4 ms·

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 mar

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.

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.