3 ms·
Well, yes, but actually not quite... It's an infrastructure game. If I need to build new fiber/cable/whatever to X homes to get N% * X new subscribers, then t
by jmole 6y ago
Well, yes, but actually not quite...
It's an infrastructure game.
If I need to build new fiber/cable/whatever to X homes to get N% * X new subscribers, then those costs & profits have to amortize out to at least 0. And most of the time they dont.
We tried to fix this for electric power by separating transmission from distribution ("deregulating") and allowing consumers to have a choice.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not this actually lowered prices for consumers.
For internet services, bandwidth is essentially free for providers (for typical usage), so the main costs involved are infrastructure upkeep & customer support. Cable TV distribution & phone/security services typically subsidize these costs too.
Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county.
Maybe there's a different approach. The federal government wants to prevent Huawei from deploying telecom equipment in the US. Maybe we should look at a top-down approach to internet infrastructure funding, the same way we do with highways and schools. If they want to set the rules, they should put up the money to do so. But then again, look at the poor state of our bridges and tunnels...
What's abundantly clear is that telecommunications services are an essential piece of infrastructure for modern commerce. COVID eliminated any doubt whatsoever about this fact. So how do we make sure it's funded well, but also run efficiently? It's not a trivial question by any means.
- dbt00 6y ago> Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Where I live, my electric, water, sewer and gas services are directly run by the city. Trash and recycling are billed through the city but operated by a vendor. They're great. I would love to have internet service through them, and the fact that this town above all hasn't managed to do that is ridiculous.
- pdonis 6y ago> Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. If "unique set of circumstances" means "not getting snowed under by lawsuits from major ISPs", then yes, this is true. But that's the government's fault for letting ISPs get away with such tactics. > Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Consider how many would be if the government would stop favoring major ISPs.
- jmole 6y agoso your trash and recycling and water would be 100% municipal if the government didn't favor major ISPs? I suggest you dig a little deeper and find out where these services actually come from in your community.
- pwinnski 6y agoWith whom my city subcontracts is irrelevant to me. I pay my city, and get the service I want. The fact that my city opens up the contract every few years to new providers is irrelevant to me. My relationship is with my city, and I wish the same could be true for my internet service.