5 ms·

Why shouldn't a city be able to build out a network, if the citizens vote to do so?

by marze 16y ago

OstiaAntica 16y ago
Because these same cities have rigged the fiber business through cable franchise rules that essentially award local monopolies. That's why there's not enough competition currently.
- JamieEi 16y ago
  Can you point to a US city that does have a competitive broadband market? Surely they can't all have rigged the market as you suggest.
  - OstiaAntica 16y ago
    Almost without exception, local governments are corrupt on this matter. Federal and state law create the conditions for franchise quasi-monopolies, and as a result it is pay-to-play at the local level. The system used to be explicit monopolies (according to federal law) but there's a little more room for competition today, but the legacy monopoly system is in place. There are all sorts of kickbacks, taxes, free government channels, etc. you have to pay to get a cable franchise-- Verizon has spent billions on lawyers and "consultants" just to get local franchises for fios, let alone the cost of actually getting permits to lay fiber, which is a whole other local bureaucratic nightmare. There has been some movement at the state level to create state-wide cable franchises, allowing business to ignore locals. There's also the idea of a national franchise. Really it is insane to me that we require this business to be licensed at all. Newspapers don't need licenses, why should internet providers? You should have to get permits to lay cable, but not to be a provider. Interestingly, while Congress allows the cable operators to run wild over local communities, there is a strong federal preemption for satellite tv-- the locals have no say in it, and federal law even creates a federal right to have a dish on any residence (a lot of local governments tried to zone dishes out of existence to protect their cable buddies).
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Almost without exception? That's a bold claim. How many local governments have you served in or had any interaction with while they were negotiating their cable operating agreement? Just curious. I served in one. Negotiated two of these contracts, a re-up with Comcast and a new one with Verizon for FiOS. We weren't corrupt. And I publicly supported the idea of a state wide cable franchise, right up until the moment that the telco lobbyists started crapping it up with a bunch of unacceptable terms (the bill eventually died). Local officials generally don't get into it for the money, and there's no easy way for a national telco to give a local official a backhander without it being straight-up bribery. It's not a "favors" thing like with towing contracts or something like that.
jemka 16y ago
Logic rarely enters into these types of decisions. The short answer is, citizens don't have good enough lobbyists.
- maxxxxx 16y ago
  http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpo...
ja30278 16y ago
* having tax-subsidized government entities competing with private business doesn't exactly lead to a vibrant competitive marketplace * I'd rather not have any facet of government in an easy position to monitor my internet traffic.
- raganwald 16y ago
  By that argument, why is the government in the security business competing with the private sector to protect citizens against crime? Up here in Socialist Canada, in addition to keeping its citizens healthy, the government actually provides the water I drink in direct competition with the private sector who sell water in nice little plastic bottles. Yum :-) Also, the expression "tax-subsidized" is not correct. Funding an activity with taxes is one thing. Subsidizing an activity with taxes is something else, such as a program to give privately held corporations massive tax breaks in exchange for locating their businesses in a particular state or county. Which companies do, and somehow I never hear conservative pundits complain about the anti-competitive tax subsidizing going on.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    By that argument, why is the government in the security business competing with the private sector to protect citizens against crime? Well, that's the argument for anarchy, isn't it? (I am not being sarcastic). But, as you know, "why is the government doing X" is a question which doesn't have much or anything to do with "ought we have the government do X".
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Yeah, the point of the security/anarchy argument is that you can't just argue blindly from a position of "less government" as if it were an end rather than a means, because if that's your only concern, you're free to move to Somalia and experience the free market first hand. It turns out that many subjects require more knowledge and sophistication than a 2-word bumper sticker if you want to set smart policy.

Why shouldn't a city be able to build out a network, if the citizens vote to do so?

by marze 16y ago

Why shouldn't a city be able to build out a network, if the citizens vote to do so?

Because these same cities have rigged the fiber business through cable franchise rules that essentially award local monopolies. That's why there's not enough competition currently.

JamieEi 16y ago
Can you point to a US city that does have a competitive broadband market? Surely they can't all have rigged the market as you suggest.
- OstiaAntica 16y ago
  Almost without exception, local governments are corrupt on this matter. Federal and state law create the conditions for franchise quasi-monopolies, and as a result it is pay-to-play at the local level. The system used to be explicit monopolies (according to federal law) but there's a little more room for competition today, but the legacy monopoly system is in place. There are all sorts of kickbacks, taxes, free government channels, etc. you have to pay to get a cable franchise-- Verizon has spent billions on lawyers and "consultants" just to get local franchises for fios, let alone the cost of actually getting permits to lay fiber, which is a whole other local bureaucratic nightmare. There has been some movement at the state level to create state-wide cable franchises, allowing business to ignore locals. There's also the idea of a national franchise. Really it is insane to me that we require this business to be licensed at all. Newspapers don't need licenses, why should internet providers? You should have to get permits to lay cable, but not to be a provider. Interestingly, while Congress allows the cable operators to run wild over local communities, there is a strong federal preemption for satellite tv-- the locals have no say in it, and federal law even creates a federal right to have a dish on any residence (a lot of local governments tried to zone dishes out of existence to protect their cable buddies).
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Almost without exception? That's a bold claim. How many local governments have you served in or had any interaction with while they were negotiating their cable operating agreement? Just curious. I served in one. Negotiated two of these contracts, a re-up with Comcast and a new one with Verizon for FiOS. We weren't corrupt. And I publicly supported the idea of a state wide cable franchise, right up until the moment that the telco lobbyists started crapping it up with a bunch of unacceptable terms (the bill eventually died). Local officials generally don't get into it for the money, and there's no easy way for a national telco to give a local official a backhander without it being straight-up bribery. It's not a "favors" thing like with towing contracts or something like that.

jemka 16y ago

Logic rarely enters into these types of decisions. The short answer is, citizens don't have good enough lobbyists.

maxxxxx 16y ago
http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpo...

ja30278 16y ago

* having tax-subsidized government entities competing with private business doesn't exactly lead to a vibrant competitive marketplace * I'd rather not have any facet of government in an easy position to monitor my internet traffic.

raganwald 16y ago
By that argument, why is the government in the security business competing with the private sector to protect citizens against crime? Up here in Socialist Canada, in addition to keeping its citizens healthy, the government actually provides the water I drink in direct competition with the private sector who sell water in nice little plastic bottles. Yum :-) Also, the expression "tax-subsidized" is not correct. Funding an activity with taxes is one thing. Subsidizing an activity with taxes is something else, such as a program to give privately held corporations massive tax breaks in exchange for locating their businesses in a particular state or county. Which companies do, and somehow I never hear conservative pundits complain about the anti-competitive tax subsidizing going on.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  By that argument, why is the government in the security business competing with the private sector to protect citizens against crime? Well, that's the argument for anarchy, isn't it? (I am not being sarcastic). But, as you know, "why is the government doing X" is a question which doesn't have much or anything to do with "ought we have the government do X".
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Yeah, the point of the security/anarchy argument is that you can't just argue blindly from a position of "less government" as if it were an end rather than a means, because if that's your only concern, you're free to move to Somalia and experience the free market first hand. It turns out that many subjects require more knowledge and sophistication than a 2-word bumper sticker if you want to set smart policy.