FCC Falsely Declares Community Broadband An 'Ominous' Attack On Free Speech

from the bullshit-factory dept

Absent any hard data to support their claims, you may have noted that the Trump FCC often just makes up some shit.

Like that time FCC boss Ajit Pai tried to claim that net neutrality somehow aids dictators. Or that time Pai's office just made up a DDOS attack to try and downplay massive public backlash to his historically unpopular policies. There's often no real-world data that can defend blindly kissing the rings of widely-loathed telecom monopolies, so bullshit tends to be the weapon of choice when Pai's FCC embraces whatever handout to Comcast and friends is on the menu this week.

The latest case in point: during a speech at the ISP-backed and scientifically-sounding Media Institute, FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly took a moment to broadly declare that community owned and operated broadband providers are an "ominous" threat to free speech:

"I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks."

We've long noted how community broadband networks are often an organic response to the expensive, slow, or just-plain unavailable service that's the direct product of a broken telecom market and regulatory capture. While you'll occasionally see some deployment duds if the business models aren't well crafted, studies have shown such networks (there's 750 and counting now in the States) offer cheaper, faster service than many incumbents. This direct threat to incumbent revenues is a major reason why ISP lobbyists have passed protectionist laws in more than 21 states trying to block your town's ability to even consider the option.

If you thought O'Rielly would provide hard evidence of these networks' "ominous" affront to free speech, you'd be mistaken. The closest O'Rielly gets to evidence is a 2015 white paper crafted for an ISP-funded think tank claiming that because these ISPs' TOS include routine language restricting harassment and hate speech (language every private ISP also includes in their TOS and AUP), community-run ISPs' are more likely to censor user speech:

"The closest O’Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police “threatening, abusive or hateful” language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech."

Of course the implication is that government-run networks must be bad because hey, it's the government. Forgotten in this false narrative is the fact that on the local level, the government is obviously you and I, and these networks are a direct, democratic response to decades of frustration at the obvious failures of the telecom market. And if you talk to folks that actually have some expertise on this subject (like I did over at Motherboard), they'll tell you that because these ISPs actually have a vested interest in the communities they serve, they're far more responsive to user complaints:

"Municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.

"There is no history of municipal networks censoring anyone's speech,” Christopher Mitchell, a community broadband expert and Director of the Institute for Local Reliance, told Motherboard.

“In our experience, the Terms of Service from municipal ISPs have been similar to or better than those of for-profit ISPs in terms of benefiting subscribers,” he added. “And when concerns have been raised about related issues...the municipal ISPs have listened to public sentiments far more than any large cable or telephone company has."

O'Rielly also fails to mention that incumbent ISPs like Comcast routinely argue that absolutely everything the public demands of it (from expanding broadband to adhering to net neutrality) violate its First Amendment rights (an argument new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already supported). Whereas municipally-run ISPs likely won't be allowed to tap dance around First Amendment lawsuits as government-linked entities mandated to avoid speech regulation.

But the biggest irony here is that one of the ISPs targeted by O'Rielly for non-existent free speech violations is EPB broadband in Chattanooga, which was just ranked by Consumer Reports as one of the best ISPs in the nation in terms of value, speed, and service quality. Comcast tried to unsuccessfully sue EPB out of existence. And as long as we're getting vexed about your rights, both AT&T and Comcast also lobbied legislators to pass a law in Tennessee restricting voter-approved broadband networks like these from expanding, even if voters approve it at the ballot box.

Ultimately, Chattanooga's service forced these ISPs to do the one thing they had been hoping to avoid: compete on both service speed and price. That's not to say local-government owned broadband should be the only solution embraced, but it's obviously one of several ways you can actually prod lumbering, pampered mono/duopolies to actually give a damn.

And of course that's the real problem in O'Rielly's mind: that locals would dare impede on Comcast's god-given right to buy itself a geographical monopoly over an essential service, nickel-and-diming consumers until they grew so frustrated they're forced to get into the broadband business themselves.

