4 ms·

Agree, in most places the cable company has a monopoly or close to it. But why do we think giving the municipality a monopoly is better? Every municipal servic

Agree, in most places the cable company has a monopoly or close to it. But why do we think giving the municipality a monopoly is better? Every municipal service I can think of is overstaffed and inefficient compared to private businesses. The "nickle and diming" is just moved to tax rates and fees that are under the radar for most people. Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised.

rayiner 9y ago
> Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised. We should make franchising requirements illegal at the federal level. There is no need for them, and all they do is artificially limit competition. Even though the franchises are, by law, non-exclusive, the terms for getting a franchise are usually onerous enough that nobody but the incumbent is willing to put up with them.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  That's not entirely true. There is a very good reason for some of them: To ensure that lower income areas are serviced. Usually, a municipality will make servicing those areas a requirement of getting the franchise. Now, if we have municipal broadband, that could ensure lower income areas are serviced instead. But without that fallback, cancelling franchise agreements would likely increase competition in the rich neighborhoods, and lead to things being just as bad or worse than they are now in poor ones.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    It's not a good reason. If you force private companies to take on the government's role of providing a safety net, you're basically guaranteeing that only mega-corps will be able to take that deal. It would be better, as you suggest, to let municipalities perform the traditional governmental role of building the safety net.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law.... Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania: > [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network. Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        No, I don't think the laws are most of the reason why it's rare. It's probably more that other municipalities have seen the huge fights put up by the incumbents that tie the projects up in legal battles for years that have had a chilling effect on it. Citizens know that it's going to cost a lot for the infrastructure, and then probably a lot more for the legal fights. Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
        wool_gather 9y ago
        > Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-muni-broadband-expansion-bill-after-att-opposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...
rdiddly 9y ago
People can vote to change the leadership and direction of the municipality. Not so much the corporation. Yes I realize this argument wears thinner the more democracy gets weakened... and hey, weird, the ones weakening it are the same few people (Comcast in this case) who stand to profit from weakening it. Just a coincidence I'm sure! Anyway you're not helping democracy either, by giving up on it and/or buying into the whole "the market will fix everything" idea. Free markets would be great, but what you find instead is that those who want to exploit a given market, sell everybody on the idea that "the market will fix everything" when they want to enter it. But after that, they do everything in their power to make sure it's NOT a free market. They want to avoid dealing with competitors, so they work to keep them out of the market. But unfortunately competition is the precondition on which most of the "market will fix everything" argument rests.
s73ver_ 9y ago
What's the market incentive to provide service in lower income, inner-city neighborhoods?

rayiner 9y ago

> Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised. We should make franchising requirements illegal at the federal level. There is no need for them, and all they do is artificially limit competition. Even though the franchises are, by law, non-exclusive, the terms for getting a franchise are usually onerous enough that nobody but the incumbent is willing to put up with them.

s73ver_ 9y ago
That's not entirely true. There is a very good reason for some of them: To ensure that lower income areas are serviced. Usually, a municipality will make servicing those areas a requirement of getting the franchise. Now, if we have municipal broadband, that could ensure lower income areas are serviced instead. But without that fallback, cancelling franchise agreements would likely increase competition in the rich neighborhoods, and lead to things being just as bad or worse than they are now in poor ones.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It's not a good reason. If you force private companies to take on the government's role of providing a safety net, you're basically guaranteeing that only mega-corps will be able to take that deal. It would be better, as you suggest, to let municipalities perform the traditional governmental role of building the safety net.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law.... Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania: > [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network. Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        No, I don't think the laws are most of the reason why it's rare. It's probably more that other municipalities have seen the huge fights put up by the incumbents that tie the projects up in legal battles for years that have had a chilling effect on it. Citizens know that it's going to cost a lot for the infrastructure, and then probably a lot more for the legal fights. Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
      - wool_gather 9y ago
        > Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-muni-broadband-expansion-bill-after-att-opposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...

rdiddly 9y ago

People can vote to change the leadership and direction of the municipality. Not so much the corporation. Yes I realize this argument wears thinner the more democracy gets weakened... and hey, weird, the ones weakening it are the same few people (Comcast in this case) who stand to profit from weakening it. Just a coincidence I'm sure! Anyway you're not helping democracy either, by giving up on it and/or buying into the whole "the market will fix everything" idea. Free markets would be great, but what you find instead is that those who want to exploit a given market, sell everybody on the idea that "the market will fix everything" when they want to enter it. But after that, they do everything in their power to make sure it's NOT a free market. They want to avoid dealing with competitors, so they work to keep them out of the market. But unfortunately competition is the precondition on which most of the "market will fix everything" argument rests.

s73ver_ 9y ago

What's the market incentive to provide service in lower income, inner-city neighborhoods?