Yesterday had a three hours on the phone with RCN (now Astound and owned by Stonepeak private equity) about them going from $32 (negotiated after their last more than tripling the price) to $112/mo for my mother's basic internet, lower-than-lowest-tier-currently-available service.
The call ended with me reporting Astound/RCN/Stonepeak to the Massachusetts Attorney General. I encourage everybody to do the same and talk about their battles with these evil price-gouging corporations.
Really i want us to collectivize this resistance too. We need the practice and thousands of dollars per family clawed back from ISPs, overcharging grocery stories, regressive fees and fines from governments and banks, impound lot legalized theft rings, etc would make a meaningful difference in many people's lives and free up more resources for survival and frankly more important struggles.
Anyone think they could make a job out of phone to phone, e-mail to e-mail combat with corporations?
A cooperative for dealing with overpricing and fees that has the intent of reducing the time and money 'tax' disproportionately imposed on people with less of both—that recognizes its work as a political and economic project—would be a natural launching pad for worker cooperatives to replace the worst offenders.
EDIT: Belatedly fixed a mistake where i said the buyer cooperative i'm describing should launch more buyer co-ops, when i meant worker co-ops or perhaps multistakeholder co-ops.
@mlncn (for context, i’m in the midst of starting an isp that’s a worker-consumer cooperative)
i’m a bit hesitant about pure buyers coops for internet. the whole pricing system that isps operate on is entirely disconnected from the costs. and you’re not going to break away from that unless you’re operating as an isp collectively.
and you’re not going to do that without worker-members.
@tryst 100% agree in the broad sense; really i was trying to pitch the big amorphous consumer coop in large part as a way to help cooperatives like yours, even to initiate and incubate them.
I'd love to hear more about the governance setup of the multi-stakeholder, worker and consumer, cooperative you are working on. For i have thought about this too much, enough that the best advice i can give is to not waste any time talking to me or even thinking *too* much about structure and go launch!
@tryst good grief i see the mistake in my post you were replying to now; that post was literally supposed to be about the buyer cooperative being the launching pad for worker cooperatives.
As for thinking too much about hybrid cooperatives i ultimately couldn't come up with an elegant way to balance interests in one entity so i've been thinking on the idea of the consumer side being one cooperative and the worker being another and them partnering.
@tryst Either way, in one entity or multiple, i like a lot about sociocracy as an approach to organizational structure (again, in one entity or across multiple).
And (to boost my own decades-long desire project) i feel #VisionsUnite style sortition-for-communication-decisions is a crucial fallback needed for large scale organizations to be truly controlled by all the people in them, and not have decision-making power come to rest unhealthily in a small subset, regardless of org setup.
@mlncn i guess my perspective is that while a buyers and worker cooperative can partner, they always have the fallback of acting as non-communicative entities in the market. in a hybrid cooperative, even if governance is not elegant, people still need to talk :)
there’s definitely an element of “just launch” in our governance. formally my current thought is for the workers to formulate and present multiple plans (with budgets) to the consumers, who pick their favorite (via score voting with proxies), or, if none of them meet a threshold of approval, must formulate plans in response for the workers to vote on. the formal governance may also be changed with sufficient approval of both workers and consumers.
informally, there’s lots of room for involvement from consumer members in formulating the plans, which is encouraged by wanting to come up with plans that work for the consumers. but i/we don’t want to demand that involvement either - that seems to end up devolving into voting for a board, because that’s as much as most folks can manage.
@tryst The other thing to consider is selecting a body representing customers from among customers *at random* (this group could be the circle linked to the budget committee described in the idea above, in all cases these circles of around 4–16 people would choose their own reps to other circles, with the other circle also getting to reject somebody they cannot work with).
Sortition removing the bias of self-selection, appointment, or elections is powerful— as is getting to say 'duty calls'.
@mlncn these are all great ideas for something larger - but while we have 2 workers and maybe 12 consumers it’s a bit heavy :)
we definitely intend to get to 30-50 consumers, but more than that will probably require more sites. we’re quite rural.
@tryst The absolute best to you and hope y'all find chances to share both the governance *in practice* that i'm overthinking in theory and the technical ISP side of this, because damn if you can make a go of it at all with a dozen people i'm signing up my mother's street next week 😂
EDIT: To do something similar, i don't expect your fiber lines or whatever to reach across an ocean, heh. FURTHER EDIT: Or i guess merely 100s of miles.
@mlncn i mean, it does sort of require that one or two of those dozen people is willing to wear twenty hats and can put in a bunch of work upfront :)
the break-even with commercial providers (in rural maine) looks to be around 30 subscribers, and beyond that the cost per subscribe just goes down.
the only way a dozen people works for us is that i have some projects that need good internet and a fair amount of room, and rack space in data centers gets expensive very quickly!