5 ms·

Be sure to read to the end and see the update at the bottom where he mentions that he has received grants from Time Warner Cable (the ISP here in NC). I agree

Be sure to read to the end and see the update at the bottom where he mentions that he has received grants from Time Warner Cable (the ISP here in NC). I agree with some of the statements, we shouldn't have municipal fiber networks where it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I've had stellar experience with locally owned and operated broadband networks in other states, and I don't think we need a bill to make that illegal. A few bad examples doesn't mean we need a law to prohibit it in the future.

jerf 16y ago
"I don't think we need a bill to make that illegal." It doesn't sound like this makes it illegal. It sounds like it makes it illegal for municipalities to engage in anticompetitive practices, or what we'd call anticompetitive practices if they weren't a government. That's not the same thing. I have no opinion on the bill itself. I found the article thought-provoking, but being libertarian I'm still inclined to say that a municipality shouldn't be running a business like that. Not even because it'll give bad service to the customers necessarily, but also because a municipality just shouldn't have to deal with a case where it builds out millions of dollars of infrastructure and then can't recoup the costs because its business analysis was crappy. Society has solid, tested mechanisms for dealing with that when companies go wrong and have to go under, it's a lot harder for a municipality. They shouldn't be engaging in that sort of risky behavior, even as I'm not sure I want to ban it.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Given that this sort of infrastructure tends to be a natural monopoly or close to one, it seems like a perfect case for either the government to build it, or some sort of quasi-governmental regulated utility, the same way power lines are operated. If you consider it an actual utility, the government is implicitly going to be guaranteeing it one way or another, because people aren't going to be willing to put up with a company going bankrupt resulting in service just being discontinued. Even in states where energy production is free-market/deregulated, with consumers choosing which power generators to buy from at market rates, the actual lines over which the power flows are either government-owned or quasi-governmental, because competition for provision of power lines doesn't work particularly well. Regardless of the pros/cons though, municipal experimentation in this area seems the least problematic to me. If the federal government or even a state is doing something, it's hard to escape and covers a large area. If a town is doing something, and people don't like it, it's much easier to just avoid that town. If some strategies clearly end up working much better than others, we'll be able to see which towns succeed in their strategies and which fail. Municipalities are also somewhat more constrained in their ability to waste unlimited taxpayer money, due to a mixture of fewer taxes they're allowed to levy, and the fact that people can just move to another town if things get too onerous.
  - jerf 16y ago
    Building power lines isn't the same level of risk. What's the probability a given house wants power? Basically 100%. Municipalities have lost their metaphorical shirts on fibre rollouts before. If it was similar in all relevant ways you wouldn't have such different outcomes. That's a sign your argument isn't capturing something about reality. The reason why I'm not in a hurry to ban it is that I'm actually not upset to see people experience the consequences of their actions. It inevitably happens anyhow and trying to legislate it away has the usual problems that arise when you try to legislate an impossibility. I suppose I shouldn't have used the dreaded l-word; we say nearly the same thing but you wouldn't know it from the karma outcome.
    - IgorPartola 16y ago
      I was under the impression that telephone lines were considered utility infrastructure and not everyone wants a land line (or ever did).
- retroafroman 16y ago
  I agree that we probably shouldn't have communities running anticompetitive businesses, but as you say, I don't want to ban it. Also, if some community does decide run their own network, does this bill mean they can't use government grants to set it up and get it started before becoming profitable? That may effectually make getting these sort of community broadband plans impossible to start in the future.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  Municipalities, by definition, engage in anticompetitive practices. Electricity, garbage, sewer, water. For utilities, the municipality is the arbiter of who gets to provide them. Often it does them itself. There's no reason Internet should be any different. Furthermore, there are a lot of reasons Internet should be exactly the same.
  - iwwr 16y ago
    There's one thing to be offering these services but another thing to ban competition in the same areas. Even worse, the monopoly is justified in the name of 'natural monopoly', yet there is still the need to legislate this monopoly (as if nature needed any encouragement). Furthermore, as soon as you get a local monopoly on internet access, you are only one city council decision away from local censorship. After all, he who pays gets to call the shots ("Porn on the tax-paid internet? No way! Think of the children.")
    - jellicle 16y ago
      > There's one thing to be offering these services but another thing to ban competition in the same areas. You are aware that this article is about a bill, written by Time-Warner, to ban municipalities from competing with them, right?
- leot 16y ago
  Why can't a group of people decide what they want for themselves democratically? Why not let municipalities be free to provide internet as a utility (like roads, electricity, etc.)? After all, this doesn't mean they all have to do so.

