16 ms·

- Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for t

- Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.

psychometry 5y ago
Well done. Not one of those is even a little bit reasonable, but I could totally imagine your standard Repub attempting to argue those points.
- fooker 5y ago
  Why are none of these reasonable?
  - Retric 5y ago
    For one municipal broadband can be profitable without subsidies. It can be run by local governments but can also be spun off after the infrastructure is built etc.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Also the state government stepping in to block city governments in the name of "stopping government expansion" is actually government expansion. Let the municipal governments dictate how they govern themselves with their own infrastructure.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    They're not unreasonable at face value (obviously, that's how the game works) but they're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any real scrutiny. US political discourse is about boiling a complex system down to feel good talking points that sound snazzy and evoke strong emotions. "government handout" leading language, no substance various "expands government" also leading, still no substance/data "hostile to business" obviously, that's the point. Private enterprise has failed here and created a number the most customer hostile organizations in existence.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > they're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any real scrutiny The expansion of the role of government bit is not nothing. Yes, there is a cozy relationship between the federal government, many state governments and ISPs. But municipal broadband makes it much easier for e.g. the Louisville police department to influence how much of what type of information is collected on whom, and under what circumstances it may be shared. I support municipal broadband. Any competition is good competition. But it's disingenuous to write off the concerns so quickly.
      - edrxty 5y ago
        Sure, but we've been fighting this exact battle against the entrenched ISPs for decades now (think MPAA, RIAA etc DMCA notices). If the ISP is actually "owned" by the people it serves, through the process of government these issues can be addressed directly instead of through a 3rd party corporation that has no incentive to fix anything.
  - psychometry 5y ago
    Well, how much time do you have? To start, all arguments about price are nonsense. Cities offer broadband because it's cheaper per household. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. Right-wingers are threatened by this fact because it's yet another disproof of their claim that the free market can do everything better than government. Arguments about business being unable to compete with government are irrelevant in the case of utilities needed by everyone, since free market principles break down in innumerable ways.
    - fooker 5y ago
      > in the case of utilities needed by everyone This is not true for broadband outside your bubble. DSL is a reasonable option for the vast majority of non-tech people living outside cities and suburbs.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. Artificially lowers price in what sense? Unless it's operating at a loss, it's just another market participant. In my experience with municipal broadband, this was the case. Their prices were below the other options, but they were operating at a profitable level (not a high profit, mind you). But with the general race to the bottom on prices, short of very high demand or collusion, their prices weren't really that much cheaper than what the local cable company would have dropped to if there'd been real competition (in fact, I had to go through the local cable company because I was in an apartment that had contracted them, and the cable company got to add a $5/month fee while doing nothing but billing). - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. This one is kind of true, however the billing (if you weren't like me) what through the same office that handled other municipal utilities (in that area, water and sewer were billed by the county). The labor itself was contracted out, both for the initial roll out and the maintenance. This potentially adds some oversight positions but we're not talking about hundreds of extra government jobs here. And actually, if what I was told was correct their contract went to their competitor, the local cable company who had opted not to roll out their own high-speed service in the area (which precipitated the local push for municipal broadband). - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. The program covered its own costs. Residents choosing not to participate were not charged. So it was only a tax on those residents who elected to participate in the program, but those residents were also getting better service for 50-75% lower prices compared to the old DSL and dial-up in the area (NB: This was in the late 00s, dial-up and low-speed DSL as the best options in a college town with several major businesses is insanely stupid.) - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. The local cable company could have competed, again, if what I was told was correct. It was their own labor that put the fiber and last-mile connections in place.
  - okennedy 5y ago
