4 ms·

>Still, many people who have access to and use municipal broadband think rather highly of the service. In fact, in a 2019 report conducted by PCMag, the authors

>Still, many people who have access to and use municipal broadband think rather highly of the service. In fact, in a 2019 report conducted by PCMag, the authors of the study found that many municipal broadband providers offer some of the fastest internet speeds in the country. Maybe we can finally start chipping away at 40+ years of conservative propaganda about how useless and ineffective government is. Government projects and services are not evil, wasteful, or inferior, that's propaganda talking.

giantg2 5y ago
"Government projects and services are not evil, wasteful, or inferior, that's propaganda talking." They can be. There just needs to be the proper balance of oversight. The lower down the government chain the projects are run, the more control the people have over them. For example, I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet, but municipal or even county internet would be easier to deal with since my voice would represent a larger share of the customers/votes and has a higher likelihood of being addressed. At the higher levels, one locality might have an issue but only represent 1% of the customers/vote, so you could end up with that minority being neglected.
- minikites 5y ago
  >I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet How is Comcast or any other large ISP meaningfully different from this? At least you get a vote at the federal level, Comcast has zero reason to listen to you.
  - prophesi 5y ago
    I think that's the point. City > State > Federal > Telcom Monopolies in terms of your voice being heard.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I agree that City > State > Comcast. I think Comcast > Federal, though, in terms of service level and individual voice. (With Comcast, my voice is 20dB under the noise floor. With the feds, it’s 10dB lower than that.) Plus, if you get something wrong federally, it’s enormously difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and unlikely to get fixed. If one or a few states get something wrong, you have as easier time showing comparables and proving that a better way is possible.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Speaking of getting things wrong... if Comcast runs some half baked DB query to flag problem customers and it flags a false positive on you you're just gonna get your service turned off. When the states and feds make those mistakes there's a body count or at the very least lives ruined. Comcast, or other BigCo will generally do the right thing to make you go away, after all, every dollar spent on fighting people is a dollar that could be profit. When government does wrong and gets called on it digs in its heels much, much harder.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Telecom can vary in it's place. I would put a local company around the city level because they are often invested in their communities. Really, I would say that goes for companies or government - the bigger they get, the more removed they are from what is going on in the customer/voter lives.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    They aren't that much different in service quality and I don't like them either. You actually can get a vote at Concast if you buy stock, which can be more than what a single vote is worth at the federal level. The real difference is in how you can pressure them. Your single vote in the government covers a multitude of topics, in what is essentially a two choice system. You may need to vote contrary to your beliefs on one topic to protect your rights on another topic. In dealing with a single topic related to a company, you can concentrate your efforts through your voting stock, boycotts, etc. So, when a politician hears a minority complain about an issue, they have zero incentive to listen to you because they lose nothing due to the discrete nature of measuring sucess (minority votes no longer matter once you secure the majority to win). At least companies care about losing revenue because it's measured continuously. Look at how they fight to attract and retain customers through deals, competing with other companies, and even negative stuff like fighting municipal internet. The better choices are local companies and municipalities. This is because a person's voice is worth more and the concerns amongst the customers/voters tend to be more homogeneous than at higher levels.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Any huge, old, unaccountable organization is going to suck, government or corporation. The key is being accountable to the end user. Local governments with rational and active voters and corporations with energetic competitors usually do very well.
  - atotic 5y ago
    Anecdote: I live in Palo Alto, and my entire neighborhood is on Comcast. In January, service got to be really bad, 1Mbs upload during the day. Comcast came out, said our local node was saturated at 92%, and that they have an upgrade planned a year from now, and that we can suck it till then. This is Palo Alto, the land of very vocal neighbors. They started a campaign where we all sent a complaint to the FCC. Within a week, we were personally contacted by a Comcast rep, techs came out, and suddenly I had 30Mbs up. And Comcast reps have been calling, emailing every week to make sure we are ok. Not sure what happened, the node did not get upgraded, but they fixed something. And another data point on how sad the situation is in the US: my brother lives in Belgrade, Serbia, in one of those concrete high-rises from the 70s. He got fiber this year from a private company, and his speeds beat mine, and it is dirt cheap. There is no logical explanation for the fact that his internet speeds beat mine, and I am a mile away from Google HQ.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  What doesn't help is that thanks to 40 years privatization there is now very little in-house expertise left. Any kind of services are now provided by a local contractor and there is no one competent to supervise them. It'll be hard to get rid of the entrenched corruption and waste. For example, I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet The government telco was glorious. They would provide service anywhere for a two-digit hookup fee and the target time for service interruption was 48 hours, and they kept to that.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Is that the US and how long ago was that 2 digit fee? "...there is now very little in-house expertise left." I don't really see this being an issue. If they are taking market share from the private sector, then it's likely that private companies will make cuts to preserve profits and those people can be hired by the government. If not having in-house expertise was really a problem then no companies would ever be able to expand. Instead they hire externally and hire consultants.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      Is that the US and how long ago was that 2 digit fee Pre-privatization German telecom charged 40 marks for connection, that included laying cable to the demarcation point. For the lack of in-house expertise to supervise private parties, look no further than Boeing. They relied on self-certification, and we ended up with the 737-MAX.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "For the lack of in-house expertise to supervise private parties, look no further than Boeing. They relied on self-certification, and we ended up with the 737-MAX." That would require a major shift in mindset, policy, and even law for the US. Even stuff like drugs and medical devices are tested by third parties, not the government itself.
- martin8412 5y ago
  That does make sense though. At city level people are way more likely to be interested, because they can actually make a difference, and it will help the community they live in

giantg2 5y ago

"Government projects and services are not evil, wasteful, or inferior, that's propaganda talking." They can be. There just needs to be the proper balance of oversight. The lower down the government chain the projects are run, the more control the people have over them. For example, I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet, but municipal or even county internet would be easier to deal with since my voice would represent a larger share of the customers/votes and has a higher likelihood of being addressed. At the higher levels, one locality might have an issue but only represent 1% of the customers/vote, so you could end up with that minority being neglected.

