3 ms·

Who created the barriers?

exabrial 5y ago
In the USA, typically government agencies are prohibited from selling services that compete with private sector companies.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Buzzare. If they can compete without making a loss/tapping taxpayer money, then incumbents don't deserve to survive.
  - exabrial 5y ago
    That should be the way it works, but the [federal] government is allowed to incinerate a nearly infinite amount of cash. Some state governments are becoming that same way unfortunately. Municipalities don't really have this option, so it may not be as big of a deal. See my other comment about contractors though... what we saw in TN was Comcast "contracting" its services to "build a municipal network", but instead just built their own crap using taxpayer funding.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    It is never the case that they can compete without making a loss, as that would effectively make them a private company. The Post Office, for example, is supposed to have its own P&L, yet we keep giving them billions every time they run out of money. So you get the worst of all worlds, the lack of accountability of a private company but the taxpayers are on the hook. Almost all these pseudo-government projects are funded out of the general budget, and some are off-books but still off-balance sheet liabilities of the government. E.g. a port authority that floats its own bonds, but those bonds are guaranteed by the local government, so if the port authority becomes insolvent the government is on the hook. If you think entity X can make its own profit and loss, then ask yourself: who is on the hook when the bonds sold by X default? It is always going to be a taxpayer for a government project. A clean separation between things that are supposed to turn a profit and things that should be funded socially is a good separation, and trying to blur those lines is usually a bad idea, as you create these unaccountable subsidized bureaucracies that end up being poorly run sources of graft after a few generations. Now whether internet access itself should be subsidized or turn a profit is a different matter. It's critical infrastructure, like roads, so you can make a case for subsidies.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Post Office is a bad example as I understand it because from what I've heard it's being run by someone notorious for wanting it dead to clear the way for private sector competitors, and it is the single private organization in the United States required to pre-fund its pension fund.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > The Post Office, for example, is supposed to have its own P&L, yet we keep giving them billions every time they run out of money. And they run out of money because of pension benefit requirements and a lot of other politically mandated issues (see e.g. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/widespread-facebook-post-blames-2006-law-us-postal/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/wi...). Not to mention the events of the 45th Presidency with tearing down sorting machines and other actions intended to impede by-mail voting...
  - rhino369 5y ago
    I would agree with the last sentence, but municipal projects rarely operate on a level playing field. At a minimum, they get access to tax-payer backed bonds to raise capital that private companies can't match. They also get to regulate their competition.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    The city can always regulate the competition out of existence, so they are predestined to win the competition. Which in turn means no one tries to compete, since it's pointless, and the city has a monopoly by default. Or at least that's how it usually plays out. Don't know if any jurisdictions have found a way to make this work well.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Source / citation?
- bjt 5y ago
  That's not a blanket policy or typical law. Commercial broadband providers lobbied to have state laws passed specifically prohibiting or restricting municipal broadband projects.
_delirium 5y ago
In this case, also the Washington State Legislature. As I understand it, under WA law, public utility districts have a specific set of things they are authorized to do. Prior to 2000, this didn't include telecommunications at all. In 2000, the legislature passed a law [1] that authorized public utility districts to build/acquire/operate telecommunications networks, but only for: 1) internal use by the district or other public entities, or 2) to resell on wholesale terms to other providers. It specifically said "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize public utility districts to provide telecommunications services to end users". This new law amends the 2000 language to allow providing direct service to end users as well. [1] http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1999-00/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6675-S.SL.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1999-00/Pdf/Bills/Ses...
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
Typically Comcast/Charter by reaching up through the rectums of politicians and moving their mouths with their hands.

In the USA, typically government agencies are prohibited from selling services that compete with private sector companies.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Buzzare. If they can compete without making a loss/tapping taxpayer money, then incumbents don't deserve to survive.
- exabrial 5y ago
  That should be the way it works, but the [federal] government is allowed to incinerate a nearly infinite amount of cash. Some state governments are becoming that same way unfortunately. Municipalities don't really have this option, so it may not be as big of a deal. See my other comment about contractors though... what we saw in TN was Comcast "contracting" its services to "build a municipal network", but instead just built their own crap using taxpayer funding.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It is never the case that they can compete without making a loss, as that would effectively make them a private company. The Post Office, for example, is supposed to have its own P&L, yet we keep giving them billions every time they run out of money. So you get the worst of all worlds, the lack of accountability of a private company but the taxpayers are on the hook. Almost all these pseudo-government projects are funded out of the general budget, and some are off-books but still off-balance sheet liabilities of the government. E.g. a port authority that floats its own bonds, but those bonds are guaranteed by the local government, so if the port authority becomes insolvent the government is on the hook. If you think entity X can make its own profit and loss, then ask yourself: who is on the hook when the bonds sold by X default? It is always going to be a taxpayer for a government project. A clean separation between things that are supposed to turn a profit and things that should be funded socially is a good separation, and trying to blur those lines is usually a bad idea, as you create these unaccountable subsidized bureaucracies that end up being poorly run sources of graft after a few generations. Now whether internet access itself should be subsidized or turn a profit is a different matter. It's critical infrastructure, like roads, so you can make a case for subsidies.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Post Office is a bad example as I understand it because from what I've heard it's being run by someone notorious for wanting it dead to clear the way for private sector competitors, and it is the single private organization in the United States required to pre-fund its pension fund.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > The Post Office, for example, is supposed to have its own P&L, yet we keep giving them billions every time they run out of money. And they run out of money because of pension benefit requirements and a lot of other politically mandated issues (see e.g. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/widespread-facebook-post-blames-2006-law-us-postal/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/wi...). Not to mention the events of the 45th Presidency with tearing down sorting machines and other actions intended to impede by-mail voting...
- rhino369 5y ago
  I would agree with the last sentence, but municipal projects rarely operate on a level playing field. At a minimum, they get access to tax-payer backed bonds to raise capital that private companies can't match. They also get to regulate their competition.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  The city can always regulate the competition out of existence, so they are predestined to win the competition. Which in turn means no one tries to compete, since it's pointless, and the city has a monopoly by default. Or at least that's how it usually plays out. Don't know if any jurisdictions have found a way to make this work well.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Source / citation?
bjt 5y ago
That's not a blanket policy or typical law. Commercial broadband providers lobbied to have state laws passed specifically prohibiting or restricting municipal broadband projects.

_delirium 5y ago

In this case, also the Washington State Legislature. As I understand it, under WA law, public utility districts have a specific set of things they are authorized to do. Prior to 2000, this didn't include telecommunications at all. In 2000, the legislature passed a law [1] that authorized public utility districts to build/acquire/operate telecommunications networks, but only for: 1) internal use by the district or other public entities, or 2) to resell on wholesale terms to other providers. It specifically said "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize public utility districts to provide telecommunications services to end users". This new law amends the 2000 language to allow providing direct service to end users as well. [1] http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1999-00/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/6675-S.SL.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/1999-00/Pdf/Bills/Ses...

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

Typically Comcast/Charter by reaching up through the rectums of politicians and moving their mouths with their hands.