4 ms·

Followed by a more expensive subpar service. I typically lean towards getting governmetn out of most business, but these muni ISPs have always struck me as more

Followed by a more expensive subpar service. I typically lean towards getting governmetn out of most business, but these muni ISPs have always struck me as more grassroots democratic very american bootstrap sort of thing and commercial ISPs who fail to serve their customers exhibiting very anti-american behavior.

SwellJoe 10y ago
If the major telco and cable companies weren't consistently the most hated companies in the country...well, these things wouldn't spring up. There wouldn't be sufficient drive among people to make it happen; it's hard to get something done in government. So, the fact that it has gotten done in a number of municipalities should be taken as a warning sign for just how poorly existing providers are doing their job. Internet is a necessity for participating in the modern economy. So, companies that provide it, particularly when they hold a monopoly or are part of a duopoly, wield a tremendous amount of power; or, maybe even worse, when they have a strong enough hold on a given region but opt not to provide broadband to some of their service area, making it nearly impossible for some rural folks to even have broadband. They've shown themselves unworthy of being trusted with such power, over and over again. It's unfortunate that legislators in NC are complicit in that abusive behavior.
- DasIch 10y ago
  These companies are doing their job perfectly. Extracting as much money out of their assets as possible. It would be ridiculous for them to waste any money by investing into their infrastructure unless it enables them to compete better, increasing revenue and profits. They are acting in exactly the way you'd expect given how the economy is designed. The problem are the rules politicians have setup which are designed for a free market not for monopoly/duopoly situations. The only option you have here is realistically is letting local government provide internet. This way internet becomes part of the services municipalities provide and they compete with each other in being an attractive location for businesses and citizens, so they're incentivized to provide good and cheap internet. At least as cheap and good internet as other places anyway.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    Telcom companies are actually given government incentives to provide servies in uncovered areas. Sadly they can also monopolize the way they get some of the incentives by applying for and thus blocking out other competitors from getting the same funds for the same areas. They also manage to tie up the gov't in application processes (or rather the the gov't allows itself to be tied up in these applicaion processes for incentives). It's true these companies would rather continue collecting more money for less services, increasing profits. Dosen't make capitalism so dark a concept. These are unique situations because telecoms get to operate within the framework where they can fight and get cancelled a homebrew ISP project in a community. Spending resources fighting rather than actually building services with their profits. Pretty sad.

SwellJoe 10y ago

If the major telco and cable companies weren't consistently the most hated companies in the country...well, these things wouldn't spring up. There wouldn't be sufficient drive among people to make it happen; it's hard to get something done in government. So, the fact that it has gotten done in a number of municipalities should be taken as a warning sign for just how poorly existing providers are doing their job. Internet is a necessity for participating in the modern economy. So, companies that provide it, particularly when they hold a monopoly or are part of a duopoly, wield a tremendous amount of power; or, maybe even worse, when they have a strong enough hold on a given region but opt not to provide broadband to some of their service area, making it nearly impossible for some rural folks to even have broadband. They've shown themselves unworthy of being trusted with such power, over and over again. It's unfortunate that legislators in NC are complicit in that abusive behavior.

DasIch 10y ago
These companies are doing their job perfectly. Extracting as much money out of their assets as possible. It would be ridiculous for them to waste any money by investing into their infrastructure unless it enables them to compete better, increasing revenue and profits. They are acting in exactly the way you'd expect given how the economy is designed. The problem are the rules politicians have setup which are designed for a free market not for monopoly/duopoly situations. The only option you have here is realistically is letting local government provide internet. This way internet becomes part of the services municipalities provide and they compete with each other in being an attractive location for businesses and citizens, so they're incentivized to provide good and cheap internet. At least as cheap and good internet as other places anyway.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  Telcom companies are actually given government incentives to provide servies in uncovered areas. Sadly they can also monopolize the way they get some of the incentives by applying for and thus blocking out other competitors from getting the same funds for the same areas. They also manage to tie up the gov't in application processes (or rather the the gov't allows itself to be tied up in these applicaion processes for incentives). It's true these companies would rather continue collecting more money for less services, increasing profits. Dosen't make capitalism so dark a concept. These are unique situations because telecoms get to operate within the framework where they can fight and get cancelled a homebrew ISP project in a community. Spending resources fighting rather than actually building services with their profits. Pretty sad.