Of course ISPs could prevent this by simply offering better, faster, and cheaper service. But it's far easier and cheaper to try and buy laws restricting consumer rights, and to have your favorite public official mindlessly demonize something that is, at the end of the day, a legitimate, organic public response to a broadband competition and availability problem ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast would prefer regulators ignore.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 6:43am

    your 1st mistake

    Your 1st mistake is expecting an appointed (not even elected--like that makes a difference) official, who previously worked for a corporation, not to:
    1. make rules that are financially beneficial to said corporation
    2. return to said corporation at the end of their governmental gig

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:00am

      Re: your 1st mistake

      I'm pretty sure no one at Techdirt expected either of these things.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:07am

        Re: Re: your 1st mistake

        Quite. There's a significant difference between expecting them to act in the public's favor and make honest arguments(which I don't think anyone does at this point) and calling them out on stupid arguments and/or acting against the public's interest.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:30am

        Re: Re: mistake

        ... but TD clearly informs us that "...on the local level, the government is obviously you and I, and these networks are a direct, democratic response..."

        so, local government works really great -- local politicians diligently and honestly obey the directions of us local citizens ??
        That's nonsense.

        As always, local government is usually run by numerical minorities and special interests. Municipal Broadband systems are not a proper function of governmentat all.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          James Burkhardt (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:55am

          Re: Re: Re: mistake

          Thanks to a number of factors, local government policy more often than not reflects actual desires of locals, you and I, more than special interests. These factors include but are not limited to: less money needed to campaign, a personal investment in the local condition, and a higher likelihood of personal connections in the area that can hold you to account.

          I'm not sure how a numerical minority controls a majority vote office like a mayor or city council seat. I agree that, particularly in major metropolitan areas, special interests can have major effects, but local policies are harder to sway than state or federal policies, because of the techniques play out far less effectively on smaller populations.

          But I'm sure the affordable Muni Broadband lobby is the real power here, right?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re: mistake

          You imply muni is mandatory?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TruthHurts (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 6:47am

    Have to look at it from Ajit's point of view, right?

    Ajit is only concerned with "speech" for the major vendors.

    AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al, believe that limiting data allowances, restricting certain (competing) traffic while zero-rating their own traffic, asking content creators to double pay for content delivery is what constitutes their "speech".

    Try to force them to not limit, to not-restrict, to not-zero-rate, to not double bill content creators is a restriction of their "corporations as people" constitutional right to free-speech.

    The corporations are delusional in thinking that, but they figure they have enough money to make their thinking legit through less than moral, less than legal means.

    Watching as Ajit parrots these clames, ridiculous as they are, seems to paint a picture of where those corporate dollars are going.

    It also makes one wonder where the eyes of the "oversight" teams/committees are if "it" (corruption) is as blatant as it appears to be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 6:54am

    Telling standards

    Corporate profits = Free speech now, such that providing competition that can cut into profits becomes an 'attack on free speech'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:40am

      Re: Telling standards

      One would think that at some point when a 'corporate person' is claiming their free speech rights are being denied by a 'real person' that a lawsuit would be generated. The point would be for the two 'people' to appear in court. Not representatives, the 'real people'. Then the sham of corporate personhood would be revealed.

      The first problem I see with the above is that only the government is prohibited from interfering with speech. There could be other charges, disturbing the peace for example, against the 'real person'.

      The idea is to set up an in court confrontation, person vs person when one person is an actual human being and the other the fiction of a corporate person with free speech rights, who would necessarily be a no show.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 30 Oct 2018 @ 6:58am

    Future generations will identify "Trumpism" as a mental disorder characterized by delusional sociopathic behavior. As such it will be quite popular in stand-up comedy circles.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Iggy, 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      Unless it becomes the new normal in politics. It worked for Trump didn't it? Politicians are already taking notice and acting like Trump in state races.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 1 Nov 2018 @ 8:07am

      Re:

      "As such it will be quite popular in stand-up comedy circles."

      Poe's Law.

      "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

      More briefly summarized to "You can't parody a clown".

      Stand-up comedy can make parodies of ordinary numbskull politicians simply because paraphrasing with added hyperbole creates the joke. That's a problem where trump is concerned because it you can make just about any statement of incoherent lunacy and it would be believable that it came from the screaming orange.

      Similar to copyright cultists and other fanatically religious in that regard.

