Institute for Local Self-Reliance
banner
ilsr.bsky.social
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
@ilsr.bsky.social
Fighting corporate monopolies and building local power since 1974.

Learn more: ilsr.org/newsletter-signup
Learn more about this remarkable collective effort by reading ILSR's new report, "Seeking the Commonwealth of Connection." ilsr.org/wp-content/u... 9/9
ilsr.org
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
"People are feeling like there's a rising quality of life in these beautiful but rural communities that had felt like they were stagnant before," says Jessica Auer, author of a new ILSR report on the remarkable collective effort by a rural region to claim their connectivity future. 8/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
The result is Internet rates that are often lower than what the average customer of telecom monopolies pays, and additional service provision made possible for the communities. 7/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Moreover, these 19 Western Massachusetts communities are now in control of how much they pay for Internet and what happens with the resulting revenue from the municipal networks. 6/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Now that these 19 communities have banded together to take their connectivity into their own hands, they're reliably using tools many of us take for granted — video calls, telehealth, remote work, and businesses taking EBT and conducting credit card transactions. 5/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
These corporations decided there wasn't enough money to extract and enrich shareholders, so they refused to invest in these communities. This left citizens, businesses, and municipal governments to turn to each other. 4/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
This lesser-of-two-evils choice was a result of telecom monopolies' refusal to invest in the region's infrastructure. 3/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
The years-long effort to bring high-speed fiber to rural Western Massachusetts was born out of constantly being left behind by big tech and telecom monopolies. Folks in rural Western Massachusetts had to choose slow and decaying DSL infrastructure or no internet at all. 2/
November 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM
In this world, the playing field would be level enough that a community-oriented independent business can hold its own against big chain competitors by prioritizing community investment.

This world is not only possible, but within reach. 8/8
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Individual businesses go bankrupt all the time, but that's not what we're talking about here. The point is that we should demand a regulatory and economic environment that creates opportunities rather than obstacles for a business like Books Inc. to thrive. 7/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
It's good that Books Inc.'s stores won't close. Shuttered bookstores are a significant loss to their communities. But the answer to struggling bookstores shouldn't be a purchase by hedge fund-owned megachains. Our goal should be a world in which Books Inc. doesn't go bankrupt in the first place. 6/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
In short, an indie bookstore invests in its community while a Barnes & Noble extracts from it. 5/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Barnes & Noble is owned by Elliott Investment Management L.P., a huge New York City hedge fund. Where an independent bookstore's goal is to invest in its community and circulate money locally, a hedge fund's goal is to extract as many resources as possible in order to line shareholders' pockets. 4/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
This is the third time this has happened — Barnes & Noble has also acquired indie bookstore landmarks Tattered Cover in Denver and University Bookstore in Seattle. It is clear that the "indie bookstore" brand and community clout are valuable enough to attract the interest of big chains. 3/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Yes, Books Inc.'s stores will stay open, continuing to operate in their communities. But Barnes & Noble and a truly independent bookstore are two different business models. An independent bookstore is locally owned and therefore recirculates money in its community much more than a chain. 2/
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
Ultimately, Mitchell argues, "we actually have to change the underlying incentive structure if we want different outcomes." Big Tech shareholders are motivated by profits above all else, a motivation that leaves communities behind. 7/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
One guiding example is community broadband networks. Rather than answering to shareholders, community-owned networks answer to the community. The result is better service, technology that works better, and a more holistic view of a community's needs. 6/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
The alternative, Mitchell says, is to disrupt the incentive structures driving Big Tech's obedience. "That means changing who makes decisions, how these corporations and businesses are set up, how they're scaled, and how they relate to community." 5/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Way back in that Seattle garage, Jeff Bezos was already imagining an empire, scrappy foundational myth be damned. And corporate empires have one goal: maximizing shareholder value. In 2025, that means bowing to Trump and his whims. 4/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
A set of incentives governs Big Tech companies, Mitchell says, "and those incentives are about power, they're about maximizing advantage, they're about maximizing profits. Those incentives are going to override any attempt to impose a more altruistic vision on what the corporation does." 3/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM
But ILSR's @stacyfmitchell.bsky.social says, "I think it was a mirage all along to imagine that Big Tech was somehow progressive, was somehow leading us to a better future." From the very beginning, these companies had one true goal: amassing power. 2/
October 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM