4 ms·

I would love to hear a rational explanation of this from someone who supports the bill.

politician 15y ago
Wisconsin is suffering from the political equivalent of a priority inversion bug -- there is a Republican majority in their legislature and a Republican governor, but enough of their house members are embroiled in a massive recall campaign that the balance of power is practically guaranteed to switch to the Democratic party come votin' time. Therefore, the legislature is attempting to cram vast amounts of right-wing conservative legislation through before their time's up. It's like QE2, but for legislation. The point is, there's nothing rational about anything going on there right now.
alexqgb 15y ago
The argument in favor tends to be pro-free-market (ridiculous, I know, but try not to laugh). The theory is that an otherwise healthy and competitive market with low prices and great service will be ruined if a government gets involved as a player. The twin threats of not needing to make profits and being able to write rules in their favor make municipal ISPs 'impossible' to compete with fairly or effectively. In reality, this makes as much sense as GM lobbying to outlaw subways. Or (ridiculously expensive and wildly over-subscribed private schools) wanting to ban public education. More importantly, it ignores the fact that nothing remotely commensurate with actual free-market discipline applies to the monopolies and duopolies that actually define the telecom landscape. (In this regard, there may be more truth to the "we can't compete" claim than these operators would care to admit). There's another argument against municipal internet, but it's one that opponents REALLY don't want to state. Specifically, they're horrified by the very IDEA that data could be treated like a basic utility on par with gas, water, electricity, and trash service. That frames their business in the dreaded 'dumb pipe' terms that they are hell-bent on resisting at all costs. After all, you buy water and electricity by the unit. What you do with those units is your business, and has no influence on the price. That's pretty much the opposite of what "content focused" ISP's regard as their ideal operating environment.
- jasongullickson 15y ago
  There's another argument against municipal internet, but it's one that opponents REALLY don't want to state. Specifically, they're horrified by the very IDEA that data could be treated like a basic utility on par with gas, water, electricity, and trash service. That frames their business in the dreaded 'dumb pipe' terms that they are hell-bent on resisting at all costs. After all, you buy water and electricity by the unit. What you do with those units is your business, and has no influence on the price. That's pretty much the opposite of what "content focused" ISP's regard as their ideal operating environment. This seems like sufficient motivation. If the government successfully bans itself from providing municipal Internet access, does that then mean they could not (without additional legislative changes) stop a private company from offering city or state-wide free wireless access?
- jordanb 15y ago
  > The twin threats of not needing to make profits and being able to write rules in their favor make municipal ISPs 'impossible' to compete with fairly or effectively. Ironically, the very fact that this bill is succeeding is proof that the municipal providers do not have the ability to write the rules in their favor, but the "private" telco monopolies very much do.

Wisconsin is suffering from the political equivalent of a priority inversion bug -- there is a Republican majority in their legislature and a Republican governor, but enough of their house members are embroiled in a massive recall campaign that the balance of power is practically guaranteed to switch to the Democratic party come votin' time. Therefore, the legislature is attempting to cram vast amounts of right-wing conservative legislation through before their time's up. It's like QE2, but for legislation. The point is, there's nothing rational about anything going on there right now.

alexqgb 15y ago

The argument in favor tends to be pro-free-market (ridiculous, I know, but try not to laugh). The theory is that an otherwise healthy and competitive market with low prices and great service will be ruined if a government gets involved as a player. The twin threats of not needing to make profits and being able to write rules in their favor make municipal ISPs 'impossible' to compete with fairly or effectively. In reality, this makes as much sense as GM lobbying to outlaw subways. Or (ridiculously expensive and wildly over-subscribed private schools) wanting to ban public education. More importantly, it ignores the fact that nothing remotely commensurate with actual free-market discipline applies to the monopolies and duopolies that actually define the telecom landscape. (In this regard, there may be more truth to the "we can't compete" claim than these operators would care to admit). There's another argument against municipal internet, but it's one that opponents REALLY don't want to state. Specifically, they're horrified by the very IDEA that data could be treated like a basic utility on par with gas, water, electricity, and trash service. That frames their business in the dreaded 'dumb pipe' terms that they are hell-bent on resisting at all costs. After all, you buy water and electricity by the unit. What you do with those units is your business, and has no influence on the price. That's pretty much the opposite of what "content focused" ISP's regard as their ideal operating environment.

jasongullickson 15y ago
There's another argument against municipal internet, but it's one that opponents REALLY don't want to state. Specifically, they're horrified by the very IDEA that data could be treated like a basic utility on par with gas, water, electricity, and trash service. That frames their business in the dreaded 'dumb pipe' terms that they are hell-bent on resisting at all costs. After all, you buy water and electricity by the unit. What you do with those units is your business, and has no influence on the price. That's pretty much the opposite of what "content focused" ISP's regard as their ideal operating environment. This seems like sufficient motivation. If the government successfully bans itself from providing municipal Internet access, does that then mean they could not (without additional legislative changes) stop a private company from offering city or state-wide free wireless access?
jordanb 15y ago
> The twin threats of not needing to make profits and being able to write rules in their favor make municipal ISPs 'impossible' to compete with fairly or effectively. Ironically, the very fact that this bill is succeeding is proof that the municipal providers do not have the ability to write the rules in their favor, but the "private" telco monopolies very much do.