      The main problem by now is that there's now a US president who, literally every day, makes statements which would have seen Clinton, Obama, or GWB halfway into an impeachment hearing - but the citizenry has become used to putting that off as "Donald just being Donald".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 1 Nov 2018 @ 12:35pm

        "Trump just being Trump"

        I've been reading Bob Woodward's Fear which has given new light to the old 20th century yarn that anybody can become President of the United States

        Specifically, that if you are a normal person in fourth grade or higher (even if you're still ten years old) then you are capable of being a better President than the one we currently have, just by having the sense to not do crazy shit when all your advisers are telling you crazy shit is a bad idea.

        Trump really is a walking natural disaster that his White House is desperately trying to contain and control, and often failing.

        What's worse is that then he's given these problems that no-one else has been able to adequately solve (e.g. the North Korean nuclear program, or the ongoing tension in the Middle East) and he believes the answers are simple, clear-cut and extreme.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:25am

    Based on all we have heard for the past two years there appears to be two fractions of shadow governments at complete odds with each other.

    One fraction appears to be attempting to establish a complete command economy with government ownership of the means of production by means of simply having the Federal Reserve buy it by printing money combined with a surveillance state.

    A minority fraction with goals less publicly defined appears to be in opposition.

    Both sides apparently will do anything necessary to achieve their goals with large numbers of knee jerk ignorant reactionists who spout the damnest nonsense that anyone can imagine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 7:49am

    "I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks."

    Well - it is a given that the present FCC is corporate owned and operated so how exactly is that any better than a community run ISP?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 8:35am

    but isn't "free speech" increasingly viewed as a bad thing?

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently backtracked and said that Twitter's long celebrated "free speech" mantra ("the free speech wing of the free speech party") was all just a big joke, and that Twitter really was pro-censorship all along, even if it took the company years to tighten the thumbscrews on Wrongthink. All of Silicon Valley's tech companies seem to be equally on board with these new 21st century censorship ideals. They frequently combine forces and collude to exterminate the latest boogieman of the day that catches their attention and get them essentially banned from the internet by denying them social platforms, web hosting, payment processing, domain names, and other essential services.

    A few weeks ago it was conspiracy nut Alex Jones who got kicked out of a half dozen (supposedly independent) providers on the same day. This past weekend another victim of similar corporate dogpiling was the tiny Twitter alternative site Gab, the platform used by a terrorist the day before. Gab is now offline, perhaps permanently. (Yet earlier in the week, another terrorist of sorts, a fake mailbomber, used Twitter and Facebook in similar fashion, yet those platforms, which are notoriously anti-free speech, not surprisingly suffered no similar consequences.)

    Both FCC bureaucrats and Techdirt writers need step out of the past and update their thinking and arguments, as "free speech" is now almost a dirty word in the tech industry, a defect to be fixed rather than an ideal to be cherished ... or so it seems.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:07am

      Re: but isn't "free speech" increasingly viewed as a bad thing?

      Is the Tech industry supposed to mirror societal changes, or not? Is the Tech industry supposed to react to every micro expression from every micro group, or not? Is the Tech industry supposed to propose and practise some orthodoxy, or not? Are individual members of the Tech industry supposed to concieve their own perspective on how they will interact with the rest of the world, or not?

      "Both FCC bureaucrats and Techdirt writers need step out of the past and update their thinking and arguments, as "free speech" is now almost a dirty word in the tech industry, a defect to be fixed rather than an ideal to be cherished ... or so it seems."

      Update their thinking and arguments to whose norm, or not?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 10:14am

        Re: Re: but isn't "free speech" increasingly viewed as a bad thing?

        To a large degree, companies have always responded to censorship pressure from organized activists, in order not to be tarred as immoral if not evil. Over time, the makeup of these activists has changed dramatically. Gone are the starched-shirt Bible thumpers who once determined what speech was permissible and which was not in the United States, now largely replaced by the purple haired nose-ringed "social justice warriers" that lead the modern day outrage mob. Offended by a completely different set of things, yet both equally anti-free speech.

        Compounding this shift in ideologies of anti-tolerance was the decline of manufacturing related industries, located mainly in the politically-conservative midwest and deep-south states, and the growth of the tech industry which sprang up in the ideologically far-Left West Coast.

