9 ms·

"In the face of compelling pandemic-driven evidence that affordable broadband Internet access is essential to modern life, that tens of millions of Americans ar

"In the face of compelling pandemic-driven evidence that affordable broadband Internet access is essential to modern life, that tens of millions of Americans are being left behind, and that an emergency requiring immediate action exists, five enlightened Arkansas Republicans recently persuaded their overwhelmingly Republican legislature to vote unanimously to give local governments significant new authority to provide or support the provision of broadband Internet access." We'd be better served by providing the names of the ones who introduced it instead of a blanket statement making it sound like all Republicans supported this, especially when at the local level where it really matters they did not support it, they did the exact opposite. Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) The general idea that there should be competition is good, just not going about it by blocking attempts to create municipal broadband. I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
>I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs. It doesn't make sense to run multiple companies' fiber to each home.
- gleenn 5y ago
  Most carriers already share lines don't they?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I’ve never seen it in the US. It’s always been two options, buy from the company that owns the phone line (DSL)/fiber to your house, or buy from the company that owns the coaxial line to your house (cable).
    - karlshea 5y ago
      That wasn’t always true at least for POTS, I think it was called “dry DSL”? The phone company owned the line but your internet was through another company.
  - michaelbrave 5y ago
    they used to, that was part of the debate about title-2 or not and net neutrality. That's why when DSL was the fastest internet there were so many choices and options but now it feels like there are hardly any (depending on where you live).
- wilde 5y ago
  It also doesn’t make sense to have multiple cellular providers building towers in the same place and duplicating spectrum needs, but here we are. But yes, in most areas there isn’t enough demand for internet to deploy fiber multiple times.
freeone3000 5y ago
The republican point of view is that if something is government-supported, it's unfair to compete against, as the government option will offer better quality service at lower cost than is economical for a private company, since the government has no profit motive. (This somehow leads to the conclusion that government services are bad.)
- hooande 5y ago
  It's hard to see how this is a negative with something like broadband. as long as they can offer better quality service at lower cost, it's a win for every citizen
- winstonewert 5y ago
  Where it becomes unfair is when municipal broadband is supported by general tax revenues. If the citizens of a city are required to pay for the municipal broadband whether or not they use it, then its going to pretty hard to compete with that.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    I pay for trash pickup, parks, libraries, roads, schools, fire, and police regardless of my usage (all out of property taxes). I can stick 8 kids in my local school system, or none, and I’m charged the same. Even my water and sewer are provided for by local government, with only my electric service being a for profit (yet highly regulated) utility, and yet internet connectivity is put forth as a beacon of capitalism where we expect competition when a natural monopoly exists by way of the last mile. The “unfairness” is simple. You regulate the entity who runs your muni fiber operation, and if they don’t meet your metrics you’re measuring success by, you replace them (whether that’s internal folks or an org contracted to provide services). TLDR Ramp muni fiber deployments with rigorous operational oversight as a requirement.
    - winstonewert 5y ago
      Certainly, you can make a case for cities providing broadband just as they provide trash, sewer, parks, libraries, etc. What you can't do is pretend that private broadband companies would be competing with municipal broadband on equal footing.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

>I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs. It doesn't make sense to run multiple companies' fiber to each home.

gleenn 5y ago
Most carriers already share lines don't they?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I’ve never seen it in the US. It’s always been two options, buy from the company that owns the phone line (DSL)/fiber to your house, or buy from the company that owns the coaxial line to your house (cable).
  - karlshea 5y ago
    That wasn’t always true at least for POTS, I think it was called “dry DSL”? The phone company owned the line but your internet was through another company.
- michaelbrave 5y ago
  they used to, that was part of the debate about title-2 or not and net neutrality. That's why when DSL was the fastest internet there were so many choices and options but now it feels like there are hardly any (depending on where you live).
wilde 5y ago
It also doesn’t make sense to have multiple cellular providers building towers in the same place and duplicating spectrum needs, but here we are. But yes, in most areas there isn’t enough demand for internet to deploy fiber multiple times.

freeone3000 5y ago

The republican point of view is that if something is government-supported, it's unfair to compete against, as the government option will offer better quality service at lower cost than is economical for a private company, since the government has no profit motive. (This somehow leads to the conclusion that government services are bad.)

hooande 5y ago
It's hard to see how this is a negative with something like broadband. as long as they can offer better quality service at lower cost, it's a win for every citizen
winstonewert 5y ago
Where it becomes unfair is when municipal broadband is supported by general tax revenues. If the citizens of a city are required to pay for the municipal broadband whether or not they use it, then its going to pretty hard to compete with that.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  I pay for trash pickup, parks, libraries, roads, schools, fire, and police regardless of my usage (all out of property taxes). I can stick 8 kids in my local school system, or none, and I’m charged the same. Even my water and sewer are provided for by local government, with only my electric service being a for profit (yet highly regulated) utility, and yet internet connectivity is put forth as a beacon of capitalism where we expect competition when a natural monopoly exists by way of the last mile. The “unfairness” is simple. You regulate the entity who runs your muni fiber operation, and if they don’t meet your metrics you’re measuring success by, you replace them (whether that’s internal folks or an org contracted to provide services). TLDR Ramp muni fiber deployments with rigorous operational oversight as a requirement.
  - winstonewert 5y ago
    Certainly, you can make a case for cities providing broadband just as they provide trash, sewer, parks, libraries, etc. What you can't do is pretend that private broadband companies would be competing with municipal broadband on equal footing.