4 ms·
To summarize: 1) They just signed a bill into law to provide various grants and such to increase BB. Its bad law to change everything every month. They wante
by VLM 5y ago
To summarize:
1) They just signed a bill into law to provide various grants and such to increase BB. Its bad law to change everything every month. They wanted $200M but shrunk it to a pilot program $20M and want to see how that will work and how it relates to getting federal handouts. Its an area of bad law, they have multiple hands in the pot doing multiple semi-opposing things at the same time, and when you find yourself stuck in the bottom of a hole, first stop digging. There is no central legislation or department for BB in Ohio, only stuff tacked onto other bills, and this is a bad way to legislate something important.
2) Historical small cherry picked successes do not imply expansion is a good idea. If Tesla sold 10K cars to millionaires in 2015, that does not imply one million fully electric F-150 would be sold in 2020, and that was indeed not the case. If its such a universal success, why isn't it happening? It seems fully electric F-150s are coming and NOT because of municipal laws but market forces and federal laws. If it (muni broadband) works so well, how come its always tiny anecdotes, not, perhaps, the entire eastern seaboard including all of NYC, or the entire state of CA or something? And if it doesn't always work, why should little ole Ohio be the lab rat, experiment on someone else?
3) Phone market (and wireless hotspots) seem to be doing better without local government interference than even the most optimistic muni-broadband projections. Why are we doing all of this, the whole debate and everything, if everyone will get better faster service from a wireless hotspot anyway? Its 2021 why are we arguing over the minutiae of how to run wires to every house when cheaper faster already more competitive wireless is the future anyway?
My view (as opposed to Fortney) would be muni competition would mean 1% of the monopoly would be broken, thus Americans being American, we'd eliminate all regulation on the 99% remaining monopoly victims. Nothing quite says "USA" free market quite like a handful of lucky people in a lucky area getting a great deal, and the masses will be paying more and getting less. In the long run, much like long distance in the 80s thru 20s, competition would increase until the product is too cheap to meter or technologically irrelevant meanwhile most billed revenue would go toward accounting expenses for that billed revenue and of course advertising to compete between dinosaurs, its not a productive use of our income. In the long run wired ISP is dead and we'll get satellite or wireless anyway; by the time we run multiple 70s era cable TV hardline to each home or fiber to each home under some legacy wired internet competition system, we'll all be using wireless hotspots that are 100x faster and 10x cheaper anyway. Would have been an interesting bill in 1996 or even as late as 2006, but in 2021 why even bother, by the time muni fiber for $50 arrives at your farm, you'll already be on a years later generation of Starlink running 100 times faster for $15.
- iso1631 5y agoA far better bill would be to ensure that all streets had publicly owned cable trunks owned by the municipality and any company can pay to run their cable in the trunk. Every time a street or path is dug up, put in a public wayleave with a fixed rental price to run your cable. It means that company after company don't need to keep digging the public road up. We don't have private roads in towns, shouldn't have private cable troughs either.