead they are giving free money to the telcos making sure the prices will stay high and no investment will be done.

    • Андрей Быдло
      link
      fedilink
      English
      95 months ago

      It was like that in Russia before big federal companies took over that business. A wild west where companies actually competed with each other, even by providing their own forums, filesharing services, torrent trackers and pirated WoW\CS servers - with unlimited traffic when it was paid-per-MB and with better speeds\ping when it became unlimited. It didn’t cost much nor for them, nor for clients, and they were very responsive if there’s some problem with connectivity. It actually created some sort of a community around ISPs where people could cooperate locally around their issues.

      I don’t want to sound like an ancap, or an annoying free market fan, but it served people way better than monopolization. And knowing how it all ended, having a small local company eyeing your traffic is probably better than having feds farming it in a centralized fashion - that’s probably the reason, since some things never left local servers at that time (sus), and it happened right at the time of big riots. Some ISPs I know were bought out in the same year.

      Having it said, even though in America it was probably just greed leading to that situation, big companies should be dismantled and localized to start to care about their clients. It means better service (they depend on ya), better privacy, probably better prices since they can’t use you to strong-arm into another area with price dumping shouldered by your bills or just charge you whatever they want. Same shit recently happened with gig economy apps everywhere. If the state has one job, it’s to hold down that bullshit of exponential growth. But just like with Anakin-Padme meme I’m having an impression there’re not many places where representatives actually represent people, not corps. And I’m happy for some countries not falling for it, at least not at all times.

      /rant

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        75 months ago

        The “free market” of America has seen providers given huge payouts by the government to flesh out infrastructure in rural areas etc to just… Not even pretend to start and run with the cash to no consequence whatsoever.

        Multiple times.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Right, because it’s not “free market” it’s all government controlled market. Like this comment from above.

          Both parties in our country have decided that nothing should happen unless a person who is already rich gets richer. That Government should never take any action if it possibly reduces the chance that someone else would make profit off of a problem.

          Yes, that’s not capitalism or free market. That’s government interference. Big difference. Like the whole too big to fail non-sense. No, government get out of the way and let them fail.

    • @jispal01
      link
      English
      55 months ago

      In America, even the Democrats would block something like that.

      Both parties in our country have decided that nothing should happen unless a person who is already rich gets richer. That Government should never take any action if it possibly reduces the chance that someone else would make profit off of a problem.

      Like we don’t even build roads any more, unless we make it a public/private partnership where taxpayers pay to build the road, and then a private company takes over toll collection.

      My town built a bridge across a river - not even really a new bridge, sort of replacing a existing bridge that was free to cross. And in the last few months of construction, the city announced that they’d partnered with a private company to collect tolls to fun maintenance. It was $2.50 to cross (one way) for cars when the bridge opened - like 6 years ago - and they’re increased the tolls every opportunity since then. So now it costs more than $5 - each way - to cross the bridge for cars. The price for a Semi-truck to cross has on;y risen by 25% in the same time.

      And they’re notoriously bad. They double bill. They bill errantly (sending people bills who didn’t even use the bridge). They’re tolling system will be months behind. They’ll put liens on cars that they claim crossed even when they haven’t yet sent a bill.

      The city government knows about all these problems and they are just like “our hands are tied, we signed a contract with them”. So that bridge will be a Govenrment-enforced, for-profit scam for at least another 30 years.

      And sometimes the city doesn’t even get their full cut, because they apparently promised in the contract with the company that there would be a certain minimum daily use. So some days the city forgoes their cut, in order for the company to hit their promised profit for that day.

      Mind you, this company didn’t’ have any part in building the bridge. And they don’t run physical tollboths. They just built an array of cameras and sensors and have a payment portal website. And yet we let them gatekeep the bridge and the money generated by the bridge.

      And of course, use of the bridge is always low, because people drive 20 miles out of their way to use the free bridge. And the more they raise the tolls, the more people avoid the bridge. So the more days the city doesn’t even take a cut.

      This bridge is basically in the middle of a city - so some people commuted across the old bridge for free, now they have to pay $10 in tolls just to go to work and back home. Or they add 40 minutes to their commute, add unnecessary traffic to other roads in town.

      Just because a Democrat led city Government didn’t believe in paying with tax dollars for maintenance on a bridge that was already built.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        Yeah, it’s all really tragic. I remember reading somewhere that in one US city the town hall sold the control of all parking meters to a private company. Now the company raises prices constantly and the city can’t do anything that would put their profits in danger like closing a road for public event.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      It’s nuts to me that the government isnt clamouring to run free email or cloud storage for people, and encourage them to use it. Same for phone service. It seems like an easy and relatively cheap way to get free access to a lot of data.