The Misleading Fliers Comcast Used To Kill Off a Local Internet Competitor 250
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes In the months and weeks leading up to a referendum vote that would have established a locally owned fiber network in three small Illinois cities, Comcast and SBC (now AT&T) bombarded residents and city council members with disinformation, exaggerations, and outright lies to ensure the measure failed. The series of two-sided postcards painted municipal broadband as a foolhardy endeavor unfit for adults, responsible people, and perhaps as not something a smart woman would do. Municipal fiber was a gamble, a high-wire act, a game, something as "SCARY" as a ghost. Why build a municipal fiber network, one asked, when "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?" In the corner, in tiny print, each postcard said "paid for by SBC" or "paid for by Comcast."
The postcards are pretty absurd and worth a look.
Re:Works fine (Score:5, Funny)
My hometown has municipal broadband, it's had it since 2000.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your postcards.
Re:Explains some things (Score:2, Funny)
From one of the postcards:
"What private investors will spend money on a project that has only one stated financial goal- to break even?"
The audacity of the government to try and do something for what it costs and no more! Why I never!
Re:Appropriate punishment (Score:5, Funny)
Did you look at the fliers?
There's this quote:
I'm pretty sure referring to Comcast as a "respectable business" is about as fraudulent as it gets. I'm surprised these fliers didn't burst into flames before the shills could hand them out.
Re:Get used to this... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Get used to this... (Score:4, Funny)
Why wouldn't I insult the democratic process? The only inherent value to it is that it tends to screw up slightly less, slightly slower, and slightly less impactfully other forms of government. It screws up plenty often. This is one such case.
For instance, democracies suck when voting on a question of fact. If something is better and cheaper when supplied by the government, why shouldn't the government supply it?