5 ms·

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesit

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)

asdff 6y ago
Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does. Addicted people need their hits of dopamine, and Comcast (or insert evil ISP here) controls the supply even with a municipal player in town. I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast charged you more for your TV package alone than if you bundled your internet as well.
- scarface74 6y ago
  There are plenty of internet OTT services that provide live TV like Hulu Live, YouTube TV, Sling, etc. These days if you’re not into sports, there is really no need for live TV. You can mix and match streaming services.
  - kemotep 6y ago
    And you can always just pay for MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. streaming services. You get hit with the same blackout dates too! Also, digital antennas can come in handy if the local channels provide the news and sports content that you could otherwise not get with Internet TV services.
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      I wish there was some kind of non-blackout streaming for local teams. I paid for youtube tv before the implemented blackouts and it was great. I'd totally pay the leagues directly! The only option seems to be the massive "all the games" packages on top of a cable subscription.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  > Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does My anecdata based on people I know is that no one gets TV anymore.
  - dont__panic 6y ago
    There is likely a strong inverse correlation between "people who have enough knowledge to recognize the benefits of municipal broadband" and "people who still watch cable TV."
spullara 6y ago
To be fair, your local government is a monopoly in the region they operate and if you look into it likely have a history of shady practices - at least all the places I have lived. I also doubt they value customer service any more than your ISP.
- lowercased 6y ago
  in theory, you can at least vote them out in the next election.
karmakaze 6y ago
The government should govern and have multiple providers serving generally non-overlapping regions. Based on how well they serve their regions their region can be enlarged or shrunk, or they be given new regions to serve.
- Noughmad 6y ago
  You're saying that the providers should have absolute monopolies? What could possibly go wrong!
- vkou 6y ago
  This combines all the weakest attributes of market and planned economies together. It would make sense if the exclusive non-overlapping regions were for maintenance contracts on common infrastucture, but it makes zero sense for last-mile.
  - karmakaze 6y ago
    I'd like to see the numbers on that. If the non-empty threat of allowing your competitor to take more share doesn't improve effectiveness more than the duplicate development on the smaller sections handed between them. Once they both have infrastructure in a given area it's efficiently handed over. Also a good way of allowing new technologies to enter a market. If the incumbents don't innovate, a newcomer will be given a corner to start.
swiley 6y ago
You should be careful not to underestimate how incompetent local governments can be.
acdha 6y ago
This involves politics so it's never going to be uncontentious and there's a valid concern about how well something will be operated. Your opinion of your local water utility, for example, probably varies a lot from someone who lives in Flint. As we've seen in other areas, it would not be impossible for the “municipal” option in some cases to end up being a no-bid contract with little accountability. I don't think that means we shouldn't do it but it really does depend on citizens getting involved to lobby for an effective structure with real accountability and a viable economic model.
- csdreamer7 6y ago
  I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives. The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values. Flint was caused by the state of Michigan taking over their water management and ignoring warnings of what would happen. It feels like states are much more beholden to telecommunications lobbies than the local areas. TN, despite Chattanooga being the poster child for municipal broadband, banned other cities from building their own networks. CO forces both the local government and the citizens later in an election to authorize local networks. WA just repealed their ban on municipal broadband networks. I do not feel that a remote possibility of no-bid contracts is a reasonable concern over the current corrupt and no accountability of these large ISPs who lobby state governments to ban local networks. It is a lot easier to change local government than many state governments if a project goes wrong.
  - acdha 6y ago
    > I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives. > The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values. Respectfully, this isn't a real distinction. The problem of people making decisions where they personally benefit from something which leaves the larger community worse off isn't specific to a level of government or the sector. I agree that the problems get worse at the state level (where money is focused) but that doesn't mean that it can't happen elsewhere. I do agree that it's better to keep services local and really want to see municipal broadband (living in a city which has had tons of fiber deployed since the 2000s but hasn't made it available to individuals). My point was that we should go into this with our eyes open and make sure that there's good public visibility — the problem is a deal happening in the dark — and knowledgeable people make sure their elected representatives hear from someone who isn't selling things (whether that's services, equipment, etc.).
closeparen 6y ago
Theoretical democratic accountability and public input haven't stopped public transit from sucking. Perhaps more people use the internet and so would be inclined to care, but governments aren't automatically under any pressure to execute well as long as they make the right ideological signals.
mattmcknight 6y ago
It is generally local governments that have explicitly granted and enforced those monopolies. The other issue is with them not ending up as purely fee for service, and people that don't choose to consume as much end up paying for some portion of it.