        The early internet period of the 1990s seemed the peak era of free speech, as the church-based activists had largely died off yet the California hippie attitude notable for its free-speech/live-snd-let-live ideals had not yet begat the hyper sensitive "social justice" outrage mobs which emerged in the 2000s.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 10:40am

          Gone are the starched-shirt Bible thumpers who once determined what speech was permissible and which was not in the United States, now largely replaced by the purple haired nose-ringed "social justice warriers" that lead the modern day outrage mob.

          I would rather have the second group than the first. At least the so-called “SJWs” are generally on the side of not tolerating racist, sexist, and generally bigoted bullshit such as the anti-Semitism of the man who shot up a synagogue this past weekend.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:12am

      Re: but isn't "free speech" increasingly viewed as a bad thing?

      To reiterate past posts on this site:

      Free Speech, aka 1st amendment, details how the government is not allowed to interfere with your right to free speech. It says nothing about the possible repercussions of said speech and whether speaker is protected from criticisms/boycotts/dirty_looks.

      If you walk down main street sucking booze and yelling profanities, more than likely you will be given a small room in the local jail in which to sleep it off followed by a court appearance for drunk and disorderly. This in no way interferes with your right to free speech.

      Now if you want to explore the nebulous free speech unrelated to the 1st amendment, that people think they are entitled to but is not codified anywhere ... oh wait a sec, you're the common law guy?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:41am

      They frequently combine forces and collude

      [citation needed]

      This past weekend another victim of similar corporate dogpiling was the tiny Twitter alternative site Gab, the platform used by a terrorist the day before.

      Yes, let us cry tears over [checks notes] a social interaction network that allowed anti-Semitism, racism, and other such hatred to run so rampant and unchecked that an anti-Semitic soon-to-be terrorist believed he was in “good company” while using it.

      I am all for discussing the ethics and morals of “deplatforming” entire SINs. But if you expect me to feel bad because Gab got the boot because it became too much of a liability for its hosting company, too bad—my pity well has run dry.

      Yet earlier in the week, another terrorist of sorts, a fake mailbomber, used Twitter and Facebook in similar fashion, yet those platforms, which are notoriously anti-free speech, not surprisingly suffered no similar consequences.

      Two things you need to understand.

      1. Moderation is not censorship. Even InfoWars, of all sites, understands this—which is why such a declaration shows up in that site’s Terms of Service. Moderation is a platform operator saying “we don’t do that here”; discretion is you saying “I won’t do that there”; censorship is someone saying “you can’t do that anywhere” alongside threats of either violence or government intervention.

      2. Twitter and Facebook get more slack for being much, much larger platforms than Gab ever was and ever will be. Nobody can reasonably believe Twitter and Facebook moderators are able to police the entire platform—hundreds of millions of users!—to the degree that moderators of a smaller platform such as Gab could. And while I doubt Gab moderators could police the entire platform efficiently, given the relative differences in size between Gab and the “major” SINs, they could do a better job of making the attempt than Twitter and Facebook.

      "free speech" is now almost a dirty word in the tech industry

      “Privilege” seems to be one in your personal vocabulary—since, you know, you cannot get around the objective fact that use of a platform such as Twitter is a privilege.

      You are not guaranteed the use of a SIN. You cannot force a SIN to host your speech. If you can prove either of those statements wrong, now would be the time to do so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 11:57am

      Re: but isn't "free speech" increasingly viewed as a bad thing?

      That is a laughably bad attempt at a gotcha. I’d say you should have a go at a second draft, but I’m pretty sure it’d be shit as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Blaine (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:26am

    Which is a greater threat to free speech?

    If your ISP is owned by the Government, they can not interfere with your speech (except for a short list of limitations). - See Constitution 1st amendment.

    If your ISP is owned by a corporation, they can restrict you any way they want for any reason (including everything in the above 'short list'). - See EULA they make you agree to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 11:20am

      Re: Which is a greater threat to free speech?

      If your ISP is owned by the Government, they can not interfere with your speech

      ...just like the US Postal Service, which can be accused of a lot but has hardly been involved "ominous attacks on free speech". An electronic datagram network isn't all that different.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:26am

    No news is good news!

    gab deplatformed yesterday Prolife website deplatformed today. Not a peep from you.

    Leftist much?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 9:40am

    I think it is safe to say that nothing in this administration is based on actual facts.


