5 ms·

So much for the free market. It will be interesting to see what StarLink does to broadband over time.

• theluketaylor 6y ago
  The most charitable interpretation for support of municipal broadband bans is that municipalities have a natural monopoly over rights of way and telecom installation that private companies can't compete against. Not totally unfair, but the better protection is requiring municipalities lease access to last mile lines at fair rates rather than banning them from participating in the laying of lines. I also highly doubt anyone supporting this bill is actually concerned about monopolies, since if they were they'd also be banning the non-competition between telecom companies that has municipalities considering their own broadband in the first place.
  • duxup 6y ago
    > is actually concerned about monopolies Well in a way they are, they're almost certainly sponsored in some way by them.
• unethical_ban 6y ago
  Yes, so much for it. It should not be worshipped at the expense of the societal good. Should private companies have some access to rights-of-way? Perhaps. Should governments be prevented by federal law from providing public services through rights of way? Absolutely not. Next, let's ban libraries, public pools and public schooling, because those are all lost opportunities for capitalists to make money.
  • virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
    username checks out (and yes, well said)
• btilly 6y ago
  The answer is not much. Satellites give you an amount of bandwidth per geographic area based on how many satellites are overhead at any time, and how good they are. If the population density is low, then that's a lot per customer. If the population density is high, then it is very little per person. The result is that satellites are a wonderful solution for getting internet to rural areas, and are not a solution for towns.