7 ms·

It's only baffling if you didn't bother to read the party platforms. The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadba

It's only baffling if you didn't bother to read the party platforms. The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly. At least in the current landscape where it's cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region. Also (emphasis mine), > Democrats will restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate net neutrality principles through blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, or other measures that create artificial scarcity and raise consumer prices for this vital service. Regardless of anyone's feelings broadband is not categorized as a utility. You may want it classified as such. Then ask yourself which party is likely to move in that direction. https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/202...

briandear 6y ago
> removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition Municipal broadband is the only way you’ll get competition? A “public option” seems to invite the very opposite of competition. Less regulation is how you increase competition — by allowing more new entrants into a market, you necessarily increase competition. Municipalities should own the wire, not the service flowing through the wire. Making capital expenditures less expensive would encourage more service providers.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  Municipal broadband has been stopped predominantly by long term exclusivity contracts that were locked in by local politicians in the past. How would another option decrease competition? In what world does that make sense? This isn't without precedent. In markets where there are municipal broadband or increased competition in general, companies like AT&T immediately up their speeds, cut their prices, cut their contract lengths, etc.
rayiner 6y ago
> The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly. At least in the current landscape where it's cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region. It's only "cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region" because of build-out requirements which are broadly supported by Democrats. I used to live in Baltimore, where Verizon wanted to come in and compete with Comcast. The city refused to let Verizon come in and compete. Then they put out an RFP that basically sought bids for ISPs to come in and provide universal service for free. Nobody took Baltimore up on the offer.
- nostromo 6y ago
  We see this so often now I'm starting to think it's an intentional strategy. Step 1: create conditions that prevent capitalism from solving a problem. Step 2: declare that capitalism has failed and call for government solutions.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I don't know about intentional, but I think it's unfortunately common. I think housing is the most egregious example. I live in a neighborhood filled with millennial parents who have their own detached homes and fairly modest jobs (mix of college/non-college). Meanwhile, my lawyer friends earning six figures feel like they can't afford homes or to start families. The difference is that they live in heavily regulated cities, and I live in an unincorporated part of a fairly rural county a few miles away from a small city. (But still in a blue state!) I'm not a hard-right libertarian--I think healthcare probably has some examples of market failures and maybe we need something like universal catastrophic insurance. But yeah, some of these problems, like housing costs, really are self-inflicted. I think the other approach is to shift blame or sweep under the rug problems with services that are entirely publicly run. If you have a problem with the schools or police in your blue city/state, 90% of your energy should be directed to your own state and local officials! (Instead of railing against Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump.)
    - 6y ago
WalterBright 6y ago
> The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal Since the cities are generally under solid Democratic control (there's not a single Republican in elective office in Seattle, for example), there's something else going on.
- minikites 6y ago
  State governments have a lot of power.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    More specifically, several state have laws banning municipalities from involving themselves in Internet connectivity.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Washington State is also controlled by the Democrats - the Executive and the Legislative.
- 0xcde4c3db 6y ago
  A bunch of state governments have either outright banned municipal ISPs or have introduced regulatory barriers to "protect" incumbents from "unfair" competition.
  - Anon1096 6y ago
    But this isn't happening in all states, yet you see the same consolidation of ISPs almost everywhere across the US.
nostromo 6y ago
> Democrats will restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate net neutrality principles This seems antithetical to their newfound views on how corporations like Twitter should be able to block political news on their platforms. I don't see how it's dramatically different for Twitter (or Facebook or Google) deciding to block the New York Post than it is for Comcast to do so. It's not obvious to me right now which is the party for a free and open internet.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  "Net Neutrality" has never been about moderation of content on websites. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. Both groups have monopolistic power. And, if anything, the ISPs are much less powerful and less important than the big tech companies. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.
      - nostromo 6y ago
ogre_codes 6y ago
I don't think this is a Dem versus Rep thing. Local corruption issues like this usually end up boiling down to following the money. Many municipal broadband projects end up being scrapped after lobbyists $$ get involved regardless of who is running the show.
- Spivak 6y ago
  It's less that lobbyists are involved but that "why go through the effort of setting up municipal broadband when we (AT&T/Spectrum) are more than happy to work with you and come to an agreement about serving your area." I'm not confident that municipal broadband will ever really take off in the US but I think local loop unbundling might have a chance since I'm sure companies are more than happy to unload all the expensive construction work to the local gov't.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Usually that is lobbying. Company X: "We'd like to meet with you to discuss how we can service your community better than municipal broadband. Our representative is going to be in Hawaii for the next 3 weeks and we'd be more than willing to fly you and your family out to meet with him. Of course it's inconvenient for you to travel so we'd provide for hotel and airfare."
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >It's less that lobbyists are involved but that "why go through the effort of setting up municipal broadband when we (AT&T/Spectrum) are more than happy to work with you and come to an agreement about serving your area." Actually, It's all about the lobbyists and industry groups, often with model legislation from ALEC[0][1][2] that have blocked municipal broadband in 22 states[3] (down from 25 a few years ago): "Over the past year, several promising developments have been made on the municipal broadband front. Two states were successful in repealing their municipal broadband bans, bringing our tally down to 22 states from 25 states identified in our 2019 report. Those law changes are significant, and may portend similar measures being considered across states in the coming years. This report is the latest in our annual series looking into the state of municipal broadband in America, and provides a state-by-state breakdown of the various roadblocks and restrictions used to prevent their establishment. This year, we’ve also compared access to low-price broadband in states that have no municipal restrictions versus those that do, and we’ve found that the former have lower internet prices on average. State legislatures around the country considered a wave of broadband-focused bills in 2019. That signals not only the importance of addressing broadband access gaps for state lawmakers, but also a growing acknowledgment among state and local governments that they have a larger role to play in ensuring all residents have access to the high-speed internet." >I'm not confident that municipal broadband will ever really take off in the US but I think local loop unbundling might have a chance since I'm sure companies are more than happy to unload all the expensive construction work to the local gov't. I'd tend to agree, as long as state and local government officials continue to be bought (and critically, stay bought) by industry groups. That's not to say that municipal broadband is the solution for every county/city/town. Rather, it's a solution that, under the right circumstances, can improve the livability, access to commercial opportunities, higher-paid residents and a raft of other positive outcomes. These are local and state issues that aren't well suited to regulation/lawmaking from the Federal government, and should be addressed in that fashion. A good place to start would be to reverse the anti-competitive laws in place in 22 states that limit the ability of local governments to implement municipal broadband. I'd say that if the big ISP's don't want it, it's probably a good thing to do. [0] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Communications_and_Technology_Task_Force https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Communications_an... [1] https://www.govtech.com/network/Lawmakers-Mount-Federal-Effort-to-Block-Bans-on-Municipal-Internet.html https://www.govtech.com/network/Lawmakers-Mount-Federal-Effo... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/anti-municipal-broadband-group-tries-to-silence-a-critic/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/anti-municipal-b... [3] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...
hhjinks 6y ago
> which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly Would it not be possible to make it illegal to provide internet access and to own the infrastructure at the same time? Where I'm from, there are two national phone networks, owned by the two biggest phone plan providers. They also rent out their network infrastructure to smaller companies, which effectively means they control the price of phone plans. As a result, phone plans are comparatively very expensive where I'm from. It seems like separating the infrastructure from the phone plan providing would make the market more competitive, leading to lower prices.