minikites 5y ago
>I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet How is Comcast or any other large ISP meaningfully different from this? At least you get a vote at the federal level, Comcast has zero reason to listen to you.
- prophesi 5y ago
  I think that's the point. City > State > Federal > Telcom Monopolies in terms of your voice being heard.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I agree that City > State > Comcast. I think Comcast > Federal, though, in terms of service level and individual voice. (With Comcast, my voice is 20dB under the noise floor. With the feds, it’s 10dB lower than that.) Plus, if you get something wrong federally, it’s enormously difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and unlikely to get fixed. If one or a few states get something wrong, you have as easier time showing comparables and proving that a better way is possible.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Speaking of getting things wrong... if Comcast runs some half baked DB query to flag problem customers and it flags a false positive on you you're just gonna get your service turned off. When the states and feds make those mistakes there's a body count or at the very least lives ruined. Comcast, or other BigCo will generally do the right thing to make you go away, after all, every dollar spent on fighting people is a dollar that could be profit. When government does wrong and gets called on it digs in its heels much, much harder.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Telecom can vary in it's place. I would put a local company around the city level because they are often invested in their communities. Really, I would say that goes for companies or government - the bigger they get, the more removed they are from what is going on in the customer/voter lives.
- giantg2 5y ago
  They aren't that much different in service quality and I don't like them either. You actually can get a vote at Concast if you buy stock, which can be more than what a single vote is worth at the federal level. The real difference is in how you can pressure them. Your single vote in the government covers a multitude of topics, in what is essentially a two choice system. You may need to vote contrary to your beliefs on one topic to protect your rights on another topic. In dealing with a single topic related to a company, you can concentrate your efforts through your voting stock, boycotts, etc. So, when a politician hears a minority complain about an issue, they have zero incentive to listen to you because they lose nothing due to the discrete nature of measuring sucess (minority votes no longer matter once you secure the majority to win). At least companies care about losing revenue because it's measured continuously. Look at how they fight to attract and retain customers through deals, competing with other companies, and even negative stuff like fighting municipal internet. The better choices are local companies and municipalities. This is because a person's voice is worth more and the concerns amongst the customers/voters tend to be more homogeneous than at higher levels.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Any huge, old, unaccountable organization is going to suck, government or corporation. The key is being accountable to the end user. Local governments with rational and active voters and corporations with energetic competitors usually do very well.
- atotic 5y ago
  Anecdote: I live in Palo Alto, and my entire neighborhood is on Comcast. In January, service got to be really bad, 1Mbs upload during the day. Comcast came out, said our local node was saturated at 92%, and that they have an upgrade planned a year from now, and that we can suck it till then. This is Palo Alto, the land of very vocal neighbors. They started a campaign where we all sent a complaint to the FCC. Within a week, we were personally contacted by a Comcast rep, techs came out, and suddenly I had 30Mbs up. And Comcast reps have been calling, emailing every week to make sure we are ok. Not sure what happened, the node did not get upgraded, but they fixed something. And another data point on how sad the situation is in the US: my brother lives in Belgrade, Serbia, in one of those concrete high-rises from the 70s. He got fiber this year from a private company, and his speeds beat mine, and it is dirt cheap. There is no logical explanation for the fact that his internet speeds beat mine, and I am a mile away from Google HQ.
HarryHirsch 5y ago
What doesn't help is that thanks to 40 years privatization there is now very little in-house expertise left. Any kind of services are now provided by a local contractor and there is no one competent to supervise them. It'll be hard to get rid of the entrenched corruption and waste. For example, I wouldn't want federal or even state run internet The government telco was glorious. They would provide service anywhere for a two-digit hookup fee and the target time for service interruption was 48 hours, and they kept to that.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Is that the US and how long ago was that 2 digit fee? "...there is now very little in-house expertise left." I don't really see this being an issue. If they are taking market share from the private sector, then it's likely that private companies will make cuts to preserve profits and those people can be hired by the government. If not having in-house expertise was really a problem then no companies would ever be able to expand. Instead they hire externally and hire consultants.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    Is that the US and how long ago was that 2 digit fee Pre-privatization German telecom charged 40 marks for connection, that included laying cable to the demarcation point. For the lack of in-house expertise to supervise private parties, look no further than Boeing. They relied on self-certification, and we ended up with the 737-MAX.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "For the lack of in-house expertise to supervise private parties, look no further than Boeing. They relied on self-certification, and we ended up with the 737-MAX." That would require a major shift in mindset, policy, and even law for the US. Even stuff like drugs and medical devices are tested by third parties, not the government itself.
martin8412 5y ago
That does make sense though. At city level people are way more likely to be interested, because they can actually make a difference, and it will help the community they live in