4 ms·

I agree with you but the other issue is the huge amount of pressure corporate concerns have. The regulatory capture game is strong. There are a lot of states th

I agree with you but the other issue is the huge amount of pressure corporate concerns have. The regulatory capture game is strong. There are a lot of states that have passed laws that say it is illegal to run municipal broadband because of pressure from Comcast via campaign contributions. Everyone only cares about getting theirs. Very few public servants actually care about serving the public.

nerdponx 5y ago
It seems to me that state laws like this can't be passed with strong opposition from municipalities. I imagine that it's harder to ban municipal broadband at the state level if a medium-size city already has municipal broadband, or has strong local support for it. Maybe there's some interesting political science research on this.
- snarf21 5y ago
  Maybe. The municipalities have no money and some small city council has no leverage over a US senator. How can they compete against the bankroll of Comcast in court, PR, etc. ?
  - dantheman 5y ago
    The municipalities agree to these rules to subsidize those who live in unprofitable areas. Those people don't want to pay for the actual cost of their service, so the town grants a monopoly and subsidizes the cost for those who live in the outskirts.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Utah's UTOPIA fiber network was already established, but blocked from growth for over a decade by incumbent lobbying. Conveniently the Wikipedia page has no mention of the Comcast and Qwest/CenturyLink meddling in Utah state and municipal politics that derailed funding and subscription.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  That isn't really how it works. The cities don't have a say in the state level government. The state level senators or assembly members make the laws.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Yes, I know how it works. I'm not claiming that there is a formal legal obstacle here. I'm hypothesizing that a state government would be less interested in banning something which has popular support in a medium-size city in that state.

nerdponx 5y ago

It seems to me that state laws like this can't be passed with strong opposition from municipalities. I imagine that it's harder to ban municipal broadband at the state level if a medium-size city already has municipal broadband, or has strong local support for it. Maybe there's some interesting political science research on this.

snarf21 5y ago
Maybe. The municipalities have no money and some small city council has no leverage over a US senator. How can they compete against the bankroll of Comcast in court, PR, etc. ?
- dantheman 5y ago
  The municipalities agree to these rules to subsidize those who live in unprofitable areas. Those people don't want to pay for the actual cost of their service, so the town grants a monopoly and subsidizes the cost for those who live in the outskirts.
nitrogen 5y ago
Utah's UTOPIA fiber network was already established, but blocked from growth for over a decade by incumbent lobbying. Conveniently the Wikipedia page has no mention of the Comcast and Qwest/CenturyLink meddling in Utah state and municipal politics that derailed funding and subscription.
gnopgnip 5y ago
That isn't really how it works. The cities don't have a say in the state level government. The state level senators or assembly members make the laws.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Yes, I know how it works. I'm not claiming that there is a formal legal obstacle here. I'm hypothesizing that a state government would be less interested in banning something which has popular support in a medium-size city in that state.