5 ms·

The money has got to come from somewhere. If you want the municipality to run an ISP, then you either have to tax the citizens for the services or take funds fr

The money has got to come from somewhere. If you want the municipality to run an ISP, then you either have to tax the citizens for the services or take funds from somewhere else. Either way, can we be sure that good intentions from democratically elected local politicians will be enough to somehow make Internet service cheaper than what the private sector is able to provide?

arthur_pryor 8y ago
> The money has got to come from somewhere sure, but the total operating cost can be lower, because they don't have to rake in profit. said another way, the profit-making imperative is operating overhead that a municipal ISP doesn't have. since their total cost of operation is lower, and since their incentives are more aligned with the desires of their customers, they can provide a better experience for said customers, while using less resources overall. the only people who lose are shareholders of for-profit ISPs. i find that trade-off acceptable.
- patricius 8y ago
  Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and returns. And maybe I am a pessimist, but I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. And how are we ever able to know whether they are run well when they are tax financed?
  - rectang 8y ago
    > Shareholders are also people. Shareholders are also miles away from any negative impact that their companies have on the communities in which they operate -- unlike small business owners who interact directly with their customers. Public corporations are thus more inclined to behave solely according to profit motives, making them less like people and more like undomesticated wildlife, indifferent to humanity.
    - vuln 8y ago
      > Shareholders are also miles away from any negative impact that their companies have on the communities in which they operate -- unlike small business owners who interact directly with their customers. If you own 1 share of a company you are a share holder. Employees are also given stock as bonuses and have the ability to buy stock at a lower cost. These are shareholders and I am sure these people are in the local economy. I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the american public is actually invested in these ISPs whether they know it or not (Most people do not know how or what their pension / retirement funds are invested in) and depend on these companies to do well so they can have a nice retirement.
    - patricius 8y ago
      If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers - no matter how far removed shareholders are from the communities you mention - a service they want to pay for. Of course, there are cases where certain legislation makes it difficult for competition to arise, in effect giving an existing company monopoly for delivering Internet in a certain way. So I don't exactly disagree with what you are saying, although I don't interpret profits negatively.
      - Brockenstein 8y ago
        >If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers That makes sense... if the company is small enough where any dip in customers is significant. When you have something like Comcast, serving tens of millions of people you're losing and gaining thousands of customers a day just from people moving. Additionally your service is so large that people in Cincinnati who are having problems with the service doesn't equate with the whole rest of the nation, as the quality of service isn't uniform. And then in cases where Comcast is a virtual monopoly people might want to ditch them, but what choice do they have? And they'd rather have (crummy) internet than no internet. Comcast's customer base is so large that you're never going to organize a significant percentage of them to meaningful action. It's too many people. And on top of all that big ISPs/big cable companies are among the most hated companies in the U.S. and have been for 15-20 years... so when are they going to start losing customers and revenue in a meaningful way to be incentivized to clean up their acts? I mean I understand the formula you're using and the cause an effect you're suggesting. But the reality suggests it's a bit more complicated than that.
  - arthur_pryor 8y ago
    > Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and returns. right. i didn't say i'm happy that shareholders will lose money. just that i found the trade-off acceptable. presumably most of them will get out of for-profit ISP stocks and not totally lose their shirt over it, should things start going downhill. then others will decline to invest in the first place. if e.g. comcast were to go out of business, then that would suck, because a bunch of people would have to look for other work. i'd hope that competition would just make those sorts of companies into better citizens, and then they could stay in business, and provide a better product at a fairer price. > And maybe I am a pessimist, but I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. i've read many articles on arstechnica where people have extolled the quality of their municipal ISP, and bemoaned the ISP-led legislation that banned their municipal ISP. note that i'm not saying we should outlaw private ISPs. but my strong opinion, based on all the evidence i've read, and my own personal experience, is that national ISPs (comcast, at&t, etc) use their monopoly power to the fullest extent that they can. they have terrible service, they provide a product inferior to what other countries provide municipally for less money, and they do nothing but complain to congress about how they're hurting while bragging to shareholders about how well they're doing. in short, i think they're bad actors, and i'd rather see the thing they provide treated like a public utility, which i firmly believe it is at this point. > I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run ARPA-E is a fine example of a current government project that is well run and highly lauded. it would also be good to remember that you wouldn't have the internet were it not for "government run enterprise" (it was ARPAnet before it was "the internet").
