With Minnesota repeal, number of states restricting public broadband falls to 16.

With Minnesota repeal, number of states restricting public broadband falls to 16.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Minnesota this week eliminated two laws that made it harder for cities and towns to build their own broadband networks.

    But the list has gotten smaller in recent years because states including Arkansas, Colorado, and Washington repealed laws that hindered municipal broadband.

    The Minnesota bill enacted this week struck down a requirement that municipal telecommunications networks be approved in an election with 65 percent of the vote.

    The caveat that prevented municipalities from competing against private providers was eliminated from the law when this week’s omnibus bill was passed.

    As a result, the law now lets cities and towns “improve, construct, extend, and maintain facilities for Internet access and other communications purposes” even if private ISPs already offer service.

    With Minnesota having repealed its anti-municipal broadband laws, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance says that 16 states still restrict the building of municipal networks.

    The original article contains 558 words, the summary contains 143 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Toes♀@ani.socialEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.

    • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.

      Will not happen because of things like CSAM

        • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          You miss the point. I’m just saying there will be SOME stipulations on how its used

          • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            0·
            7 months ago

            I mean yeah, but I they were talking about net neutrality, preventing ISPs from unilaterally making those decisions, not that there would be Literally No restrictions.

            • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              Should have said what they meant then instead of being lazy. There will be so many obvious stipulations it was stupid to say no stipulations. Dont understand why so many people insist on avoiding saying what they mean and just then say, you know what i meant.

              I say this because if you have ever planned or ran a dnd(or any ttrpg)game you are quickly made aware that whats obvious to most, and even what should be obvious to most will often be the hardest thing to get people to include in how they hear what they are being told.

              Its wild how much we expect people to assume, when we have so much evidence, if you care to ask for it/look for it and how often we get caught up with dumb derailments(Case in point… I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry. )

              • Agrivar@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                7 months ago

                Case in point… I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry.

                As an outside observer, I feel like I can confidently say that you are wrong. YOU are being needlessly pedantic and derailing the conversation.

                • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  7 months ago

                  Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.

                  Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;

                  Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.

                  And

                  Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.

                  So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you’re using it" it is worth including.

                  Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            0·
            7 months ago

            Only in the sense that laws still need to be followed while using [the internet/water/electricity]. You don’t need to bake “no CSAM” into internet usage agreements, because it’s already illegal.

            • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              7 months ago

              Okay but there’s much less obvious examples. My point still stands

              Also see my reply to gh0stcassette

    • Codilingus@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      If you share your water or electricity with a neighbor, I think they can cut you off and/or fine you. Probably dependent on the state?

  • Billiam@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Wait, a system where the government provides a service subsidized by taxes, and where if the citizens don’t like it they can get a private option, and the existence of the government option would force the private options to be innovative and competitive if they wanted to continue existing?

    Man, what a healthy approach to industry. I wonder in what other ways we could carefully apply this method?