6 ms·

Which is why it's crucial for Republicans to stamp this out as quickly as possible. Of course they're being lobbied to do so by ISPs, but more importantly, the

Which is why it's crucial for Republicans to stamp this out as quickly as possible. Of course they're being lobbied to do so by ISPs, but more importantly, the existence of successful municipal broadband disproves neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives. This belief is crucial to their political platform. Every second they allow these municipal ISPs to exist and be effective, the stories that keep them in power are being undermined.

zajio1am 5y ago
It is not that state-run enterprises are always less efficient, but they usually are especially in the long run, and often have unfair advantages that block market competition (direct subsidies or advantages from connection to political power). While it is possible that some cities would have great municipal ISPs, it is also likely that some cities would just outsource network operation to some shitty ISP who has good connections to townhall and people would pay much more (indirectly through taxes) and would not have alternative (who would compete against subsidised service?).
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  A state-run enterprise is to me not preferable over a healthy market, but it is almost always preferable over a private monopoly. As a citizen you have no leverage over a monopoly, whereas a state-run enterprise still has a democratic feedback loop. Also, the Republican small government platform goes much further than just railing against government-run enterprise: it essentially states that all government intervention in the economy is bad (both morally and from an effectiveness standpoint; the effectiveness angle is crucial to make their platform appeal to enough people). In the case of ISP monopolies in rural areas leading to low quality and high costs, I think it doesn't seem likely that the free market will solve this problem by itself any time soon. So politicians without a small government ideology might consider methods such as good old breaking up monopolies or other antitrust measures. Of course, this can not be done at a local level, and if small government ideologues are in power at the state level, this approach is dead in the water. So if you're a local government and you want to attack this problem, what are your options? Municipal broadband is the only approach I can think of that's within the reach of a city council. So yes, it's a band-aid, but it's the best you can do as long as the state-level is run by small government ideologues.
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    The main question is why US ISP market is often described as private monopoly, while in other countries there is significant market competition. Start and run small wISP is easy, these can naturally grow to bigger ones, especially when there is no real competition. > So if you're a local government and you want to attack this problem, what are your options? First, do not obstruct. High easement prices for fiber installations, long bureaucratic procedures for building permits for fiber installation, forbidding of overhead fiber cables ... Ensure that for new constructions there is passive infrastructure (e.g. microducts or dark fiber) that can be leased to ISPs on per-subscriber basis. Encourage citizens to start a local co-op working as ISP.
    - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
      What is a municipal government if not a “local co-op”?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - zajio1am 5y ago
        A local co-op is a fully private entity that has no power over non-members, while a municipality is a governmental structure with powers of local ordinances and taxation. On a more practical level, a local co-op ISP is a single-goal entity, whose participants are persons interested in that goal (getting good Internet connectivity). A municipality has many tasks, and municipal broadband would be just a small part of it.
        yazaddaruvala 5y ago
        Should we also then have a local road coop? What about a local water pipes and sewers coop? What about local school districts coop? Why are some single-goal entities the right decision, why are other decisions better solved by a multi-goal entity?
- charwalker 5y ago
  > unfair advantages that block market competition (direct subsidies or advantages from connection to political power). You mean lobbyists?
- labcomputer 5y ago
  That's actually the opposite of my experience when it comes to natural monopolies. Specifically, that publicly-owned water/electrical utilities have: 1. lower prices 2. better, more responsive customer service 3. higher reliability Just look at LADWP and Silicon Valley Power compared to PG&E and SoCal Edison in California. All four a subject to the same regulations, but the two municipal utilities are an order of magnitude better than the private ones. State-run enterprises are bad if you would otherwise have a competitive market. But here's the thing: electrical utilities and ISPs are not in competitive markets.
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    I agree that private natural monopolies are bad and publicly-owned utilities are better. But i disagree that ISPs are natural monopolies. There are not really comparable to water or electricity - you can easily have multiple overlapping distribution networks or passive/lower-layer infrastructure leased per-subscriber. Just have public setup that encourages competition instead one that discourages that.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  >and often have unfair advantages that block market competition I don't care. I don't care about the market. Let me say it again: I don't care about the market. There should be no inherent right to profit off of critical infrastructure in this country. Water, power and Internet are important enough to society that they should be regulated like a government entity, if not being one outright. Infrastructure like running thousands of miles of power poles, digging trenches for fiber, or laying water and sewer pipes is not a place for disruptive startups or fierce open-market competition. They're natural monopolies. Should cities allow private ISPs to run fiber in public rights-of-way or on power lines? Sure. Don't block it. I'm okay with that. But this idea of /stopping the government from providing essential services because megacorporations might lose money/ is outright immoral.
ghastmaster 5y ago
