4 ms·

Why not skip the middle step and just have the municipalities provide it to the customers directly?

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Why not skip the middle step and just have the municipalities provide it to the customers directly? Because monopolies are wasteful and horrible at things like customer service. The fiber in the ground is a natural monopoly. Connecting that fiber to the rest of the world isn't. You don't want the monopoly to extend one inch more than it has to, regardless of whether the natural monopoly is municipal or Comcast.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  And if municipal ISPs weren't more efficient than the corporate conglomerates you'd have a point, but the fact is that municipal ISPs have been found to provide cheaper and higher quality service than than the corporate ISPs, quite simply because there isn't a profit motive beyond breaking even. This is why Comcast, Time-Warner and the rest are pressuring state legislatures to ban municipal ISPs.[0] [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/muni-isp-forced-to-shut-off-fiber-to-the-home-internet-after-court-ruling/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/muni-i...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Do you have any proof Comcast being the monopoly is "better" than your municipality (who doesn't have to show a profit)? Or is this just how you feel?
  - kodablah 10y ago
    GP said "regardless of whether the natural monopoly is municipal or Comcast", i.e. both are bad options. Not sure why you are asking the GP to defend a claim that wasn't made.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted). Why not my internet? Why can't it be a regulated utility? Because of fear mongers and corruption. Full steam ahead on municipal bandwidth it appears, and coming for politicians with pitchforks who oppose it.
      - chimeracoder 10y ago
        > Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted). A monopoly provider is always bad for the consumer. (Occasionally, it is less bad for the consumer than any feasible alternative, but it is always a sign that the consumer is receiving the "short end" of the stick)[0]. For so-called "natural monopolies", the most that regulation can do is reduce that disparity, but it cannot eliminate it - and it does this for a hefty premium (the price of the regulation). In most (but not all) markets, utility companies are the textbook example of natural monopolies. But there is no reason to believe that the entire supply chain of residential Internet access is a natural monopoly. Furthermore, natural monopolies aren't really a "good" thing; they're just unavoidable in some circumstances. For example, utility companies, whether privately or publicly run, typically do horribly with customer satisfaction ratings, response times for non-emergency services, and so on. The fact that their customers' demand is completely inelastic is the main reason for this. A monopoly is pretty much inherently bad; it just so happens that sometimes it's unavoidable. But, as OP said, there's no reason to sanction a monopoly provider for an industry (or part of an industry) in which it is avoidable. > either a small or no profit right is granted Just because something is nominally run by the public sector or as a "non-profit" doesn't mean that a profit is not being made off the good/service chain. The difference is where that profit is accounted for on the books. [0] This can be illustrated very easily using cost curves; I'm speaking in colloquial terms like "short end of the stick" specifically to avoid the need for economics jargon, but it's a pretty straightforward and fundamental lemma from basic supply and demand.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Your municipality can make you pay for it whether you want it or not. Comcast can't do that.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  As jonathankoren says, the municipal ones rolling out Internet are pretty much all offering better speeds, cost, and service. Further, that Comcast and AT&T are paying legislators millions of dollars to make this illegal shows they would rather intentionally sabotage their customers for profit than benefit them with competition's effects. If private sector was better, they'd welcome the competition with these tiny towns and cities then crush them in the marketplace with superior offerings. They don't have superior offerings, though. Not at the margins they want. ;)
stilldavid 10y ago
This is what my city is doing. They just brought fiber to my home, and I pay $50/mo for bidirectional gigabit. I pay for it alongside my trash and water bill. (Longmont, CO)
- yekim 10y ago
  I'm in Colorado Springs. Didn't know a CO based city was doing this. That's pretty awesome!
- pdeuchler 10y ago
  I live in Boulder and every time I visit friends in Longmont and use their wifi I die a little inside. Count those blessings my friend!

> Why not skip the middle step and just have the municipalities provide it to the customers directly? Because monopolies are wasteful and horrible at things like customer service. The fiber in the ground is a natural monopoly. Connecting that fiber to the rest of the world isn't. You don't want the monopoly to extend one inch more than it has to, regardless of whether the natural monopoly is municipal or Comcast.

jonathankoren 10y ago
And if municipal ISPs weren't more efficient than the corporate conglomerates you'd have a point, but the fact is that municipal ISPs have been found to provide cheaper and higher quality service than than the corporate ISPs, quite simply because there isn't a profit motive beyond breaking even. This is why Comcast, Time-Warner and the rest are pressuring state legislatures to ban municipal ISPs.[0] [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/muni-isp-forced-to-shut-off-fiber-to-the-home-internet-after-court-ruling/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/muni-i...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 10y ago
Do you have any proof Comcast being the monopoly is "better" than your municipality (who doesn't have to show a profit)? Or is this just how you feel?
- kodablah 10y ago
  GP said "regardless of whether the natural monopoly is municipal or Comcast", i.e. both are bad options. Not sure why you are asking the GP to defend a claim that wasn't made.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted). Why not my internet? Why can't it be a regulated utility? Because of fear mongers and corruption. Full steam ahead on municipal bandwidth it appears, and coming for politicians with pitchforks who oppose it.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > Because a monopoly isn't inherently bad, if regulated properly. My monopoly water, gas, and electric providers do just fine; all highly reliably (and either a small or no profit right is granted). A monopoly provider is always bad for the consumer. (Occasionally, it is less bad for the consumer than any feasible alternative, but it is always a sign that the consumer is receiving the "short end" of the stick)[0]. For so-called "natural monopolies", the most that regulation can do is reduce that disparity, but it cannot eliminate it - and it does this for a hefty premium (the price of the regulation). In most (but not all) markets, utility companies are the textbook example of natural monopolies. But there is no reason to believe that the entire supply chain of residential Internet access is a natural monopoly. Furthermore, natural monopolies aren't really a "good" thing; they're just unavoidable in some circumstances. For example, utility companies, whether privately or publicly run, typically do horribly with customer satisfaction ratings, response times for non-emergency services, and so on. The fact that their customers' demand is completely inelastic is the main reason for this. A monopoly is pretty much inherently bad; it just so happens that sometimes it's unavoidable. But, as OP said, there's no reason to sanction a monopoly provider for an industry (or part of an industry) in which it is avoidable. > either a small or no profit right is granted Just because something is nominally run by the public sector or as a "non-profit" doesn't mean that a profit is not being made off the good/service chain. The difference is where that profit is accounted for on the books. [0] This can be illustrated very easily using cost curves; I'm speaking in colloquial terms like "short end of the stick" specifically to avoid the need for economics jargon, but it's a pretty straightforward and fundamental lemma from basic supply and demand.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Your municipality can make you pay for it whether you want it or not. Comcast can't do that.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
As jonathankoren says, the municipal ones rolling out Internet are pretty much all offering better speeds, cost, and service. Further, that Comcast and AT&T are paying legislators millions of dollars to make this illegal shows they would rather intentionally sabotage their customers for profit than benefit them with competition's effects. If private sector was better, they'd welcome the competition with these tiny towns and cities then crush them in the marketplace with superior offerings. They don't have superior offerings, though. Not at the margins they want. ;)

stilldavid 10y ago

This is what my city is doing. They just brought fiber to my home, and I pay $50/mo for bidirectional gigabit. I pay for it alongside my trash and water bill. (Longmont, CO)

yekim 10y ago
I'm in Colorado Springs. Didn't know a CO based city was doing this. That's pretty awesome!
pdeuchler 10y ago
I live in Boulder and every time I visit friends in Longmont and use their wifi I die a little inside. Count those blessings my friend!