briandear 6y ago

> removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition Municipal broadband is the only way you’ll get competition? A “public option” seems to invite the very opposite of competition. Less regulation is how you increase competition — by allowing more new entrants into a market, you necessarily increase competition. Municipalities should own the wire, not the service flowing through the wire. Making capital expenditures less expensive would encourage more service providers.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
Municipal broadband has been stopped predominantly by long term exclusivity contracts that were locked in by local politicians in the past. How would another option decrease competition? In what world does that make sense? This isn't without precedent. In markets where there are municipal broadband or increased competition in general, companies like AT&T immediately up their speeds, cut their prices, cut their contract lengths, etc.

rayiner 6y ago

> The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal, which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly. At least in the current landscape where it's cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region. It's only "cost-prohibitive for a competitor to enter a region" because of build-out requirements which are broadly supported by Democrats. I used to live in Baltimore, where Verizon wanted to come in and compete with Comcast. The city refused to let Verizon come in and compete. Then they put out an RFP that basically sought bids for ISPs to come in and provide universal service for free. Nobody took Baltimore up on the offer.

nostromo 6y ago
We see this so often now I'm starting to think it's an intentional strategy. Step 1: create conditions that prevent capitalism from solving a problem. Step 2: declare that capitalism has failed and call for government solutions.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I don't know about intentional, but I think it's unfortunately common. I think housing is the most egregious example. I live in a neighborhood filled with millennial parents who have their own detached homes and fairly modest jobs (mix of college/non-college). Meanwhile, my lawyer friends earning six figures feel like they can't afford homes or to start families. The difference is that they live in heavily regulated cities, and I live in an unincorporated part of a fairly rural county a few miles away from a small city. (But still in a blue state!) I'm not a hard-right libertarian--I think healthcare probably has some examples of market failures and maybe we need something like universal catastrophic insurance. But yeah, some of these problems, like housing costs, really are self-inflicted. I think the other approach is to shift blame or sweep under the rug problems with services that are entirely publicly run. If you have a problem with the schools or police in your blue city/state, 90% of your energy should be directed to your own state and local officials! (Instead of railing against Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump.)
  - 6y ago

WalterBright 6y ago

> The Democratic party platform explicitly talks about removing barriers to municipal broadband as a goal Since the cities are generally under solid Democratic control (there's not a single Republican in elective office in Seattle, for example), there's something else going on.

minikites 6y ago
State governments have a lot of power.
- warkdarrior 6y ago
  More specifically, several state have laws banning municipalities from involving themselves in Internet connectivity.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Washington State is also controlled by the Democrats - the Executive and the Legislative.
0xcde4c3db 6y ago
A bunch of state governments have either outright banned municipal ISPs or have introduced regulatory barriers to "protect" incumbents from "unfair" competition.
- Anon1096 6y ago
  But this isn't happening in all states, yet you see the same consolidation of ISPs almost everywhere across the US.

