8 ms·

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the li

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs. Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I'm not nervous at all (disclaimer: I support public ownership of infrastructure over private/commercial ownership, stakeholders > shareholders). Local governments are governed by local citizens. I have no impact on Comcast or Time Warner's governance, as either a shareholder or customer. If I don't hold my local government accountable, that's my fault. My local community owning my roads, sidewalks, water, sewer (storm AND human waste), fire hydrant infrastructure, as well as fire and police services has worked out a-ok. And while I take issue with Florida politics, EVERYTHING is open records. If my local police are corrupt and obtaining data illegally from my muni ISP, I can involve my state's attorney or other legal oversight bodies. So! The overreaching issue isn't "this is about local internet infra", it's about local governance and self-reliance, which I find it difficult to argue against. Concentrated power corrupts, distributed power empowers. Obligatory Muni/Startup ISP links: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap | https://startyourownisp.com/ https://startyourownisp.com/
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I think OP’s fear is that the quality of local governments varies enormously. Your local government might be awesome. If so, congratulations! Not everyone lives in places with great oversight or has access to the legal means to keep their local government in check. A local government one state over might decide to ban search terms about contraceptives or keep a list of customers visiting LGBT sites for various persecution/blackmail purposes. I grew up in a backwards small town and I could totally see Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends. I’m always skeptical when politicians call for local control of something. As evil as Comcast is, their scale and need to operate in markets across all political/cultural spectrum makes me more confident that they won’t be messing with my browsing for petty reasons—they just want my wallet.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      While I can appreciate your concerns over data firewalls as it relates to local government (privacy advocate, annual EFF donation, yada yada), I would like to see a real world example of it occurring in the US before I'd consider changing my stance on locally owned internet infra vs Comcast, Time Warner, et el (I will even put my money where my mouth is, and come after such a municipality personally with an attorney, that's the sort of thing I find fun). If Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator is “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends, you can FOIA logs, emails, records, and come after the city for their transgression. You can vote local government representatives out of office. If Comcast does this, you have no recourse (and they would even be within their right to sell this data to the highest bidder).
- 49531 8y ago
  They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
      >My point is the is a terrible baseline to be settling for No it's not. If government can do it better than the corporate sector, why worry about other baselines? >My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity. Except Comcast can already collect your data and sell it to local police or anyone else they want and you have no recourse. In the case of government there is at least a possibility you will be able to change a policy like that.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution? Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.
        quasse 8y ago
        That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Don't worry-- states like North Carolina have actually outlawed municipal broadband. > Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. There was municipal wireless in my town after the FCC overruled these state broadband bans, and before the the court ruled against the FCC. Symmetric speeds. Prices prorated according to what the actual speed was instead of the advertised speed. Pretty decent support. I witnessed these symmetric speeds directly. I also talked directly to the town manager about the program as it was being implemented. The plan was public and presented at a town board meeting. If there was notorious corruption going on it still hasn't affect speed, pricing, or support response for their service. Very curious to read your references about notorious corruption of local governments. > But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator. Which is exactly what my town has done to be in compliance with the court ruling allowing state-wide municipal broadban bans. Same speeds. Same prices. Same support. Possibly even some of the same people, but I'd have to look it up to make sure. What is the point you are trying to make? Edit: Keep in mind I wrote "pretty decent support" against a baseline of what I think support ought to be in a first world country. If I measured against Comcast I'd call it "support so amazing it may make you cry."
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police." And yet on the whole they are probably still far less corrupt and corrosive than monopolistic ISPs such Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner(or whatever their calling themselves these days.) I would argue they are more accessible and accountable as well.
  - mattmcknight 8y ago
    Local governments are the ones that granted these companies the monopolies.
    - bogomipz 8y ago
