5 ms·
In which ways such ban would benefit people living in Ohio?
by hpaavola 5y ago
In which ways such ban would benefit people living in Ohio?
- cure 5y agoNone. But it would benefit the big ISPs, so...
- aequitas 5y agoIf you own ISP shares and live in Ohio, very much.
- csharptwdec19 5y agoOr if you are an elected official that gets lobbying from Buckeye Cable...
- post_break 5y agoI can't wait for starlink and tmobile home internet to eat their lunch.
- Gustomaximus 5y agoMore, "If you own ISP shares and live outside Ohio"
- goatse_aas 5y agoWhy would you ever presume that to be the intent of any American politicians, especially the caricatured evil manifested as living human shit that is the Republican party?
- renewiltord 5y agoIt would allow them to compete to set up high quality ISPs rather than being forced to subsidize a low quality local alternative. It’s one thing to pay a bill. It’s another thing to pay it twice.
- LocalH 5y agoIn what part of the US does this ever happen? Where are all the small “mom and pop” ISPs? Oh, right.
- criddell 5y agoThere are actually a lot of mom and pop ISPs. Mostly wireless (WISPs). https://www.wispa.org/what_is_a_wisp.php https://www.wispa.org/what_is_a_wisp.php
- only_as_i_fall 5y agoCould you explain your reasoning here? Do you expect a ban on municipal broadband to improve either the quality or price of internet service and if so are there any examples of this happening?
- Mordisquitos 5y agoSurely the "high quality ISPs" would easily outcompete the "low quality local alternatives". Let the market decide, and let ISP customers vote the local alternatives out with their wallets! And if a local authority were to insist on using public money to subsidize a thoroughly outcompeted municipal broadband, then the locals will be free to vote them out with their, well... votes.
- renewiltord 5y agoA fine principle in theory but there are serious status quo effects with governments. Governments rarely ever roll back benefits that don’t pencil out. The reason being that people are loss averse. Knowing from behavioral economics about loss aversion, it is reasonable for us to want to avoid placing ourselves in a situation where it forces us into foolish policy decisions. For what it’s worth, I am generally in agreement with you, except that majority rule to extract money from some people to provide for others strikes me as poor taste. If the ones who want the service want to collectivize to pay for it, it makes sense to me that the government run that enterprise. The difference between a market and the government is that if a product is unviable with 50%+1 but viable with 99%, that 50%+1 population can force it upon the rest. That difference to me is significant enough that I don’t think claiming voting as equivalent to market spending is reasonable.
- justin66 5y ago> In which ways such ban would benefit people living in Ohio? It wouldn't. It's also completely crazy to assume that concern entered into the minds of the legislation's sponsors at all. See the other thread today about the nuclear bribery scandal if you have any doubts about the Ohio legislature's integrity: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27534408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27534408