nostromo 6y ago

> Democrats will restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) clear authority to take strong enforcement action against broadband providers who violate net neutrality principles This seems antithetical to their newfound views on how corporations like Twitter should be able to block political news on their platforms. I don't see how it's dramatically different for Twitter (or Facebook or Google) deciding to block the New York Post than it is for Comcast to do so. It's not obvious to me right now which is the party for a free and open internet.

ceejayoz 6y ago
"Net Neutrality" has never been about moderation of content on websites. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. Both groups have monopolistic power. And, if anything, the ISPs are much less powerful and less important than the big tech companies. If anything they should be held to a higher standard.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > Your comment is content-free and breaks the HN guideline to assume good faith. Nah. > I’d like to hear why you think it is terrible when Comcast bans a website but fine when Google/Facebook/Twitter do it. In many areas of the country, there is only one ISP available. In my area, there's two, but one only offers very slow DSL; there is a de facto monopoly on meaningful internet service. This is not the case for social media. > Both groups have monopolistic power. That you had to say "Google/Facebook/Twitter" and not just one of them clearly indicates that they do not.
    - nostromo 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago

I don't think this is a Dem versus Rep thing. Local corruption issues like this usually end up boiling down to following the money. Many municipal broadband projects end up being scrapped after lobbyists $$ get involved regardless of who is running the show.

Spivak 6y ago
It's less that lobbyists are involved but that "why go through the effort of setting up municipal broadband when we (AT&T/Spectrum) are more than happy to work with you and come to an agreement about serving your area." I'm not confident that municipal broadband will ever really take off in the US but I think local loop unbundling might have a chance since I'm sure companies are more than happy to unload all the expensive construction work to the local gov't.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Usually that is lobbying. Company X: "We'd like to meet with you to discuss how we can service your community better than municipal broadband. Our representative is going to be in Hawaii for the next 3 weeks and we'd be more than willing to fly you and your family out to meet with him. Of course it's inconvenient for you to travel so we'd provide for hotel and airfare."
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >It's less that lobbyists are involved but that "why go through the effort of setting up municipal broadband when we (AT&T/Spectrum) are more than happy to work with you and come to an agreement about serving your area." Actually, It's all about the lobbyists and industry groups, often with model legislation from ALEC[0][1][2] that have blocked municipal broadband in 22 states[3] (down from 25 a few years ago): "Over the past year, several promising developments have been made on the municipal broadband front. Two states were successful in repealing their municipal broadband bans, bringing our tally down to 22 states from 25 states identified in our 2019 report. Those law changes are significant, and may portend similar measures being considered across states in the coming years. This report is the latest in our annual series looking into the state of municipal broadband in America, and provides a state-by-state breakdown of the various roadblocks and restrictions used to prevent their establishment. This year, we’ve also compared access to low-price broadband in states that have no municipal restrictions versus those that do, and we’ve found that the former have lower internet prices on average. State legislatures around the country considered a wave of broadband-focused bills in 2019. That signals not only the importance of addressing broadband access gaps for state lawmakers, but also a growing acknowledgment among state and local governments that they have a larger role to play in ensuring all residents have access to the high-speed internet." >I'm not confident that municipal broadband will ever really take off in the US but I think local loop unbundling might have a chance since I'm sure companies are more than happy to unload all the expensive construction work to the local gov't. I'd tend to agree, as long as state and local government officials continue to be bought (and critically, stay bought) by industry groups. That's not to say that municipal broadband is the solution for every county/city/town. Rather, it's a solution that, under the right circumstances, can improve the livability, access to commercial opportunities, higher-paid residents and a raft of other positive outcomes. These are local and state issues that aren't well suited to regulation/lawmaking from the Federal government, and should be addressed in that fashion. A good place to start would be to reverse the anti-competitive laws in place in 22 states that limit the ability of local governments to implement municipal broadband. I'd say that if the big ISP's don't want it, it's probably a good thing to do. [0] https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Communications_and_Technology_Task_Force https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_Communications_an... [1] https://www.govtech.com/network/Lawmakers-Mount-Federal-Effort-to-Block-Bans-on-Municipal-Internet.html https://www.govtech.com/network/Lawmakers-Mount-Federal-Effo... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/anti-municipal-broadband-group-tries-to-silence-a-critic/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/anti-municipal-b... [3] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc...

hhjinks 6y ago

> which is the only way you are going to get competition where ISPs have a monopoly Would it not be possible to make it illegal to provide internet access and to own the infrastructure at the same time? Where I'm from, there are two national phone networks, owned by the two biggest phone plan providers. They also rent out their network infrastructure to smaller companies, which effectively means they control the price of phone plans. As a result, phone plans are comparatively very expensive where I'm from. It seems like separating the infrastructure from the phone plan providing would make the market more competitive, leading to lower prices.