6 ms·

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 broadb

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.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Is it a requirement that these common goods and services have private competition that is on equal footing? Private security, trash services, libraries (netflix) all have private competition that seems to be thriving in the spaces that have higher requirements, but the baseline situation appears to be handled for much of the region.
    - winstonewert 5y ago
      It's not a requirement. Or at least: we commonly accept many such services provided by municipalities. What is a requirement is acknowledging the unequal footing.
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        Public and private will always be on unequal footing, due to the difference in the their objectives. It may also be worthwhile to point out that public infra is designed to serve even people who can’t otherwise afford it, as well as limited by their ability to attract talent. (I’m sure there are others.) I had assumed we all felt comfortable using “public/private” as a shortcut for all of these differences, but am learning that is not necessarily shared. In terms of moving the discussion forward, what were you hoping to achieve by pointing out some of these facts?
        kgantchev 5y ago
        The difference in footing is not based on objectives but the means by which funding is obtained. In the case of private companies, the funding can only by obtained by providing services that the market demands. The government obtains its funding by taxing people.
        kortilla 5y ago
        > Public and private will always be on unequal footing, due to the difference in the their objectives. No they won’t. Public projects can be setup to require that they are revenue neutral or positive.
        winstonewert 5y ago
        I'm hoping to accomplish pointing out the silliness of the post I originally responded to, which asserted that there was no reason to think it would be unfair competition.
  - iptrans 5y ago
    This is a solved problem. The municipality provides the fiber network. All ISPs rent dark fiber, local loops, wavelengths or bitstream access on equal open access terms. All on equal footing and equal terms.
- kortilla 5y ago
  > when a natural monopoly exists by way of the last mile. Given how many people actually have multiple options in the last mile, it’s not a natural monopoly.
  - Mauricebranagh 5y ago
    Only if you have Local Loop Unbundling. For most of the US the completion for the last mine is minuscule or non existent.
  - vel0city 5y ago
    The FCC's listing of multiple broadband providers requires you to read between the lines. For my address they list 5 providers. AT&T is on there twice, there's a cable company, and then Viasat and Hughesnet. Given that Viasat and Hughesnet exist for pretty much the entire contiguous US it makes it super easy to say there's at least two providers serving your area, so the whole 99% of people are served by at least two providers is kind of a worthless statement. Given the high latency involved in their flavor of satellite operations, low data caps (or throttling, technically Viasat says its not a cap) they're not really competitive in just about any market with modern wireline services. So in reality I have a choice of two wired providers. Imagine how great our food would be if the only restaurants available were either Burger King or McDonalds. What a competitive marketplace!
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Two wired providers is not a natural monopoly.
      - vel0city 5y ago
        > A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly It might not be limited to just one for all markets, but two choices isn't very competitive due to the massive infrastructural costs and other barriers of entry (e.g., rights of way). Also, my current residence is an example where there actually is competition. As pointed out above, just because the FCC says there's 2+ broadband providers they're including two satellite providers. So a lot of those 3 provider places are really single wireline providers. Once again, is a market where all restaurants are either McDonalds or Burger King an example good competition?
daniellarusso 5y ago
Same with water and sewer? I have a neighbor that refuses to use running water. Should the infrastructure be routed around their property? Should they be forced to use running water?
- XorNot 5y ago
  So are they on rainwater or what's the deal exactly?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - daniellarusso 5y ago
    They refuse to pay to ‘fix’ their pipes in their home. Claim they are all leaking. They have the money to do it, but prefer refilling the 5 gallon jugs.
- winstonewert 5y ago
  Not the point I was making. If a city provides any service: water, sewer, broadband, from property taxes, its going to be really really hard for any company to compete with that. So you can make the case for municipal broadband, but don't pretend that private ISPs are going to compete with it.

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.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Is it a requirement that these common goods and services have private competition that is on equal footing? Private security, trash services, libraries (netflix) all have private competition that seems to be thriving in the spaces that have higher requirements, but the baseline situation appears to be handled for much of the region.
  - winstonewert 5y ago
    It's not a requirement. Or at least: we commonly accept many such services provided by municipalities. What is a requirement is acknowledging the unequal footing.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      Public and private will always be on unequal footing, due to the difference in the their objectives. It may also be worthwhile to point out that public infra is designed to serve even people who can’t otherwise afford it, as well as limited by their ability to attract talent. (I’m sure there are others.) I had assumed we all felt comfortable using “public/private” as a shortcut for all of these differences, but am learning that is not necessarily shared. In terms of moving the discussion forward, what were you hoping to achieve by pointing out some of these facts?
      - kgantchev 5y ago
        The difference in footing is not based on objectives but the means by which funding is obtained. In the case of private companies, the funding can only by obtained by providing services that the market demands. The government obtains its funding by taxing people.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        > Public and private will always be on unequal footing, due to the difference in the their objectives. No they won’t. Public projects can be setup to require that they are revenue neutral or positive.
      - winstonewert 5y ago
        I'm hoping to accomplish pointing out the silliness of the post I originally responded to, which asserted that there was no reason to think it would be unfair competition.
- iptrans 5y ago
  This is a solved problem. The municipality provides the fiber network. All ISPs rent dark fiber, local loops, wavelengths or bitstream access on equal open access terms. All on equal footing and equal terms.
kortilla 5y ago
> when a natural monopoly exists by way of the last mile. Given how many people actually have multiple options in the last mile, it’s not a natural monopoly.
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  Only if you have Local Loop Unbundling. For most of the US the completion for the last mine is minuscule or non existent.
- vel0city 5y ago
  The FCC's listing of multiple broadband providers requires you to read between the lines. For my address they list 5 providers. AT&T is on there twice, there's a cable company, and then Viasat and Hughesnet. Given that Viasat and Hughesnet exist for pretty much the entire contiguous US it makes it super easy to say there's at least two providers serving your area, so the whole 99% of people are served by at least two providers is kind of a worthless statement. Given the high latency involved in their flavor of satellite operations, low data caps (or throttling, technically Viasat says its not a cap) they're not really competitive in just about any market with modern wireline services. So in reality I have a choice of two wired providers. Imagine how great our food would be if the only restaurants available were either Burger King or McDonalds. What a competitive marketplace!
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Two wired providers is not a natural monopoly.
    - vel0city 5y ago
      > A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly It might not be limited to just one for all markets, but two choices isn't very competitive due to the massive infrastructural costs and other barriers of entry (e.g., rights of way). Also, my current residence is an example where there actually is competition. As pointed out above, just because the FCC says there's 2+ broadband providers they're including two satellite providers. So a lot of those 3 provider places are really single wireline providers. Once again, is a market where all restaurants are either McDonalds or Burger King an example good competition?

daniellarusso 5y ago

Same with water and sewer? I have a neighbor that refuses to use running water. Should the infrastructure be routed around their property? Should they be forced to use running water?

XorNot 5y ago
So are they on rainwater or what's the deal exactly?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- daniellarusso 5y ago
  They refuse to pay to ‘fix’ their pipes in their home. Claim they are all leaking. They have the money to do it, but prefer refilling the 5 gallon jugs.
winstonewert 5y ago
Not the point I was making. If a city provides any service: water, sewer, broadband, from property taxes, its going to be really really hard for any company to compete with that. So you can make the case for municipal broadband, but don't pretend that private ISPs are going to compete with it.