    **Please note that this is saying actual facts and not alternative facts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ryuugami, 30 Oct 2018 @ 11:52am

      Re:

      **Please note that this is saying actual facts and not alternative facts.

      That's a fact, which means those who needed that note are not likely to acknowledge its existence :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 11:39am

    like a taco kit

    If only there were a rural ISP kit (like a taco kit or a template) with which to start a small, reliable, inexpensive ISP for the rural areas--staffed by locals if possible--that wasn't trying to take over the market (cough-MONOPOLY-cough) like all of the other larger ISP's.
    Why are we crying about the big ISPs when we can start our own ?

    boycott or bend over or start a local municipal ISP

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:31pm

      Indeed, just like one... except in every way that matters

      boycott or bend over or start a local municipal ISP

      So out of curiosity, which option did you pick? It clearly wasn't the first one, so did you bend over or are you the proud owner/co-owner of your own local ISP?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:34pm

      Re: like a taco kit

      What is a taco kit? Sounds tasty.

      Why are we crying about the big ISPs when we can start our own ?

      Because the vast majority of Americans don't have the capital, resources, or hardware to start their own ISP? Just a guess.

      boycott

      Most people can't because they have ONE choice of valid ISPs and it would be impractical to go without internet access for any length of time because most people now rely on it for work, school, finances, healthcare, etc... It's just simply not an option for the majority of people.

      bend over

      This is what we have been doing and what people are trying to change.

      start a local municipal ISP

      Local cities are, or trying to at least. The problem is all the incumbent ISPs have written laws that prevent any cities from building their own. Individuals wouldn't run into this problem but as stated above, most individuals don't have the capital or resources to do this. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to start your own ISP, and that's just for ONE city.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 12:05pm

    Ok I think I figure out the ISP logic here:
    Didn't a US court rule that banning $ donations was banning free speech?
    therefore $==free speech
    therefore limiting the $ an ISP can make is limiting there free speech
    Having a municipal owned ISP would provide competition and limit monopoly (or duopoly depending on where you live) of the ISP and therefore limit the plunder it can take.
    Therefore municipal ISP == limiting an ISP free speech
    QED

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 12:29pm

    I'm pretty sure...

    ...Ajit Pai is untouchable and can do whatever he wants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Iggy, 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:43pm

      Re: I'm pretty sure...

      Wasn't Prenda Law untouchable too?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:54pm

      Re: I'm pretty sure...

      is that an ethnic dig?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 6:34pm

        "Untouchable" as an ethnic dig

        No, but I can see how it could be so interpreted.

        I meant untouchable the way some congresspersons are untouchable -- their seat is so secure they don't have to worry about what their constituent thinks, as they sure aren't going to vote for the other guy, not in quantity enough to flip the seat, at any rate.

        Pai is appointed by the President meaning he we have to suffer him until 2021.

        Until then he can do whatever the fuck he wants as US Chairman of the FCC and we only get to BOHICA.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2018 @ 1:27pm

          Re: "Untouchable" as an ethnic dig

          I know, just had to poke. bad punster that I am. I always enjoy reading your responses, kindred spirit and all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 1:02pm

    In unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security has denounced municipal water systems as imperiling the freedom to bear arms. The pertinent attack vectors will be revealed in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2018 @ 2:21pm

    But we have always been at war with Eurasia...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 30 Oct 2018 @ 3:03pm

    How do you Force freedom of speach..

    How do you restrict Bag language, hate speech, and all the Crap..
    When you are NOT LIABLE for it being on any other service...NOT YOURS.

    the only power they have is your EMAIL..and they cant even stop SPAM..

    Something special about Small City areas...1-10 person can handle Most of the Customer concerns..You dont need 100's, because its all distributed..and each section of it has its OWN ISP.. its own problems..
    YOUR customers dont need to WAIT on HOLD for 20 minutes to report something. No automated answer machine with 4-10 options going to another 4-10 options..
    IF something Breaks..1-4 people can get to it in a hurry..They are generally the ones Maintaining the Servers..

    When the City/gov can Compete with the Corps..WHY NOT..
    They say its unfair, because they have to PAY MORE..
    Pay more?? when they can CUT every corner, EXCEPT those at the top??
    Thats right, Those at the top in the City are Employees, getting paid <1/4 the PAy the corp gives the TOP earners.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.