    For many goods and services, they are actually quite reasonable requirements. Internet access, however, is a form of public infrastructure, regardless of whether it is administered by a for-profit corporation or a government. > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. It requires physical infrastructure, and that physical infrastructure needs to reach people's houses. That, in turn requires the use of public resources (streets) and/or eminent domain. In short, government is already involved. > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. The level of infrastructure investment required makes it hard to justify new for-profit investment, especially if the area is already being served or isn't populated enough for the company to make a profit. As a result, internet access providers naturally tend towards being a monopoly, which in turn artificially increases prices. > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. I can see where this point is coming from, and it's not wrong. At this point, however, even those who don't directly benefit from internet access seem like they benefit indirectly. It's also worth noting that a lot of locales (mine included) already pump money into corporate broadband providers to entice them to build and maintain the infrastructure. In other words, the tax gets applied, regardless of whether it's a for-profit corporation reaping the benefits or not. > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. Companies already can't compete with a service that requires enormous infrastructure investments and the use of government property. Internet access (and most large-scale infrastructure) is different due to the heavy infrastructure investment required. - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out that sort of infrastructure in an area that isn't populated enough to allow the organization to make a profit. - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out a second set of infrastructure in an area that already has it, as increasing competition will lower prices and make it harder to make a profit on the investment. - Building out multiple redundant infrastructures can also be a hassle for normal citizens. More closures due to maintenance/construction work, more use of eminent domain, more unsightly telephone poles, etc... In short, Internet access tends towards being a monopoly. With that in mind... - Artificially lowering prices is a good thing if it counters the natural tendency of a monopoly to push prices up. - Expanding the role of government is a bit of a non-argument, since
imtringued 5y ago
I read a republican article on CO2 taxes and it had exactly the same talking points with the exception that CO2 taxes artificially increase prices. I don't know why but the lack of nuance and inability to admit that some things can be a good idea given the right situation is really getting old. When you are following absolutes (with nothing forcing them to be true) you are bound to get it wrong eventually.
notyourwork 5y ago
Why is internet connectivity NOT viewed similarly to road connectivity? We expect to be able to travel across the city to do stuff. We similarly expect to be able to use the internet. The world is becoming ever increasingly connected online and people should expect to have fast consistent access to online services. ESPECIALLY when government's are using internet for interfacing to do things citizens have to do. edit: minor typo corrected.
- deeg 5y ago
  For myself, it's because it's physically prohibitive to have competing roads but it is possible in most cases to have competing internet providers. In general I am of the opinion that fostering competition results in the best internet. That said I disagree with the GOP here; for some rural areas it's hard to get companies to run cable without some guarantees. Outright banning them hurts rural communities.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Competing internet providers still need to invest in last mile costs, which are prohibitively expensive (just like roads). Why is competition the goal? Because it ultimately lowers prices for consumers? That is what municipal internet achieves.
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      And innovation. Don't forget that. I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, as its not clear there has been that much innovation in this space for a while. Or if there is, I welcome hearing about it.
      - bduerst 5y ago
        I think any innovation we'll see is 5G wireless towers going up.
      - ixacto 5y ago
        The innovation is realizing that consumers are tired of your tiered upsell bs (looking at you Xfinity/comcast) and just offering everyone 1000/1000 and being done with it. That is literally what some of the reseller ISP are doing now. Real innovation would be going the EPB route and offering 10-gigabit for $300/month. https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/ https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/
merpnderp 5y ago
You forgot the biggest one: breaking up monopolies and forcing more competition is better than government bureaucratic services.
bduerst 5y ago
> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - This is a feature of muni broadband and other natural monopolies, like water, electricity, transportation, where economies-of-scale cost savings stimulate economic growth. > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. - The State government stepping in to interfere with city government by blocking muni broadband is an expansion of the role of government. > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. - The same argument has been made against public roads, not everyone uses them directly but indirectly they still benefit regardless. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. - Natural monopolies are hostile to business. The natural barrier to entry prevents competition and innovation, hence why the government needs to pump money into it.
bluejekyll 5y ago
> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. This is like roads. Most communities pay for roads out of taxes or bonds levied on the community. None of that is a handout, on top of that, most places will still require you to pay for internet. > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. This isn't necessarily bad, and requires voters be more involved in local politics to ensure that infrastructure in general is being kept up. > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. This repeats the first point, but, yes it's a tax, but to say that not everyone benefits? This past year showed how important it was for every student to have broadband access to attend remote learning. Seems hard to argue at this point that not everyone would benefit. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point, municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet, that allows them to keep in better touch with their customers. This is pro-business, not anti.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  > Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. To play devils advocate, not everyone wants or needs internet. My grandmother has buried fiber available straight to her rural home. I'm sure it cost tens of thousands of dollars to get that buried fiber run a mile down her dead-end road. She's never owned a computer and never will. Neither do any of the Amish families in the area. http://www.marquetteadams.com/about-us/ http://www.marquetteadams.com/about-us/
  - bluejekyll 5y ago
    The Amish don't get the benefit of all the highways in their area, generally don't need paved roads, and don't send their children to public school. Additionally they are pacifists who don't believe in war. They still pay taxes that fund all of that. My grandmother became interested in computing and learned how to use the internet in her 80's before she passed away a decade later. The number of people who don't require or want internet access going into the future is going to be very few.
barkerja 5y ago
I live in a small village in central NY and we are months away from rolling out municipal broadband. For years, Spectrum has had a stronghold on this region with prices they set without any competition. The citizens of this region have pleaded with numerous carriers to bring better internet, but all balk at the prospect. We finally said enough is enough and decided to rollout FTTH for every resident, without a single penny spent of tax dollar money. We've been fortunate to get enough grant money from both state and federal to get this off the ground. The service will be fully subscriber-funded and end up making the town money in several years. There is absolutely nothing about this service that is: 1. A handout from government. You must pay for the service. 2. Expanding the role of government. 3. Increasing taxes 4. Hostile. The only hostility until now has been Spectrum bullying the competition.
- mimikatz 5y ago
  "without a single penny spent of tax dollar money. We've been fortunate to get enough grant money from both state and federal to get this off the ground." How are state and federal grants not made up of tax dollars?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > How are state and federal grants not made up of tax dollars? State is different because the funding situation of state and federal governments are not equivalent, but marginal federal spending is not tied to marginal increases in tax revenue even in principal, so quite literally changes in federal spending do not come from tax dollars. If you assume that (1) the lifespan of the federal government is finite, and (2) the federal government will have no unpaid, transferred, forgiven, or externally covered debt from now until and including the eventual final shut-down, then it follows that any spending must eventually be covered by taxes, but while (1) is a reasonable assumption, (2) is...less clearly justified.
    - starik36 5y ago
      I am still confused how this isn't tax payer funded. If it comes from the government, it's tax payer funded.
the_only_law 5y ago
This the same state that wanted to make Google a public utility?
- Vaslo 5y ago
  Are you the same person who wants Google to remain public? Arguments like this work both ways.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    Not sure exactly what’s that’s supposed to means, but the difference ofc, is I hold no power and my opinions are mostly not worth anything.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      Their question was a textbook tu quoque fallacy.
- albertsondev 5y ago
  As it happens, the state legislature and the attorney general are not one in the same. If it's a question of local politics, Ohio has recently leaned red but historically been considered a battleground state, so they're somewhat diverse.
mfer 5y ago
In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, telephone companies, and municipalities. This is why people want municipal broadband. You can't just start an ISP and get on the pole with your cable. > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. There are many places where municipal broadband is at cost rather than subsidized or a hand out. With little to no competition the higher prices vs at cost can look funny. > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. Totally. If ISPs could get on poles to run lines to peoples homes I expect there would be a lot less of a call for them as there would be more capability for competition. > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than I'd be curious to see the case. > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. Who can do broadband is constrained by law which is hostile to business. You can't just start and ISP and run lines to homes. That's against the law most places. Municipal broadband is often a work around to the other hostile laws that benefit telephone companies and cable tv companies which have staked out local monopolies most places.
- hardtke 5y ago
  Your first point is important. Governments have protected citizen's quality of life by restricting the number of wires going around on poles and/or digging up of the streets. This is why local governments created regulated telephone and cable monopolies in the first place. Unfortunately the regulated telephone and cable infrastructure later become much more valuable due to the emergence of broadband internet. The companies that owned this infra then loaded up on debt based on the skyrocketing value of this infrastructure and we are forced to pay for this debt.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, ... I wonder if we'll ever see anyone trying to technically sidestep this requirement. "We're a TV company, you can go to this url to see our 'clear sky 24/7' channel. Also we provide internet access."