    - vuln 8y ago
      What about the large percent of the population that is invested in these ISPs without actually knowing they are? There is a large portion of the american public that has zero clue where their pension / retirement fund is being invested. What about all the employees stock that they might have purchased or were awarded as a bonus?
      - 8y ago
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. And how are we ever able to know whether they are run well when they are tax financed? You also must not have read the article. It clearly discusses EPB, a municipality-owned company that operates profitably and was the first company to offer gigabit speeds in the US. They also have annual financial reports available on their website if you have questions about how well run they are.
    - patricius 8y ago
      But aside from being municipality-owned, it looks like it operates like a private company. I would guess, though, that if they become unprofitable, there will be tax dollars there to save them giving them an unfair advantage to private players.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. The municipal ISP I knew best had lower costs because they didn't upgrade their equipement. When they were competing with dialup their 500k for $20/month was just fine, but eventually the other competition upgraded and were offering 1m for $40/month and the municipal ISP had nothing in the budget to upgrade. Then the competition upgraded speeds again and again while leaving prices the same. Of course the above can happen to anyone. It is very common for new small business to be so low in price that they can't afford maintenance and they go out of business.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    Which just goes to show that it is perfectly feasible for private ISPs to compete against municipal ISPs when they are mis-managed.
Someone1234 8y ago
The problem with a municipality is the same as the status quo: Too much monopoly. If they're good, then great, if they're bad then too bad -- no other choice. Same as dealing with Comcast. A better idea is to have the municipality just manage the "last mile" physical cable from the home to the exchange, then have various ISPs operate a backhaul from the exchange outwards, along with customer support, billing, etc. That way the customer has choice of ISPs (real choice) and you aren't running five cables or more from the exchange to a home.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I don’t think a municipal ISP would necessarily have to be a monopoly.
  - jaredklewis 8y ago
    Well it’s pretty hard for private businesses to compete against a municipal ISP. A business has to covers its cost with the fees charged to its customers. A municipal ISP has to cover its cost with the combination fees charged to its customers and subsidies from local government (which are charged to all citizens through taxes, whether or not they use the municipal ISP). Not exactly an enticing business proposition to compete against a company that gets to charge your customers money whether or not they use the competitors service. So unless the municipal ISP is so horribly inefficient that a private entity can compete with them on pricing despite the lack of subsidies, presence of a municipal ISP will lead to a municipal monopoly. I suppose there is also the case of a municipal ISP that receives no government funding, in which case what is the point of the government here? Also, I have never heard of such an arrangement in practice so when people refer municipal ISPs, they are likely referring to government subsidized ISPs.
    - subway 8y ago
      Rather than a full on ISP, I think I'd prefer to see municipal NSPs. The municipality should be concerned with passing packets within the municipality. When an end user needs packets routed outside the municipality, they engage with an ISP connected to the municipality's network. This ends up operating very similarly to the way CLECs have allowed 3rd party ISPs to provide DSL service. The end user has a modem that attached to the CLEC's ATM network, then a PPPoE connection transits the ATM network to the user's ISP. With a municipal NSP, you effectively acknowledge the municipal cable plant and switching fabric as a natural monopoly, while allowing competing ISPs to provide internet transit.
webkike 8y ago
Sure we can, if they rely on the internet as well.
- patricius 8y ago
  I would say that there is a world of difference in wanting some service and then running an enterprise well that provides the service. It seems to me that it is impossible to use voting as a means to guarantee good outcomes.
zipwitch 8y ago
No, we cannot be certain. But I think that trying ISPs with motivation beyond "what gets the top executives the biggest bonuses at the end of the year" is worth trying.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Either way, can we be sure that good intentions from democratically elected local politicians will be enough to somehow make Internet service cheaper than what the private sector is able to provide?" Aside from your unproven assertion that a private company with a profit motive is able to provide internet cheaply, it does already happen in many places around the country.
- patricius 8y ago
  In Denmark we have several private companies providing cheap and fast internet, and we usually don't have any cap on data (but often a fair use clause in our contracts). For instance, you can get 80/10 mbit upload/download for around 45 $ a month. What I am getting at is that yes, maybe Comcast sucks, but you cannot guarantee that just because Internet service is provided by the municipality/state and tax funded it will somehow become cheaper or better.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    I can all but guarantee that anything else would be better than Comcast.