> the existence of successful municipal broadband disproves neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives. It's easy to be the best service provider when competition is quashed by rules and regulations. How are private entities supposed to compete when states and municipal governments are no longer afraid to blow their budgets? These services are essentially subsidized with unlimited dollars from the federal government. That's not to say there won't be competition. Various governments will eventually create their own broadband services and states will adapt the best policies to ensure they are competing with the best states/services. This would(in the future) serve to disprove the "neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives". The "neoliberal dogma" asserts that the private sector without competition from government will out perform by all metrics in the long run. Comparing a world of government run services to a world of private run services over the course of 100 or 500 years would be necessary to get a better idea. There are other ramifications that arise when governments control services. Corruption, in it's many forms could degrade the service. For instance, if the government becomes radical and disables certain individuals or groups from connecting to various online entities, the argument still exists that "example" government run broadband provides the fastest speed. However, it is a mute point if you are one of the individuals or groups that is being targeted. Using the above example of targeted restrictions, the private sector solves this by having competition. If there is a group that wants something, there would be another to provide it.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  The alternative to municipal broadband in many regions seems not to be a healthy free market with lots of competition, but a single monopoly providing poor service at high cost. The great strength of neoliberal ideology is that it seems uniquely capable of turning its own failings into arguments in its own favor. Whenever it fails -- such as in the rural US where there are large swathes of the country where there is no competition, poor service and high prices -- its defenders are quick to point out that these failings are the result of their theory not being applied with sufficient purity. Their predictions of lots of competition, high efficiency, and low prices fail to materialize not because the theory is wrong, but because there are still some rules and regulations, and clearly, those rules and regulations are what prohibits the neoliberal paradise from coming into existence. Not only did the theory not fail, the failure of its implementation is proof of the correctness of the theory. As is the case with your comment, this argument is rarely paired with an argument (or evidence) of how exactly the existing rules and regulations prevented healthy competition from materializing in the specific case under discussion. This is taken as a global, self-evident truth. The possibility that some regulations might make encourage rather than inhibit competition (such as regulation that allows you to keep your phone number when you switch providers) is never mentioned.
nightski 5y ago
I've actually seen some pretty terrible municipal broadband options. So just because it's successful in one place does not really prove anything. There are also some cities (including mine) which have fantastic ISPs (multiple competing) offering cheap gig fiber and there is zero need for government involvement in our internet.
- tclancy 5y ago
  That isn’t an argument for blocking them. If the advocates of this truly believed in the power of the free market, why would they bother?
  - Alupis 5y ago
    No, it's an argument against another $68 Billion, 170 mile High Speed Rail[1]. Just because the government could do something efficiently, doesn't mean it will be done efficiently. There are so many examples of this type of massive program bloat, every state in the union has numerous examples. So while there are some cases where a municipal fiber network has been built efficiently and well, that is the "unicorn" example, not the norm it seems. Besides, nobody has operated one of these municipal networks long enough to see if the local government has the stomach (or pocketbook) to maintain the network long-term (10-50+ years). Yes it can be done... but will it? That's the question that should be debated, particularly when the local government already doesn't have a balanced budget or has excess debts. Local governments can't just print money like the Fed... and that $9 Billion Bond Californians voted for doesn't even cover 15% of the cost of the HSR. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
  - beerandt 5y ago
    >power of the free market A government controlled or subsidized competitor doesn't result in a free market.
    - danShumway 5y ago
      Then the current ISP situation is not a free market, because they're constantly subsidized. States pick individual winners for broadband all the time, private companies get direct contracts and grants to lay wire, government works directly with companies to subsidize costs for lower-income families. In general, the 'competition' we're talking about here isn't between individual businesses and the government -- it's between the entire categories of privatized solutions and public solutions. There are (at least) two theories for how to provide a service: to have communities pool resources in the form of a local town/city government and provide it themselves, or to have the service completely privatized. By creating public options for some social services, but still allowing the private market overall to compete alongside them, we can start to determine which services cost more money to operate, and which end up providing better outcomes. There are some concerns, but many of them are mitigated by the fact that municipal Internet is only... municipal. It's not a massive nation-wide thing. But in any case, this is all kind of a moot point because city-maintained broadband doesn't seem to me to be any more of an overuse of government resources than any of the other privileges and resources we're already giving away to private companies in the space. In a genuinely free market, I might be a lot more hesitant about this. But given the current state of the broadband market, I really don't see a problem with small communities and cities voluntarily deciding to try their own hand at connecting themselves to the Internet.