jerf 16y ago

"I don't think we need a bill to make that illegal." It doesn't sound like this makes it illegal. It sounds like it makes it illegal for municipalities to engage in anticompetitive practices, or what we'd call anticompetitive practices if they weren't a government. That's not the same thing. I have no opinion on the bill itself. I found the article thought-provoking, but being libertarian I'm still inclined to say that a municipality shouldn't be running a business like that. Not even because it'll give bad service to the customers necessarily, but also because a municipality just shouldn't have to deal with a case where it builds out millions of dollars of infrastructure and then can't recoup the costs because its business analysis was crappy. Society has solid, tested mechanisms for dealing with that when companies go wrong and have to go under, it's a lot harder for a municipality. They shouldn't be engaging in that sort of risky behavior, even as I'm not sure I want to ban it.

_delirium 16y ago
Given that this sort of infrastructure tends to be a natural monopoly or close to one, it seems like a perfect case for either the government to build it, or some sort of quasi-governmental regulated utility, the same way power lines are operated. If you consider it an actual utility, the government is implicitly going to be guaranteeing it one way or another, because people aren't going to be willing to put up with a company going bankrupt resulting in service just being discontinued. Even in states where energy production is free-market/deregulated, with consumers choosing which power generators to buy from at market rates, the actual lines over which the power flows are either government-owned or quasi-governmental, because competition for provision of power lines doesn't work particularly well. Regardless of the pros/cons though, municipal experimentation in this area seems the least problematic to me. If the federal government or even a state is doing something, it's hard to escape and covers a large area. If a town is doing something, and people don't like it, it's much easier to just avoid that town. If some strategies clearly end up working much better than others, we'll be able to see which towns succeed in their strategies and which fail. Municipalities are also somewhat more constrained in their ability to waste unlimited taxpayer money, due to a mixture of fewer taxes they're allowed to levy, and the fact that people can just move to another town if things get too onerous.
- jerf 16y ago
  Building power lines isn't the same level of risk. What's the probability a given house wants power? Basically 100%. Municipalities have lost their metaphorical shirts on fibre rollouts before. If it was similar in all relevant ways you wouldn't have such different outcomes. That's a sign your argument isn't capturing something about reality. The reason why I'm not in a hurry to ban it is that I'm actually not upset to see people experience the consequences of their actions. It inevitably happens anyhow and trying to legislate it away has the usual problems that arise when you try to legislate an impossibility. I suppose I shouldn't have used the dreaded l-word; we say nearly the same thing but you wouldn't know it from the karma outcome.
  - IgorPartola 16y ago
    I was under the impression that telephone lines were considered utility infrastructure and not everyone wants a land line (or ever did).
retroafroman 16y ago
I agree that we probably shouldn't have communities running anticompetitive businesses, but as you say, I don't want to ban it. Also, if some community does decide run their own network, does this bill mean they can't use government grants to set it up and get it started before becoming profitable? That may effectually make getting these sort of community broadband plans impossible to start in the future.
lukeschlather 16y ago
Municipalities, by definition, engage in anticompetitive practices. Electricity, garbage, sewer, water. For utilities, the municipality is the arbiter of who gets to provide them. Often it does them itself. There's no reason Internet should be any different. Furthermore, there are a lot of reasons Internet should be exactly the same.
- iwwr 16y ago
  There's one thing to be offering these services but another thing to ban competition in the same areas. Even worse, the monopoly is justified in the name of 'natural monopoly', yet there is still the need to legislate this monopoly (as if nature needed any encouragement). Furthermore, as soon as you get a local monopoly on internet access, you are only one city council decision away from local censorship. After all, he who pays gets to call the shots ("Porn on the tax-paid internet? No way! Think of the children.")
  - jellicle 16y ago
    > There's one thing to be offering these services but another thing to ban competition in the same areas. You are aware that this article is about a bill, written by Time-Warner, to ban municipalities from competing with them, right?
leot 16y ago
Why can't a group of people decide what they want for themselves democratically? Why not let municipalities be free to provide internet as a utility (like roads, electricity, etc.)? After all, this doesn't mean they all have to do so.