newacct583 5y ago
All of which are decent arguments in the abstract. Unfortunately the practical situation is that US broadband solutions outside of major urban cores are really bad (and even in the cities, we're essentially just barely at parity with the rest of the industrialized world). The free market, objectively, has failed us. That's why these initiative exist to begin with. Protecting the abstract market is a worthless philosophy when the effect is to impede progress.
Taek 5y ago
Just wanted to say thanks. I disagree with these arguments but they helped me to understand how the other side feels.
meristohm 5y ago
Even if I don’t directly benefit from a service, if other people benefit is that a good thing? If I’m acting selfishly, perhaps I can console myself that some of those beneficiaries might spend more money on my for-profit service.
valec 5y ago
> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. prices are artificially high due to pseudo or actual monopolies in part due to existing regulation and prohibitive costs. internet is effectively a utility anyways so cheaper is better. - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. not necessarily a bad thing - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. a large majority of residents use internet in most of the USA. either way, removing the right for a community to choose seems heavy handed and anti-libertarian to me - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. does everything have to be exploitable for profit??
takinola 5y ago
Seems like the simple solution is to require that all infrastructure be open. Anyone can lease, for a reasonable cost (margins set by regulation), the wires that any other entity has laid. This way, there is still incentive to lay and upgrade infrastructure but you don't get to gouge consumers by being the only game in town
greydius 5y ago
- building and maintaing roads is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - building and maintaing roads expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from building and maintaing roads. - building and maintaing roads is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.
908B64B197 5y ago
> Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. Doesn't have to be true. With enough launch day subscriber you can build the infrastructure without any additional taxes. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. That's the reason FedEx and American Airline went bankrupt; they simply couldn't compete against the US Postal Service and Amtrak!
- redler 5y ago
  Notwithstanding the humor of your assertion, Amtrak and the USPS are indeed perpetual GOP targets for hobbling, creatively destructive encumbrance, and dissolution.
ineedasername 5y ago
All of these assume municipal broadband is subsidized by taxes. That might or might not be true, and could vary from example to example, but is something you need data to support, and it should be possible to determine if such operations are revenue positive or negative. It is also difficult to swallow that it's hostile to competition in those cases where the alternative is a private monopoly by an ISP. The theory of competition in a free market is that it is also beneficial to consumers. If there is already no potential for private competition, then the market has failed and consumers may be harmed. If the municipality steps in to offer an alternative-- as long as it is not subsidizing it & artificially lowering prices-- then it is enhancing the competitive landscape.
exporectomy 5y ago
I think your last point should be that it's hostile to competition which could, in theory, benefit the consumer. That's kind of the big reason against government run businesses, that they stifle innovation and competition because they don't have to be profitable while their private sector competitors do. Though it sounds like competition doesn't work properly for broadband so it's more of an in theory reason.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I think the question then becomes: what did the government give to these private companies. If they gave big discounts and provided right of way access, one could argue it would be fair to either: take some public ownership in the private companies (controversial) or at least provide the same benefits to a private collective if requested. If the government is handing out subsidies to private companies it would seem only fair to at least also provide that to private collectives.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
WillPostForFood 5y ago
I think it is more: once the government enters the market with a subsidized or free product, you not only kill existing businesses, but any hope of future competition. The 1 gif fiber from the city looks good today, but 10-20 years down the road when 100gb is cutting edge, who is going to risk offering it?
Teever 5y ago
Those are all pretty standard garden variety small government proponent talking points but do you have any idea what arguments they make regarding the natural monopoly issue?
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  - Natural monopolies don't exist. No inefficiency lasts long in a free market. There are areas with competition. Lifting regulations would create more. Or maybe most people are satisfied with the service they have. - Competition is everywhere. Satellite is good enough for most people. Maybe it costs more. But you choose where to live. - 5G and Starlink are about to change the game.
ghayes 5y ago
What confuses me here is that this isn’t “The Ohio state government will not offer municipal broadband”; it’s “cities like Fairlawn are no longer allowed to run broadband.” To me, that sounds like the state restricting rights of the citizens in a given township or municipality.