      This comment is disingenuous at best. It also displays an ignorance of the history of Telecom in the US. Cable companies were originally granted charters or franchise agreements in the 1970s and 1980s in the US. At that time cable companies were very much local and regional[1]. Also at that time television was delivered over the air and the monopoly was Ma Bell. Twenty years of consolidation happened at the national level. The victims of this hyper-consolidation were local. Furthermore these municipal franchise agreements given to cable companies/ISPs are generally non-exclusive which is why there are some areas that actually have a duopoly instead of just a monopoly. Municipalities will generally grant right away access to other interested parties which is why some places have both Verizon and Comcast or Comcast and Uverse etc. In fact the franchise fees collected by municipalities are a great source of revenue. I don't think there's a city in the US that isn't interested in collecting more money. NYC recently sued Verizon for failing to fulfill its obligations of providing full coverage(and an alternative to the incumbent) to residents of the city[2]. So no local governments are not to blame for the corrosive and corrupt culture of these ISPs. Certainly not in any appreciable manner. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the-week-a-long-history-of-cable-consolidation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  Privatization has been a disaster for US broadband. I'd love to know which local governments you're talking about, especially considering that all cases of corruption I've heard center around bribes from private capital to influence public policy. If anything, public internet infrastructure would reduce corruption given the number of local governments that grant statuatory monopolies to telcos.
- OldFatCactus 8y ago
  Sometimes reading comments on HN I feel like I stumbled into opposite-land. Private operators are far more "notoriously corrupt" than local government. At large scale, government representation starts to break down and the will of the majority can become distorted. But at a local level, this is absolutely the better alternative to private ownership of what should be considered a fundamental human right.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.
seniorivn 8y ago
how is it any better then current olygopolly? The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Like in countries with a lot better internet, especially per dollar.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >how is it any better than current oligopoly? I mean I suppose you could ask the people that voted for it. >The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Networks like internet providership are notoriously hard to get competitive markets in. Even removing the regulatory barriers to entry there are still natural barriers to entry (high start up cost) and huge returns to scale. The natural state of this market is monopoly or oligopoly. But even beyond this, this is raising the competitiveness of the market. Internet has become so integrated into the fabric of modern life that many feel compelled to purchase it from the one or maybe two providers in their area. That lowers competitiveness. Demonstrating that municipalities have ways of 'opting out' should force Comcast and other providers to compete with the hypothetical 'public ISP' that citizens can always vote in.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Your comment was dead, but I vouched for it because I believe your second paragraph has value. I'd ask you consider removing the first part, which is unnecessarily snarky and doesn't address the point (how is this better than an oligopoly).
    - soundwave106 8y ago
      The first point is valid IMHO in a way. Like a lot of small towns in Massachusetts, Charlemont uses an open town meeting style of government, which means all residents have a vote in determining how the town is run. I would personally believe that if there are issues with quality of service or price or whatnot, this governance style allows for a much better opportunity of addressing issues. Versus being run by a very large monopoly that honestly may not care that much about the ongoing needs of a 1200 population town (read: small revenue source) in the future. A competitive environment would be better if possible, but failing that, I personally would take a municipal broadband system with a good degree of accountability built into the town governance over an oligopoly.
takeda 8y ago
The best way is to let the city provide the last mile infrastructure (the connection between nearest POP and your house), and then lease it to ISPs for a fee to maintain it. That way we once again can have competition like during the time DSL was popular (telcos were required to lease their wires, that's why there was so much choice of ISP for anyone who remembers early 2000)
- quasse 8y ago
  I hear this argument all the time, but I don't really see it. What value is the ISP providing here? They sell you service on physical infrastructure that you the taxpayer already paid for? Peering? It seems like it would be much more efficient for a municipality to just negotiate citywide peering agreements for everyone. Some people try to push the "value adds" line, like IPTV and phone service, but I don't see any reason those should be tied to your base internet service. Those arguments smell like the old cable company days, when everything had to be a "bundle".
  - jgust 8y ago
    The last mile infrastructure isn't maintenance free and doesn't last forever, so it has to be paid for somehow be it taxes or commercially. Users (in the above situation) paying an ISP are essentially agreeing to a "maintenance contract".
    - takeda 8y ago
      That's why I said "lease to ISP for a fee", the ISP will of course forward that cost to an user, perhaps under extra fees no extra taxes needed, and people who actually use it will pay for it. BTW: this is how it was with DSL. Title II has this provision, and telco companies were required to lease their lines to ISPs at a "reasonable fee" which was up to FCC to decide (this was so they wouldn't charge ridiculous prices to kill their competitors). When Title II was reinstated, Wheeler actually excluded this provision, that's why nothing changed in terms of monopoly.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Carlton87 8y ago
It has worked fantastic for Chattanooga Tennessee. I love my EPB speed and price.