arthur_pryor 8y ago

> The money has got to come from somewhere sure, but the total operating cost can be lower, because they don't have to rake in profit. said another way, the profit-making imperative is operating overhead that a municipal ISP doesn't have. since their total cost of operation is lower, and since their incentives are more aligned with the desires of their customers, they can provide a better experience for said customers, while using less resources overall. the only people who lose are shareholders of for-profit ISPs. i find that trade-off acceptable.

patricius 8y ago
Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and returns. And maybe I am a pessimist, but I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. And how are we ever able to know whether they are run well when they are tax financed?
- rectang 8y ago
  > Shareholders are also people. Shareholders are also miles away from any negative impact that their companies have on the communities in which they operate -- unlike small business owners who interact directly with their customers. Public corporations are thus more inclined to behave solely according to profit motives, making them less like people and more like undomesticated wildlife, indifferent to humanity.
  - vuln 8y ago
    > Shareholders are also miles away from any negative impact that their companies have on the communities in which they operate -- unlike small business owners who interact directly with their customers. If you own 1 share of a company you are a share holder. Employees are also given stock as bonuses and have the ability to buy stock at a lower cost. These are shareholders and I am sure these people are in the local economy. I'd be willing to bet a large portion of the american public is actually invested in these ISPs whether they know it or not (Most people do not know how or what their pension / retirement funds are invested in) and depend on these companies to do well so they can have a nice retirement.
  - patricius 8y ago
    If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers - no matter how far removed shareholders are from the communities you mention - a service they want to pay for. Of course, there are cases where certain legislation makes it difficult for competition to arise, in effect giving an existing company monopoly for delivering Internet in a certain way. So I don't exactly disagree with what you are saying, although I don't interpret profits negatively.
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      >If a company behaves badly enough towards its customers it will start losing customers and revenue, so the incentives are aligned with providing customers That makes sense... if the company is small enough where any dip in customers is significant. When you have something like Comcast, serving tens of millions of people you're losing and gaining thousands of customers a day just from people moving. Additionally your service is so large that people in Cincinnati who are having problems with the service doesn't equate with the whole rest of the nation, as the quality of service isn't uniform. And then in cases where Comcast is a virtual monopoly people might want to ditch them, but what choice do they have? And they'd rather have (crummy) internet than no internet. Comcast's customer base is so large that you're never going to organize a significant percentage of them to meaningful action. It's too many people. And on top of all that big ISPs/big cable companies are among the most hated companies in the U.S. and have been for 15-20 years... so when are they going to start losing customers and revenue in a meaningful way to be incentivized to clean up their acts? I mean I understand the formula you're using and the cause an effect you're suggesting. But the reality suggests it's a bit more complicated than that.
- arthur_pryor 8y ago
  > Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and returns. right. i didn't say i'm happy that shareholders will lose money. just that i found the trade-off acceptable. presumably most of them will get out of for-profit ISP stocks and not totally lose their shirt over it, should things start going downhill. then others will decline to invest in the first place. if e.g. comcast were to go out of business, then that would suck, because a bunch of people would have to look for other work. i'd hope that competition would just make those sorts of companies into better citizens, and then they could stay in business, and provide a better product at a fairer price. > And maybe I am a pessimist, but I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. i've read many articles on arstechnica where people have extolled the quality of their municipal ISP, and bemoaned the ISP-led legislation that banned their municipal ISP. note that i'm not saying we should outlaw private ISPs. but my strong opinion, based on all the evidence i've read, and my own personal experience, is that national ISPs (comcast, at&t, etc) use their monopoly power to the fullest extent that they can. they have terrible service, they provide a product inferior to what other countries provide municipally for less money, and they do nothing but complain to congress about how they're hurting while bragging to shareholders about how well they're doing. in short, i think they're bad actors, and i'd rather see the thing they provide treated like a public utility, which i firmly believe it is at this point. > I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run ARPA-E is a fine example of a current government project that is well run and highly lauded. it would also be good to remember that you wouldn't have the internet were it not for "government run enterprise" (it was ARPAnet before it was "the internet").
  - vuln 8y ago
    What about the large percent of the population that is invested in these ISPs without actually knowing they are? There is a large portion of the american public that has zero clue where their pension / retirement fund is being invested. What about all the employees stock that they might have purchased or were awarded as a bonus?
    - 8y ago
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. And how are we ever able to know whether they are run well when they are tax financed? You also must not have read the article. It clearly discusses EPB, a municipality-owned company that operates profitably and was the first company to offer gigabit speeds in the US. They also have annual financial reports available on their website if you have questions about how well run they are.
  - patricius 8y ago
    But aside from being municipality-owned, it looks like it operates like a private company. I would guess, though, that if they become unprofitable, there will be tax dollars there to save them giving them an unfair advantage to private players.
bluGill 8y ago
Maybe, maybe not. The municipal ISP I knew best had lower costs because they didn't upgrade their equipement. When they were competing with dialup their 500k for $20/month was just fine, but eventually the other competition upgraded and were offering 1m for $40/month and the municipal ISP had nothing in the budget to upgrade. Then the competition upgraded speeds again and again while leaving prices the same. Of course the above can happen to anyone. It is very common for new small business to be so low in price that they can't afford maintenance and they go out of business.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  Which just goes to show that it is perfectly feasible for private ISPs to compete against municipal ISPs when they are mis-managed.