asdff 6y ago

Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does. Addicted people need their hits of dopamine, and Comcast (or insert evil ISP here) controls the supply even with a municipal player in town. I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast charged you more for your TV package alone than if you bundled your internet as well.

scarface74 6y ago
There are plenty of internet OTT services that provide live TV like Hulu Live, YouTube TV, Sling, etc. These days if you’re not into sports, there is really no need for live TV. You can mix and match streaming services.
- kemotep 6y ago
  And you can always just pay for MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. streaming services. You get hit with the same blackout dates too! Also, digital antennas can come in handy if the local channels provide the news and sports content that you could otherwise not get with Internet TV services.
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    I wish there was some kind of non-blackout streaming for local teams. I paid for youtube tv before the implemented blackouts and it was great. I'd totally pay the leagues directly! The only option seems to be the massive "all the games" packages on top of a cable subscription.
FalconSensei 6y ago
> Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does My anecdata based on people I know is that no one gets TV anymore.
- dont__panic 6y ago
  There is likely a strong inverse correlation between "people who have enough knowledge to recognize the benefits of municipal broadband" and "people who still watch cable TV."

spullara 6y ago

To be fair, your local government is a monopoly in the region they operate and if you look into it likely have a history of shady practices - at least all the places I have lived. I also doubt they value customer service any more than your ISP.

lowercased 6y ago
in theory, you can at least vote them out in the next election.

karmakaze 6y ago

The government should govern and have multiple providers serving generally non-overlapping regions. Based on how well they serve their regions their region can be enlarged or shrunk, or they be given new regions to serve.

Noughmad 6y ago
You're saying that the providers should have absolute monopolies? What could possibly go wrong!
vkou 6y ago
This combines all the weakest attributes of market and planned economies together. It would make sense if the exclusive non-overlapping regions were for maintenance contracts on common infrastucture, but it makes zero sense for last-mile.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  I'd like to see the numbers on that. If the non-empty threat of allowing your competitor to take more share doesn't improve effectiveness more than the duplicate development on the smaller sections handed between them. Once they both have infrastructure in a given area it's efficiently handed over. Also a good way of allowing new technologies to enter a market. If the incumbents don't innovate, a newcomer will be given a corner to start.

swiley 6y ago

You should be careful not to underestimate how incompetent local governments can be.

acdha 6y ago

This involves politics so it's never going to be uncontentious and there's a valid concern about how well something will be operated. Your opinion of your local water utility, for example, probably varies a lot from someone who lives in Flint. As we've seen in other areas, it would not be impossible for the “municipal” option in some cases to end up being a no-bid contract with little accountability. I don't think that means we shouldn't do it but it really does depend on citizens getting involved to lobby for an effective structure with real accountability and a viable economic model.

csdreamer7 6y ago
I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives. The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values. Flint was caused by the state of Michigan taking over their water management and ignoring warnings of what would happen. It feels like states are much more beholden to telecommunications lobbies than the local areas. TN, despite Chattanooga being the poster child for municipal broadband, banned other cities from building their own networks. CO forces both the local government and the citizens later in an election to authorize local networks. WA just repealed their ban on municipal broadband networks. I do not feel that a remote possibility of no-bid contracts is a reasonable concern over the current corrupt and no accountability of these large ISPs who lobby state governments to ban local networks. It is a lot easier to change local government than many state governments if a project goes wrong.
- acdha 6y ago
  > I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives. > The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values. Respectfully, this isn't a real distinction. The problem of people making decisions where they personally benefit from something which leaves the larger community worse off isn't specific to a level of government or the sector. I agree that the problems get worse at the state level (where money is focused) but that doesn't mean that it can't happen elsewhere. I do agree that it's better to keep services local and really want to see municipal broadband (living in a city which has had tons of fiber deployed since the 2000s but hasn't made it available to individuals). My point was that we should go into this with our eyes open and make sure that there's good public visibility — the problem is a deal happening in the dark — and knowledgeable people make sure their elected representatives hear from someone who isn't selling things (whether that's services, equipment, etc.).

closeparen 6y ago

Theoretical democratic accountability and public input haven't stopped public transit from sucking. Perhaps more people use the internet and so would be inclined to care, but governments aren't automatically under any pressure to execute well as long as they make the right ideological signals.

mattmcknight 6y ago

It is generally local governments that have explicitly granted and enforced those monopolies. The other issue is with them not ending up as purely fee for service, and people that don't choose to consume as much end up paying for some portion of it.