Good! By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs. Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I'm not nervous at all (disclaimer: I support public ownership of infrastructure over private/commercial ownership, stakeholders > shareholders). Local governments are governed by local citizens. I have no impact on Comcast or Time Warner's governance, as either a shareholder or customer. If I don't hold my local government accountable, that's my fault. My local community owning my roads, sidewalks, water, sewer (storm AND human waste), fire hydrant infrastructure, as well as fire and police services has worked out a-ok. And while I take issue with Florida politics, EVERYTHING is open records. If my local police are corrupt and obtaining data illegally from my muni ISP, I can involve my state's attorney or other legal oversight bodies. So! The overreaching issue isn't "this is about local internet infra", it's about local governance and self-reliance, which I find it difficult to argue against. Concentrated power corrupts, distributed power empowers. Obligatory Muni/Startup ISP links: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap https://muninetworks.org/communitymap | https://startyourownisp.com/ https://startyourownisp.com/
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I think OP’s fear is that the quality of local governments varies enormously. Your local government might be awesome. If so, congratulations! Not everyone lives in places with great oversight or has access to the legal means to keep their local government in check. A local government one state over might decide to ban search terms about contraceptives or keep a list of customers visiting LGBT sites for various persecution/blackmail purposes. I grew up in a backwards small town and I could totally see Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends. I’m always skeptical when politicians call for local control of something. As evil as Comcast is, their scale and need to operate in markets across all political/cultural spectrum makes me more confident that they won’t be messing with my browsing for petty reasons—they just want my wallet.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    While I can appreciate your concerns over data firewalls as it relates to local government (privacy advocate, annual EFF donation, yada yada), I would like to see a real world example of it occurring in the US before I'd consider changing my stance on locally owned internet infra vs Comcast, Time Warner, et el (I will even put my money where my mouth is, and come after such a municipality personally with an attorney, that's the sort of thing I find fun). If Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator is “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends, you can FOIA logs, emails, records, and come after the city for their transgression. You can vote local government representatives out of office. If Comcast does this, you have no recourse (and they would even be within their right to sell this data to the highest bidder).
49531 8y ago
They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >My point is the is a terrible baseline to be settling for No it's not. If government can do it better than the corporate sector, why worry about other baselines? >My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity. Except Comcast can already collect your data and sell it to local police or anyone else they want and you have no recourse. In the case of government there is at least a possibility you will be able to change a policy like that.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution? Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.
      - quasse 8y ago
        That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.
jancsika 8y ago
> I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Don't worry-- states like North Carolina have actually outlawed municipal broadband. > Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. There was municipal wireless in my town after the FCC overruled these state broadband bans, and before the the court ruled against the FCC. Symmetric speeds. Prices prorated according to what the actual speed was instead of the advertised speed. Pretty decent support. I witnessed these symmetric speeds directly. I also talked directly to the town manager about the program as it was being implemented. The plan was public and presented at a town board meeting. If there was notorious corruption going on it still hasn't affect speed, pricing, or support response for their service. Very curious to read your references about notorious corruption of local governments. > But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator. Which is exactly what my town has done to be in compliance with the court ruling allowing state-wide municipal broadban bans. Same speeds. Same prices. Same support. Possibly even some of the same people, but I'd have to look it up to make sure. What is the point you are trying to make? Edit: Keep in mind I wrote "pretty decent support" against a baseline of what I think support ought to be in a first world country. If I measured against Comcast I'd call it "support so amazing it may make you cry."
bogomipz 8y ago
>"Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police." And yet on the whole they are probably still far less corrupt and corrosive than monopolistic ISPs such Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner(or whatever their calling themselves these days.) I would argue they are more accessible and accountable as well.
- mattmcknight 8y ago
  Local governments are the ones that granted these companies the monopolies.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    This comment is disingenuous at best. It also displays an ignorance of the history of Telecom in the US. Cable companies were originally granted charters or franchise agreements in the 1970s and 1980s in the US. At that time cable companies were very much local and regional[1]. Also at that time television was delivered over the air and the monopoly was Ma Bell. Twenty years of consolidation happened at the national level. The victims of this hyper-consolidation were local. Furthermore these municipal franchise agreements given to cable companies/ISPs are generally non-exclusive which is why there are some areas that actually have a duopoly instead of just a monopoly. Municipalities will generally grant right away access to other interested parties which is why some places have both Verizon and Comcast or Comcast and Uverse etc. In fact the franchise fees collected by municipalities are a great source of revenue. I don't think there's a city in the US that isn't interested in collecting more money. NYC recently sued Verizon for failing to fulfill its obligations of providing full coverage(and an alternative to the incumbent) to residents of the city[2]. So no local governments are not to blame for the corrosive and corrupt culture of these ISPs. Certainly not in any appreciable manner. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the-week-a-long-history-of-cable-consolidation/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/ https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/
rmrfrmrf 8y ago
Privatization has been a disaster for US broadband. I'd love to know which local governments you're talking about, especially considering that all cases of corruption I've heard center around bribes from private capital to influence public policy. If anything, public internet infrastructure would reduce corruption given the number of local governments that grant statuatory monopolies to telcos.
OldFatCactus 8y ago
Sometimes reading comments on HN I feel like I stumbled into opposite-land. Private operators are far more "notoriously corrupt" than local government. At large scale, government representation starts to break down and the will of the majority can become distorted. But at a local level, this is absolutely the better alternative to private ownership of what should be considered a fundamental human right.
egypturnash 8y ago
At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.