psychometry 5y ago

Well done. Not one of those is even a little bit reasonable, but I could totally imagine your standard Repub attempting to argue those points.

fooker 5y ago
Why are none of these reasonable?
- Retric 5y ago
  For one municipal broadband can be profitable without subsidies. It can be run by local governments but can also be spun off after the infrastructure is built etc.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Also the state government stepping in to block city governments in the name of "stopping government expansion" is actually government expansion. Let the municipal governments dictate how they govern themselves with their own infrastructure.
- edrxty 5y ago
  They're not unreasonable at face value (obviously, that's how the game works) but they're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any real scrutiny. US political discourse is about boiling a complex system down to feel good talking points that sound snazzy and evoke strong emotions. "government handout" leading language, no substance various "expands government" also leading, still no substance/data "hostile to business" obviously, that's the point. Private enterprise has failed here and created a number the most customer hostile organizations in existence.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > they're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any real scrutiny The expansion of the role of government bit is not nothing. Yes, there is a cozy relationship between the federal government, many state governments and ISPs. But municipal broadband makes it much easier for e.g. the Louisville police department to influence how much of what type of information is collected on whom, and under what circumstances it may be shared. I support municipal broadband. Any competition is good competition. But it's disingenuous to write off the concerns so quickly.
    - edrxty 5y ago
      Sure, but we've been fighting this exact battle against the entrenched ISPs for decades now (think MPAA, RIAA etc DMCA notices). If the ISP is actually "owned" by the people it serves, through the process of government these issues can be addressed directly instead of through a 3rd party corporation that has no incentive to fix anything.
- psychometry 5y ago
  Well, how much time do you have? To start, all arguments about price are nonsense. Cities offer broadband because it's cheaper per household. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. Right-wingers are threatened by this fact because it's yet another disproof of their claim that the free market can do everything better than government. Arguments about business being unable to compete with government are irrelevant in the case of utilities needed by everyone, since free market principles break down in innumerable ways.
  - fooker 5y ago
    > in the case of utilities needed by everyone This is not true for broadband outside your bubble. DSL is a reasonable option for the vast majority of non-tech people living outside cities and suburbs.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. Artificially lowers price in what sense? Unless it's operating at a loss, it's just another market participant. In my experience with municipal broadband, this was the case. Their prices were below the other options, but they were operating at a profitable level (not a high profit, mind you). But with the general race to the bottom on prices, short of very high demand or collusion, their prices weren't really that much cheaper than what the local cable company would have dropped to if there'd been real competition (in fact, I had to go through the local cable company because I was in an apartment that had contracted them, and the cable company got to add a $5/month fee while doing nothing but billing). - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. This one is kind of true, however the billing (if you weren't like me) what through the same office that handled other municipal utilities (in that area, water and sewer were billed by the county). The labor itself was contracted out, both for the initial roll out and the maintenance. This potentially adds some oversight positions but we're not talking about hundreds of extra government jobs here. And actually, if what I was told was correct their contract went to their competitor, the local cable company who had opted not to roll out their own high-speed service in the area (which precipitated the local push for municipal broadband). - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. The program covered its own costs. Residents choosing not to participate were not charged. So it was only a tax on those residents who elected to participate in the program, but those residents were also getting better service for 50-75% lower prices compared to the old DSL and dial-up in the area (NB: This was in the late 00s, dial-up and low-speed DSL as the best options in a college town with several major businesses is insanely stupid.) - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. The local cable company could have competed, again, if what I was told was correct. It was their own labor that put the fiber and last-mile connections in place.
- okennedy 5y ago
  For many goods and services, they are actually quite reasonable requirements. Internet access, however, is a form of public infrastructure, regardless of whether it is administered by a for-profit corporation or a government. > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. It requires physical infrastructure, and that physical infrastructure needs to reach people's houses. That, in turn requires the use of public resources (streets) and/or eminent domain. In short, government is already involved. > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. The level of infrastructure investment required makes it hard to justify new for-profit investment, especially if the area is already being served or isn't populated enough for the company to make a profit. As a result, internet access providers naturally tend towards being a monopoly, which in turn artificially increases prices. > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. I can see where this point is coming from, and it's not wrong. At this point, however, even those who don't directly benefit from internet access seem like they benefit indirectly. It's also worth noting that a lot of locales (mine included) already pump money into corporate broadband providers to entice them to build and maintain the infrastructure. In other words, the tax gets applied, regardless of whether it's a for-profit corporation reaping the benefits or not. > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. Companies already can't compete with a service that requires enormous infrastructure investments and the use of government property. Internet access (and most large-scale infrastructure) is different due to the heavy infrastructure investment required. - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out that sort of infrastructure in an area that isn't populated enough to allow the organization to make a profit. - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out a second set of infrastructure in an area that already has it, as increasing competition will lower prices and make it harder to make a profit on the investment. - Building out multiple redundant infrastructures can also be a hassle for normal citizens. More closures due to maintenance/construction work, more use of eminent domain, more unsightly telephone poles, etc... In short, Internet access tends towards being a monopoly. With that in mind... - Artificially lowering prices is a good thing if it counters the natural tendency of a monopoly to push prices up. - Expanding the role of government is a bit of a non-argument, since

