Technology

37727 readers

649 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

413

Comcast, Centurylink Fail To Derail Community-Owned Gigabit Fiber Network In Bountiful, Utah (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The city of Bountiful, Utah voted to build a $48 million fiber network to provide affordable gigabit broadband for its residents and businesses. Regional internet providers Comcast and CenturyLink opposed the plan and tried to force a public vote through a taxpayer group they fund. However, communities often build their own networks because existing options are inadequate. Data shows that community-owned networks provide better, faster, cheaper service than monopolies. While big internet providers claim community networks are a boondoggle, they are just another business plan that often succeeds due to quality proposals and local accountability. Comcast and CenturyLink did not want to provide the high-speed internet Bountiful needed, but also tried to block the city from doing so itself.

You love to see it. Do you have community Internet available where you live?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the way. I want all places and all businesses to have healthy competitors. Businesses should not be allowed to acquire other businesses unless they have been operating in losses for at least 5 years. That’s how all this monopolistic bullshit will stop.

[–] Pheta@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you're not careful, that'll incentivize competing companies to collude with or acquire suppliers to drive up prices for competitors. I know that wasn't the thought behind the suggestion, but there's always someone there to break the spirit of the law, if not the word. And there's always people breaking the word of the law.

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah figured there would be a way for corporate greed to fuck over any regulation. Can you think of any amendments to my proposition that would prevent this?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Huh. It's tricky, isn't it?

Suggestion: Business laws preclude collusion between competitive businesses. Result: "No, Senator, even though our companies sell the same items made in the same factories with the same SKUs, for the purposes of this conversation we target different markets even though our own sales data proves this isn't the case."

Suggestion: CEOs must sacrifice a child every time they make an acquisition. Result: "CEO of Globoco announces acquisition of struggling orphanage."

Suggestion: Airtight laws that force everyone to play fair and pay their way. Result: Billionaires give handjobs to politicians and get the law neutered in return.

[–] zzzzz@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Or, just pay their executives more.