Someone1234 8y ago

The problem with a municipality is the same as the status quo: Too much monopoly. If they're good, then great, if they're bad then too bad -- no other choice. Same as dealing with Comcast. A better idea is to have the municipality just manage the "last mile" physical cable from the home to the exchange, then have various ISPs operate a backhaul from the exchange outwards, along with customer support, billing, etc. That way the customer has choice of ISPs (real choice) and you aren't running five cables or more from the exchange to a home.

mikeash 8y ago
I don’t think a municipal ISP would necessarily have to be a monopoly.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  Well it’s pretty hard for private businesses to compete against a municipal ISP. A business has to covers its cost with the fees charged to its customers. A municipal ISP has to cover its cost with the combination fees charged to its customers and subsidies from local government (which are charged to all citizens through taxes, whether or not they use the municipal ISP). Not exactly an enticing business proposition to compete against a company that gets to charge your customers money whether or not they use the competitors service. So unless the municipal ISP is so horribly inefficient that a private entity can compete with them on pricing despite the lack of subsidies, presence of a municipal ISP will lead to a municipal monopoly. I suppose there is also the case of a municipal ISP that receives no government funding, in which case what is the point of the government here? Also, I have never heard of such an arrangement in practice so when people refer municipal ISPs, they are likely referring to government subsidized ISPs.
  - subway 8y ago
    Rather than a full on ISP, I think I'd prefer to see municipal NSPs. The municipality should be concerned with passing packets within the municipality. When an end user needs packets routed outside the municipality, they engage with an ISP connected to the municipality's network. This ends up operating very similarly to the way CLECs have allowed 3rd party ISPs to provide DSL service. The end user has a modem that attached to the CLEC's ATM network, then a PPPoE connection transits the ATM network to the user's ISP. With a municipal NSP, you effectively acknowledge the municipal cable plant and switching fabric as a natural monopoly, while allowing competing ISPs to provide internet transit.

webkike 8y ago

Sure we can, if they rely on the internet as well.

patricius 8y ago
I would say that there is a world of difference in wanting some service and then running an enterprise well that provides the service. It seems to me that it is impossible to use voting as a means to guarantee good outcomes.

zipwitch 8y ago

No, we cannot be certain. But I think that trying ISPs with motivation beyond "what gets the top executives the biggest bonuses at the end of the year" is worth trying.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Either way, can we be sure that good intentions from democratically elected local politicians will be enough to somehow make Internet service cheaper than what the private sector is able to provide?" Aside from your unproven assertion that a private company with a profit motive is able to provide internet cheaply, it does already happen in many places around the country.

patricius 8y ago
In Denmark we have several private companies providing cheap and fast internet, and we usually don't have any cap on data (but often a fair use clause in our contracts). For instance, you can get 80/10 mbit upload/download for around 45 $ a month. What I am getting at is that yes, maybe Comcast sucks, but you cannot guarantee that just because Internet service is provided by the municipality/state and tax funded it will somehow become cheaper or better.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I can all but guarantee that anything else would be better than Comcast.