zajio1am 5y ago

It is not that state-run enterprises are always less efficient, but they usually are especially in the long run, and often have unfair advantages that block market competition (direct subsidies or advantages from connection to political power). While it is possible that some cities would have great municipal ISPs, it is also likely that some cities would just outsource network operation to some shitty ISP who has good connections to townhall and people would pay much more (indirectly through taxes) and would not have alternative (who would compete against subsidised service?).

ookdatnog 5y ago
A state-run enterprise is to me not preferable over a healthy market, but it is almost always preferable over a private monopoly. As a citizen you have no leverage over a monopoly, whereas a state-run enterprise still has a democratic feedback loop. Also, the Republican small government platform goes much further than just railing against government-run enterprise: it essentially states that all government intervention in the economy is bad (both morally and from an effectiveness standpoint; the effectiveness angle is crucial to make their platform appeal to enough people). In the case of ISP monopolies in rural areas leading to low quality and high costs, I think it doesn't seem likely that the free market will solve this problem by itself any time soon. So politicians without a small government ideology might consider methods such as good old breaking up monopolies or other antitrust measures. Of course, this can not be done at a local level, and if small government ideologues are in power at the state level, this approach is dead in the water. So if you're a local government and you want to attack this problem, what are your options? Municipal broadband is the only approach I can think of that's within the reach of a city council. So yes, it's a band-aid, but it's the best you can do as long as the state-level is run by small government ideologues.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  The main question is why US ISP market is often described as private monopoly, while in other countries there is significant market competition. Start and run small wISP is easy, these can naturally grow to bigger ones, especially when there is no real competition. > So if you're a local government and you want to attack this problem, what are your options? First, do not obstruct. High easement prices for fiber installations, long bureaucratic procedures for building permits for fiber installation, forbidding of overhead fiber cables ... Ensure that for new constructions there is passive infrastructure (e.g. microducts or dark fiber) that can be leased to ISPs on per-subscriber basis. Encourage citizens to start a local co-op working as ISP.
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
    What is a municipal government if not a “local co-op”?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zajio1am 5y ago
      A local co-op is a fully private entity that has no power over non-members, while a municipality is a governmental structure with powers of local ordinances and taxation. On a more practical level, a local co-op ISP is a single-goal entity, whose participants are persons interested in that goal (getting good Internet connectivity). A municipality has many tasks, and municipal broadband would be just a small part of it.
      - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
        Should we also then have a local road coop? What about a local water pipes and sewers coop? What about local school districts coop? Why are some single-goal entities the right decision, why are other decisions better solved by a multi-goal entity?
charwalker 5y ago
> unfair advantages that block market competition (direct subsidies or advantages from connection to political power). You mean lobbyists?
labcomputer 5y ago
That's actually the opposite of my experience when it comes to natural monopolies. Specifically, that publicly-owned water/electrical utilities have: 1. lower prices 2. better, more responsive customer service 3. higher reliability Just look at LADWP and Silicon Valley Power compared to PG&E and SoCal Edison in California. All four a subject to the same regulations, but the two municipal utilities are an order of magnitude better than the private ones. State-run enterprises are bad if you would otherwise have a competitive market. But here's the thing: electrical utilities and ISPs are not in competitive markets.
- zajio1am 5y ago
  I agree that private natural monopolies are bad and publicly-owned utilities are better. But i disagree that ISPs are natural monopolies. There are not really comparable to water or electricity - you can easily have multiple overlapping distribution networks or passive/lower-layer infrastructure leased per-subscriber. Just have public setup that encourages competition instead one that discourages that.
unethical_ban 5y ago
>and often have unfair advantages that block market competition I don't care. I don't care about the market. Let me say it again: I don't care about the market. There should be no inherent right to profit off of critical infrastructure in this country. Water, power and Internet are important enough to society that they should be regulated like a government entity, if not being one outright. Infrastructure like running thousands of miles of power poles, digging trenches for fiber, or laying water and sewer pipes is not a place for disruptive startups or fierce open-market competition. They're natural monopolies. Should cities allow private ISPs to run fiber in public rights-of-way or on power lines? Sure. Don't block it. I'm okay with that. But this idea of /stopping the government from providing essential services because megacorporations might lose money/ is outright immoral.