seniorivn 8y ago

how is it any better then current olygopolly? The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Like in countries with a lot better internet, especially per dollar.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>how is it any better than current oligopoly? I mean I suppose you could ask the people that voted for it. >The solution should be raising competitiveness of the market. Networks like internet providership are notoriously hard to get competitive markets in. Even removing the regulatory barriers to entry there are still natural barriers to entry (high start up cost) and huge returns to scale. The natural state of this market is monopoly or oligopoly. But even beyond this, this is raising the competitiveness of the market. Internet has become so integrated into the fabric of modern life that many feel compelled to purchase it from the one or maybe two providers in their area. That lowers competitiveness. Demonstrating that municipalities have ways of 'opting out' should force Comcast and other providers to compete with the hypothetical 'public ISP' that citizens can always vote in.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Your comment was dead, but I vouched for it because I believe your second paragraph has value. I'd ask you consider removing the first part, which is unnecessarily snarky and doesn't address the point (how is this better than an oligopoly).
  - soundwave106 8y ago
    The first point is valid IMHO in a way. Like a lot of small towns in Massachusetts, Charlemont uses an open town meeting style of government, which means all residents have a vote in determining how the town is run. I would personally believe that if there are issues with quality of service or price or whatnot, this governance style allows for a much better opportunity of addressing issues. Versus being run by a very large monopoly that honestly may not care that much about the ongoing needs of a 1200 population town (read: small revenue source) in the future. A competitive environment would be better if possible, but failing that, I personally would take a municipal broadband system with a good degree of accountability built into the town governance over an oligopoly.

takeda 8y ago

The best way is to let the city provide the last mile infrastructure (the connection between nearest POP and your house), and then lease it to ISPs for a fee to maintain it. That way we once again can have competition like during the time DSL was popular (telcos were required to lease their wires, that's why there was so much choice of ISP for anyone who remembers early 2000)

quasse 8y ago
I hear this argument all the time, but I don't really see it. What value is the ISP providing here? They sell you service on physical infrastructure that you the taxpayer already paid for? Peering? It seems like it would be much more efficient for a municipality to just negotiate citywide peering agreements for everyone. Some people try to push the "value adds" line, like IPTV and phone service, but I don't see any reason those should be tied to your base internet service. Those arguments smell like the old cable company days, when everything had to be a "bundle".
- jgust 8y ago
  The last mile infrastructure isn't maintenance free and doesn't last forever, so it has to be paid for somehow be it taxes or commercially. Users (in the above situation) paying an ISP are essentially agreeing to a "maintenance contract".
  - takeda 8y ago
    That's why I said "lease to ISP for a fee", the ISP will of course forward that cost to an user, perhaps under extra fees no extra taxes needed, and people who actually use it will pay for it. BTW: this is how it was with DSL. Title II has this provision, and telco companies were required to lease their lines to ISPs at a "reasonable fee" which was up to FCC to decide (this was so they wouldn't charge ridiculous prices to kill their competitors). When Title II was reinstated, Wheeler actually excluded this provision, that's why nothing changed in terms of monopoly.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Carlton87 8y ago

It has worked fantastic for Chattanooga Tennessee. I love my EPB speed and price.