4 ms·

> the existence of successful municipal broadband disproves neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corru

> 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.
- jquery 5y ago
  I think you meant libertarian, not neoliberal.
  - ookdatnog 5y ago
    I'm not sure, I understand neoliberalism as a set of beliefs specifically about how the economy should be run, and libertarianism as a philosophical position and system of morality. So my understanding of the relationship between the two is that libertarians tend to hold neoliberal beliefs about the economy, and many neoliberals are libertarians. But it's perfectly possible to hold neoliberal beliefs and not be libertarian (for instance, you could be a religious fundamentalist who believes the state should be run as an autocratic theocracy, but who also believes the economy should be run according to free-market capitalist principles). If that's correct, my usage of neoliberal seems alright to me.
- ghastmaster 5y ago
  > such as in the rural US where there are large swathes of the country where there is no competition, poor service and high prices If rural individuals were willing to pay the cost for broadband access they would have it. They are not. So there is no market for competition at this time. The neoliberal argument does not assume that everyone should have equal access to the best services, but that a free market will provide what the market is willing to pay at a better efficiency than government.
ddavis 5y ago
> the private sector solves this by having competition. And the ISPs fight like hell to simultaneously avoid competition and go in all together on lawsuits like https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/isps-sue-new-york-to-block-law-requiring-15-broadband-for-poor-people/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/isps-sue-new-yor... The idea that private competition will solve broadband internet problems in the US has been garbage for many, many years
- nitrogen 5y ago
  >> the private sector solves this by having competition. >The idea that private competition will solve broadband internet problems in the US has been garbage for many, many years I live in an area that just rolled out a municipal last mile fiber network. I have two choices for ISP, one cable, one DSL. Once that fiber is connected to my home though, I will have twenty choices for ISP. That is competition.
  - brewdad 5y ago
    And it took government intervention in order to allow for that competition.
- ghastmaster 5y ago
  There is no denying that governments with nearly unlimited resources can provide services in areas that the private market doesn't exist. Individuals are not willing to pay the price that is required to provide service to rural areas. The municipal governments either take on debt or subsidize the cost with increased taxation. ISPs indeed fight like hell to avoid competition. They take advantage of government mandated monopolies as well. There is no denying that corporations take advantage of government rules and regulation to gain a competitive edge. Any strict neoliberal should denounce this.

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.

jquery 5y ago
I think you meant libertarian, not neoliberal.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  I'm not sure, I understand neoliberalism as a set of beliefs specifically about how the economy should be run, and libertarianism as a philosophical position and system of morality. So my understanding of the relationship between the two is that libertarians tend to hold neoliberal beliefs about the economy, and many neoliberals are libertarians. But it's perfectly possible to hold neoliberal beliefs and not be libertarian (for instance, you could be a religious fundamentalist who believes the state should be run as an autocratic theocracy, but who also believes the economy should be run according to free-market capitalist principles). If that's correct, my usage of neoliberal seems alright to me.
ghastmaster 5y ago
> such as in the rural US where there are large swathes of the country where there is no competition, poor service and high prices If rural individuals were willing to pay the cost for broadband access they would have it. They are not. So there is no market for competition at this time. The neoliberal argument does not assume that everyone should have equal access to the best services, but that a free market will provide what the market is willing to pay at a better efficiency than government.

ddavis 5y ago

> the private sector solves this by having competition. And the ISPs fight like hell to simultaneously avoid competition and go in all together on lawsuits like https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/isps-sue-new-york-to-block-law-requiring-15-broadband-for-poor-people/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/isps-sue-new-yor... The idea that private competition will solve broadband internet problems in the US has been garbage for many, many years

nitrogen 5y ago
>> the private sector solves this by having competition. >The idea that private competition will solve broadband internet problems in the US has been garbage for many, many years I live in an area that just rolled out a municipal last mile fiber network. I have two choices for ISP, one cable, one DSL. Once that fiber is connected to my home though, I will have twenty choices for ISP. That is competition.
- brewdad 5y ago
  And it took government intervention in order to allow for that competition.
ghastmaster 5y ago
There is no denying that governments with nearly unlimited resources can provide services in areas that the private market doesn't exist. Individuals are not willing to pay the price that is required to provide service to rural areas. The municipal governments either take on debt or subsidize the cost with increased taxation. ISPs indeed fight like hell to avoid competition. They take advantage of government mandated monopolies as well. There is no denying that corporations take advantage of government rules and regulation to gain a competitive edge. Any strict neoliberal should denounce this.