3 ms·

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.

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.