ghastmaster 5y ago

> the existence of successful municipal broadband disproves neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives. It's easy to be the best service provider when competition is quashed by rules and regulations. How are private entities supposed to compete when states and municipal governments are no longer afraid to blow their budgets? These services are essentially subsidized with unlimited dollars from the federal government. That's not to say there won't be competition. Various governments will eventually create their own broadband services and states will adapt the best policies to ensure they are competing with the best states/services. This would(in the future) serve to disprove the "neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives". The "neoliberal dogma" asserts that the private sector without competition from government will out perform by all metrics in the long run. Comparing a world of government run services to a world of private run services over the course of 100 or 500 years would be necessary to get a better idea. There are other ramifications that arise when governments control services. Corruption, in it's many forms could degrade the service. For instance, if the government becomes radical and disables certain individuals or groups from connecting to various online entities, the argument still exists that "example" government run broadband provides the fastest speed. However, it is a mute point if you are one of the individuals or groups that is being targeted. Using the above example of targeted restrictions, the private sector solves this by having competition. If there is a group that wants something, there would be another to provide it.

ookdatnog 5y ago
The alternative to municipal broadband in many regions seems not to be a healthy free market with lots of competition, but a single monopoly providing poor service at high cost. The great strength of neoliberal ideology is that it seems uniquely capable of turning its own failings into arguments in its own favor. Whenever it fails -- such as in the rural US where there are large swathes of the country where there is no competition, poor service and high prices -- its defenders are quick to point out that these failings are the result of their theory not being applied with sufficient purity. Their predictions of lots of competition, high efficiency, and low prices fail to materialize not because the theory is wrong, but because there are still some rules and regulations, and clearly, those rules and regulations are what prohibits the neoliberal paradise from coming into existence. Not only did the theory not fail, the failure of its implementation is proof of the correctness of the theory. As is the case with your comment, this argument is rarely paired with an argument (or evidence) of how exactly the existing rules and regulations prevented healthy competition from materializing in the specific case under discussion. This is taken as a global, self-evident truth. The possibility that some regulations might make encourage rather than inhibit competition (such as regulation that allows you to keep your phone number when you switch providers) is never mentioned.

nightski 5y ago

I've actually seen some pretty terrible municipal broadband options. So just because it's successful in one place does not really prove anything. There are also some cities (including mine) which have fantastic ISPs (multiple competing) offering cheap gig fiber and there is zero need for government involvement in our internet.

tclancy 5y ago
That isn’t an argument for blocking them. If the advocates of this truly believed in the power of the free market, why would they bother?
- Alupis 5y ago
  No, it's an argument against another $68 Billion, 170 mile High Speed Rail[1]. Just because the government could do something efficiently, doesn't mean it will be done efficiently. There are so many examples of this type of massive program bloat, every state in the union has numerous examples. So while there are some cases where a municipal fiber network has been built efficiently and well, that is the "unicorn" example, not the norm it seems. Besides, nobody has operated one of these municipal networks long enough to see if the local government has the stomach (or pocketbook) to maintain the network long-term (10-50+ years). Yes it can be done... but will it? That's the question that should be debated, particularly when the local government already doesn't have a balanced budget or has excess debts. Local governments can't just print money like the Fed... and that $9 Billion Bond Californians voted for doesn't even cover 15% of the cost of the HSR. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
- beerandt 5y ago
  >power of the free market A government controlled or subsidized competitor doesn't result in a free market.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Then the current ISP situation is not a free market, because they're constantly subsidized. States pick individual winners for broadband all the time, private companies get direct contracts and grants to lay wire, government works directly with companies to subsidize costs for lower-income families. In general, the 'competition' we're talking about here isn't between individual businesses and the government -- it's between the entire categories of privatized solutions and public solutions. There are (at least) two theories for how to provide a service: to have communities pool resources in the form of a local town/city government and provide it themselves, or to have the service completely privatized. By creating public options for some social services, but still allowing the private market overall to compete alongside them, we can start to determine which services cost more money to operate, and which end up providing better outcomes. There are some concerns, but many of them are mitigated by the fact that municipal Internet is only... municipal. It's not a massive nation-wide thing. But in any case, this is all kind of a moot point because city-maintained broadband doesn't seem to me to be any more of an overuse of government resources than any of the other privileges and resources we're already giving away to private companies in the space. In a genuinely free market, I might be a lot more hesitant about this. But given the current state of the broadband market, I really don't see a problem with small communities and cities voluntarily deciding to try their own hand at connecting themselves to the Internet.