The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is discreetly funding community-owned fiber optic networks, bringing affordable, high-speed internet access to underserved areas. These networks offer gigabit speeds for just $50-$65 per month, significantly undercutting incumbent ISPs often providing slower speeds at higher prices. This funding is helping bridge the digital divide by empowering communities to build and control their own internet infrastructure, fostering local economic development and improving access to essential services.
A Brazilian Supreme Court justice ordered internet providers to block access to the video platform Rumble within 72 hours. The platform is accused of failing to remove content promoting January 8th riots in Brasília and spreading disinformation about the Brazilian electoral system. Rumble was given a deadline to comply with removal orders, which it missed, leading to the ban. Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that the platform's actions posed a risk to public order and democratic institutions.
Hacker News users discuss the implications of Brazil's ban on Rumble, questioning the justification and long-term effectiveness. Some argue that the ban is an overreach of power and sets a dangerous precedent for censorship, potentially emboldening other countries to follow suit. Others point out the technical challenges of enforcing such a ban, suggesting that determined users will likely find workarounds through VPNs. The decision's impact on Rumble's user base and revenue is also debated, with some predicting minimal impact while others foresee significant consequences, particularly if other countries adopt similar measures. A few commenters draw parallels to previous bans of platforms like Telegram, noting the limited success and potential for unintended consequences like driving users to less desirable platforms. The overall sentiment expresses concern over censorship and the slippery slope towards further restrictions on online content.
People without smartphones face increasing disadvantages in daily life as essential services like banking, healthcare, and parking increasingly rely on app-based access. Campaigners argue this digital exclusion unfairly penalizes vulnerable groups, including the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals who may not be able to afford or operate a smartphone. This "app tyranny" limits access to basic services, creating a two-tiered system and exacerbating existing inequalities. They call for alternative access options to ensure inclusivity and prevent further marginalization of those without smartphones.
Hacker News commenters largely agree that over-reliance on smartphones creates unfair disadvantages for those without them, particularly regarding essential services and accessibility. Several point out the increasing difficulty of accessing healthcare, banking, and government services without a smartphone. Some commenters suggest this trend is driven by cost-cutting measures disguised as "convenience" and highlight the digital divide's impact on vulnerable populations. Others discuss the privacy implications of mandatory app usage and the lack of viable alternatives for those who prefer not to use smartphones. A few argue that while some inconvenience is inevitable with technological advancement, essential services should offer alternative access methods. The lack of meaningful competition in the mobile OS market is also mentioned as a contributing factor to the problem.
The blog post explores the feasibility and potential advantages of using existing telephone wiring (specifically the unused pairs in twisted-pair copper lines) for home networking. It highlights POTS's robust infrastructure and broad availability, even in areas lacking cable or fiber internet. The author discusses various modulation techniques like G.hn that could deliver speeds comparable to or exceeding current home network technologies while potentially offering better security and interference resistance than Wi-Fi. They also acknowledge challenges such as distance limitations, potential crosstalk with active phone lines (if present), and the need for new hardware. Overall, the post suggests that repurposing telephone wiring could be a viable and even superior alternative to traditional home networking methods.
Hacker News users generally found the idea of networking over phone lines intriguing, though impractical in most modern contexts. Several commenters discussed the technical details, pointing out limitations in bandwidth and the potential interference issues with existing phone services like DSL. Some reminisced about earlier phone networking attempts, including using BBS systems and dedicated phone-line networking hardware. The consensus was that while the technical challenge is interesting, existing solutions like Ethernet and WiFi are far superior for most residential networking needs, making this approach a novelty rather than a practical solution. A few users pointed out niche use cases, such as situations where running new cables is impossible or extremely difficult, suggesting a very limited potential application.
The Falkland Islands' sole fiber optic cable connecting them to the outside world is nearing its end-of-life, with a likely failure date in February 2025. This poses a significant risk of severing the islands' vital communication links, impacting everything from financial transactions to emergency services. While a replacement cable is planned, it won't be ready until 2027. Starlink is presented as a potential interim solution to maintain essential connectivity during this vulnerable period, with the article emphasizing the urgency of establishing a robust backup plan before the existing cable fails.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of the article's premise that Starlink represents a national emergency for the Falkland Islands. Several point out that the Falklands already has multiple fiber optic connections and existing satellite internet, making Starlink a welcome addition, not an existential threat. Others question the author's grasp of telecommunications, noting that banning Starlink wouldn't prevent Argentina from accessing the same global networks. The perceived conflation of network access with sovereignty and the lack of proposed solutions are also criticized. Some suggest the author may be pushing a specific agenda, possibly related to existing telecoms interests. The idea that Starlink somehow makes the Falklands more vulnerable to attack or influence is generally dismissed.
