5 ms·

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 al

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.
sethhochberg 5y ago
Variability in the quality of offerings in any given city/town seems like a particularly important reason to _not_ implement a blanket statewide ban on municipal broadband. If the quality of a municipal system sucks, the voters presumably have some leverage via voting to get it fixed. If a private provider has a local near-monopoly and sucks, and the state has banned the local municipality from competing, the only winner is the provider.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  They can also buy a private solution that’s better and/or cheaper. The danger isn’t that the municipal broadband is bad. It is that it’s good and then poor Comcast can’t make a fuckton of money while paying minimum wage to its employees. The horror.
smhenderson 5y ago
Well that's great, you're lucky. If that's the case than I'm sure your local, municipal government has no desire to get involved.
holtalanm 5y ago
almost like having competition drives innovation up and prices down. too bad most ISPs have literal monopolies over entire regions of people.

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.

sethhochberg 5y ago

Variability in the quality of offerings in any given city/town seems like a particularly important reason to _not_ implement a blanket statewide ban on municipal broadband. If the quality of a municipal system sucks, the voters presumably have some leverage via voting to get it fixed. If a private provider has a local near-monopoly and sucks, and the state has banned the local municipality from competing, the only winner is the provider.

IgorPartola 5y ago
They can also buy a private solution that’s better and/or cheaper. The danger isn’t that the municipal broadband is bad. It is that it’s good and then poor Comcast can’t make a fuckton of money while paying minimum wage to its employees. The horror.

smhenderson 5y ago

Well that's great, you're lucky. If that's the case than I'm sure your local, municipal government has no desire to get involved.

holtalanm 5y ago

almost like having competition drives innovation up and prices down. too bad most ISPs have literal monopolies over entire regions of people.