3 ms·
> 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. Did
by shkkmo 9y ago
> 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.
Did you not read the article? EPB is a government owned company and operates at a profit. They seem to be doing a much better job providing high speed coverage to their customers than large publicly traded companies like Comcast.
- jaredklewis 9y agoI can read just fine, thanks. I think EBP is great, but it doesn't really contradict anything I said as EBP received more than $100 million in free federal grants to use in building out its initial fiber optic infrastructure. I'm not against municipal ISPs, but I think government backed businesses are generally going to turn into monopolies, contrary to the parent's comment.
- shkkmo 9y ago> EBP received more than $100 million in free federal grants to use in building out its initial fiber optic infrastructure. A grant is not (technically) a subsidy and I would suspect that the majority of ISPs building infrastructure have received federal grants in some form or another. The difference is that EPB actually provided gigabit speeds instead of taking the money and making excuses. > I think government backed businesses are generally going to turn into monopolies, contrary to the parent's comment. That may be true, but I think they are less likely to become monopolies when they are government owned than when then are owned by a mega-corp. Sure, if you already have several small, privately-owned networks in your area offering gigabit speeds then introducing a municipal competitor may increase your odds becoming a monopoly dominated area. Communities like that are the outliers though and not a valid reason for state legislatures to prohibit municipality owned broadband.