Thailand has disrupted utilities to a Myanmar border town notorious for housing online scam operations. The targeted area, Shwe Kokko, is reportedly a hub for Chinese-run criminal enterprises involved in various illicit activities, including online gambling, fraud, and human trafficking. By cutting off electricity and internet access, Thai authorities aim to hinder these operations and pressure Myanmar to address the issue. This action follows reports of thousands of people being trafficked to the area and forced to work in these scams.
Hacker News commenters are skeptical of the stated efficacy of Thailand cutting power and internet to Myanmar border towns to combat scam operations. Several suggest that the gangs are likely mobile and adaptable, easily relocating or using alternative power and internet sources like generators and satellite connections. Some highlight the collateral damage inflicted on innocent civilians and legitimate businesses in the affected areas. Others discuss the complexity of the situation, mentioning the involvement of corrupt officials and the difficulty of definitively attributing the outages to Thailand. The overall sentiment leans towards the action being a performative, ineffective measure rather than a genuine solution.
Google Fiber is expanding its ultra-fast internet service to Las Vegas. While specific neighborhoods and timing aren't yet available, Google Fiber confirms it's actively planning and designing the network infrastructure for the city, promising more details as the project progresses. This expansion marks a continuation of Google Fiber's recent growth into new metropolitan areas.
Hacker News commenters express skepticism about Google Fiber's expansion to Las Vegas. Several recall Google Fiber's previous entries into markets with much fanfare, followed by quiet retreats and scaled-back plans. Some doubt Google's ability to compete with existing entrenched providers, while others question the long-term viability of Fiber given Google's history. A few commenters welcome the increased competition and hope it will lead to better pricing and service, though this is tempered by the prevailing cynicism. Some discussion also revolved around the technological aspects, including the possibility of using existing fiber infrastructure and the challenges of deployment in a densely populated area. Overall, the sentiment is cautious, with many commenters adopting a "wait-and-see" attitude.
Summary of Comments ( 40 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43160196
Hacker News commenters generally lauded the ARPA-funded community-owned fiber initiatives. Several pointed out the significant difference between publicly owned/community-owned networks and the usual private ISP model, highlighting the potential for better service, lower prices, and local control. Some expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability and scalability of these projects, questioning whether the initial funding would be enough and if these smaller networks could compete with established giants. Others noted the importance of community engagement and technical expertise for success. A recurring theme was the frustration with existing ISPs and their perceived lack of investment in underserved areas, with commenters expressing hope that these community projects could serve as a model for broader change. Several commenters also discussed the regulatory hurdles and lobbying power of incumbent ISPs, emphasizing the need for continued public support and advocacy for these alternative models.
The Hacker News comments section for the submitted Techdirt article, "ARPA Is Quietly Funding $50-$65 Community-Owned Fiber to Neglected Neighborhoods," contains a robust discussion with various perspectives on the initiative.
Several commenters express enthusiasm for the project, highlighting the potential for community-owned networks to offer more affordable and equitable internet access, particularly in underserved areas. They praise the ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) for its involvement and emphasize the importance of breaking free from the grip of large, established internet service providers (ISPs) often accused of price gouging and neglecting certain communities. The affordability aspect, with prices mentioned between $50-$65 per month, is frequently lauded.
A recurring theme is the contrast between this community-focused approach and the existing, often monopolistic, landscape of internet service provision. Commenters criticize the current system, where large ISPs face little incentive to improve service or lower prices, leaving many consumers with limited options. The community-owned model is presented as a potential solution to this problem, fostering competition and empowering local residents.
Some commenters raise practical considerations and potential challenges. Questions arise about the long-term sustainability of these networks, the technical expertise required for their operation, and the potential for regulatory hurdles. Concerns are also expressed regarding the scalability of the model and whether it can truly compete with the resources of large ISPs. One commenter points out the difficulties faced by existing community networks and the importance of learning from their experiences. Another discusses the regulatory challenges and the need for streamlined permitting processes.
A few commenters delve into the technical aspects, discussing the choice of fiber optic technology and its advantages over other broadband technologies like cable or DSL. They also mention the importance of open access principles, allowing multiple providers to utilize the network infrastructure, fostering competition and preventing the community network from becoming another monopoly. The importance of local ownership and control is reiterated, ensuring the network serves the community's best interests.
There's also a discussion about the role of government funding and the potential implications for taxpayers. While some support government investment in essential infrastructure like internet access, others express reservations about the long-term financial viability of these projects and the potential for government overreach.
Overall, the comments section reflects a generally positive sentiment towards the ARPA-funded initiative, with commenters acknowledging both the potential benefits and the challenges associated with community-owned fiber networks. The discussion highlights the importance of affordable internet access, the limitations of the current ISP landscape, and the need for innovative solutions to address digital inequities.