2 ms·

In Canada the network owners are also required to lease the infrastructure to other operators but the situation is similar (although IIUC not quite as bad). It

In Canada the network owners are also required to lease the infrastructure to other operators but the situation is similar (although IIUC not quite as bad). It seems to me that city-owned is actually the best option in this case. If it is optimal to have one set of infrastructure than it makes sense to have that infrastructure owned by the city which operates for the common good. As much as I am hesitant to trust the government to run the network I have no issues with my water or electricity utilities and the prices seem quite fair.

jollybean 6y ago
Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. The problem is the monopoly still exists. My father lives in a small town ironically with a tiny little ISP not owned by one of the majors. But the water - they pay $200 a month for water (!), because they are making major expansions to the water stations to support new building. The town council was pushed to do this by the builders with a lot of wining and dining. So the local, fairly poor townspeople are paying ridiculous rates. Since amalgamation, the town does not have it's own mayor, they do 'regional' groupings, so the individual town can't punt the program. Due to monopoly situation in the town, the townspoeple are stuck paying massive rates to subsidize a rich builders exploits. These things are common and guaranteed to happen. The idea is to have some degree of socialization where absolutely necessary, and then to try to provide real competition on that infrastructure. If the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure can be competitive (like roads) then great. For electricity transport, it can become a problem, as the semi-private agencies that manage the electrical grid are often very inefficient. Every town should take control of the 'last mile gear' but I suggest your ISP actually should be one of many private players. Definitely more than the physically limited Choice of Comcast + 1 other.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. Exactly. Municipalities should run fiber to the nearest meet-me room, and license at a defined rate to anyone who wants to light up that fiber.

jollybean 6y ago

Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. The problem is the monopoly still exists. My father lives in a small town ironically with a tiny little ISP not owned by one of the majors. But the water - they pay $200 a month for water (!), because they are making major expansions to the water stations to support new building. The town council was pushed to do this by the builders with a lot of wining and dining. So the local, fairly poor townspeople are paying ridiculous rates. Since amalgamation, the town does not have it's own mayor, they do 'regional' groupings, so the individual town can't punt the program. Due to monopoly situation in the town, the townspoeple are stuck paying massive rates to subsidize a rich builders exploits. These things are common and guaranteed to happen. The idea is to have some degree of socialization where absolutely necessary, and then to try to provide real competition on that infrastructure. If the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure can be competitive (like roads) then great. For electricity transport, it can become a problem, as the semi-private agencies that manage the electrical grid are often very inefficient. Every town should take control of the 'last mile gear' but I suggest your ISP actually should be one of many private players. Definitely more than the physically limited Choice of Comcast + 1 other.

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. Exactly. Municipalities should run fiber to the nearest meet-me room, and license at a defined rate to anyone who wants to light up that fiber.