4 ms·

> Is there a good argument against this? Yes. The infrastructure in and around NYC. All the bridges need to be replaced (you can literally see the water below

> Is there a good argument against this? Yes. The infrastructure in and around NYC. All the bridges need to be replaced (you can literally see the water below through them), the subway system is in tatters, Penn station is a mess of train derailments and constant delays, and the whole thing is unbelievably expensive. It's a textbook case of short-sightedness, mismanagement, and rent seeking from private parties. A govt internet would work ok for a few years until it was driven into the ground by lack of innovation and special interests. With this model we'd all still be connecting to the internet via 56k modems. And because it's a government enforced monopoly, we'd have no choice.

fred_is_fred 9y ago
Municipal broadband exists because the lack of competition in the private sector has lead to "lack of innovation" and "special interests". The muni broadband projects fill in these gaps since multi-hundred billion dollar companies can't seem to roll out service at greater than 10MBps. Muni broadband is competition to a monopoly, not a monopoly itself.
jancsika 9y ago
I downvoted you because you relied on an analogy to train and subway infrastructure instead of looking at existing municipal broadband plans that have existed for more than "a few years." For example, the municipal broadband in Wilson, NC, was grandfathered in because it existed before the NC state legislature wrote a law to prevent municipal broadband. It's existed for around 10 years. Rather than being stagnant, that plan delivers some of the fastest internet in the country with reportedly easy setup and decent pricing. If you had made your argument citing municipal broadband plans in the U.S. which give worse-than-average speeds and pricing, I wouldn't have downvoted you.
- mattmcknight 9y ago
  Here's a more complete, if a bit dated, analysis. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-f... I would say that Greenlight in Wilson is still fast because of the relatively recent infrastructure build out. The question of whether they are stagnant are not won't be answered until the next build out is required. The project was financed by bonds with the infrastructure as collateral. Since Wilson's bond has a balloon payment due in 2033, any new infrastructure would probably require rolling over that debt in addition to the new infrastructure costs. Given the low positive cash flow, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep up with future infrastructure demands, whether driven by streaming VR or other services. They are also deriving significant revenue from cable television and landline phone services, both of which are potentially negative growth service areas over the next 15 years. The peculiar advantage of municipal broadband is that municipalities are usually not rural, they can take advantage of the higher density installation locations which most providers want. Many of the monopoly contracts issued by various localities to providers came with the caveat that everyone in the county needed to get access to the service. To be fair, the higher costs for more rural installations should translate into higher prices for rural customers, but that would reduce demand. So, it is certainly worth trying more of these muni-broadband projects, as this obviously is not yet a solved problem. My only plea would be that we don't give anyone a monopoly on putting wires in the ground, whether a private company or a government entity, whoever wants to safely lay cable should be given a permit.
nikanj 9y ago
Au contraire, we'd be connecting to the internet with _extremely_ expensive equipment. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...
- fastball 9y ago
  The issue there was the top-down approach, which is almost never efficient. I'm suggesting a bottom-up approach. Municipalities themselves paying for what they need. Then states paying for what they need. Then federal.
slowandlow 9y ago
Isn't MTA semi-private???

fred_is_fred 9y ago

Municipal broadband exists because the lack of competition in the private sector has lead to "lack of innovation" and "special interests". The muni broadband projects fill in these gaps since multi-hundred billion dollar companies can't seem to roll out service at greater than 10MBps. Muni broadband is competition to a monopoly, not a monopoly itself.

jancsika 9y ago

I downvoted you because you relied on an analogy to train and subway infrastructure instead of looking at existing municipal broadband plans that have existed for more than "a few years." For example, the municipal broadband in Wilson, NC, was grandfathered in because it existed before the NC state legislature wrote a law to prevent municipal broadband. It's existed for around 10 years. Rather than being stagnant, that plan delivers some of the fastest internet in the country with reportedly easy setup and decent pricing. If you had made your argument citing municipal broadband plans in the U.S. which give worse-than-average speeds and pricing, I wouldn't have downvoted you.

mattmcknight 9y ago
Here's a more complete, if a bit dated, analysis. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-f... I would say that Greenlight in Wilson is still fast because of the relatively recent infrastructure build out. The question of whether they are stagnant are not won't be answered until the next build out is required. The project was financed by bonds with the infrastructure as collateral. Since Wilson's bond has a balloon payment due in 2033, any new infrastructure would probably require rolling over that debt in addition to the new infrastructure costs. Given the low positive cash flow, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep up with future infrastructure demands, whether driven by streaming VR or other services. They are also deriving significant revenue from cable television and landline phone services, both of which are potentially negative growth service areas over the next 15 years. The peculiar advantage of municipal broadband is that municipalities are usually not rural, they can take advantage of the higher density installation locations which most providers want. Many of the monopoly contracts issued by various localities to providers came with the caveat that everyone in the county needed to get access to the service. To be fair, the higher costs for more rural installations should translate into higher prices for rural customers, but that would reduce demand. So, it is certainly worth trying more of these muni-broadband projects, as this obviously is not yet a solved problem. My only plea would be that we don't give anyone a monopoly on putting wires in the ground, whether a private company or a government entity, whoever wants to safely lay cable should be given a permit.

nikanj 9y ago

Au contraire, we'd be connecting to the internet with _extremely_ expensive equipment. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-west-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...

fastball 9y ago
The issue there was the top-down approach, which is almost never efficient. I'm suggesting a bottom-up approach. Municipalities themselves paying for what they need. Then states paying for what they need. Then federal.

slowandlow 9y ago

Isn't MTA semi-private???