imtringued 5y ago

I read a republican article on CO2 taxes and it had exactly the same talking points with the exception that CO2 taxes artificially increase prices. I don't know why but the lack of nuance and inability to admit that some things can be a good idea given the right situation is really getting old. When you are following absolutes (with nothing forcing them to be true) you are bound to get it wrong eventually.

notyourwork 5y ago

Why is internet connectivity NOT viewed similarly to road connectivity? We expect to be able to travel across the city to do stuff. We similarly expect to be able to use the internet. The world is becoming ever increasingly connected online and people should expect to have fast consistent access to online services. ESPECIALLY when government's are using internet for interfacing to do things citizens have to do. edit: minor typo corrected.

deeg 5y ago
For myself, it's because it's physically prohibitive to have competing roads but it is possible in most cases to have competing internet providers. In general I am of the opinion that fostering competition results in the best internet. That said I disagree with the GOP here; for some rural areas it's hard to get companies to run cable without some guarantees. Outright banning them hurts rural communities.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Competing internet providers still need to invest in last mile costs, which are prohibitively expensive (just like roads). Why is competition the goal? Because it ultimately lowers prices for consumers? That is what municipal internet achieves.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    And innovation. Don't forget that. I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, as its not clear there has been that much innovation in this space for a while. Or if there is, I welcome hearing about it.
    - bduerst 5y ago
      I think any innovation we'll see is 5G wireless towers going up.
    - ixacto 5y ago
      The innovation is realizing that consumers are tired of your tiered upsell bs (looking at you Xfinity/comcast) and just offering everyone 1000/1000 and being done with it. That is literally what some of the reseller ISP are doing now. Real innovation would be going the EPB route and offering 10-gigabit for $300/month. https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/ https://epb.com/fi-speed-internet/

merpnderp 5y ago

You forgot the biggest one: breaking up monopolies and forcing more competition is better than government bureaucratic services.

bduerst 5y ago

> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - This is a feature of muni broadband and other natural monopolies, like water, electricity, transportation, where economies-of-scale cost savings stimulate economic growth. > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. - The State government stepping in to interfere with city government by blocking muni broadband is an expansion of the role of government. > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. - The same argument has been made against public roads, not everyone uses them directly but indirectly they still benefit regardless. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. - Natural monopolies are hostile to business. The natural barrier to entry prevents competition and innovation, hence why the government needs to pump money into it.

bluejekyll 5y ago

> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. This is like roads. Most communities pay for roads out of taxes or bonds levied on the community. None of that is a handout, on top of that, most places will still require you to pay for internet. > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. This isn't necessarily bad, and requires voters be more involved in local politics to ensure that infrastructure in general is being kept up. > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. This repeats the first point, but, yes it's a tax, but to say that not everyone benefits? This past year showed how important it was for every student to have broadband access to attend remote learning. Seems hard to argue at this point that not everyone would benefit. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point, municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet, that allows them to keep in better touch with their customers. This is pro-business, not anti.

nickysielicki 5y ago
> Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area gets the benefit of it. To play devils advocate, not everyone wants or needs internet. My grandmother has buried fiber available straight to her rural home. I'm sure it cost tens of thousands of dollars to get that buried fiber run a mile down her dead-end road. She's never owned a computer and never will. Neither do any of the Amish families in the area. http://www.marquetteadams.com/about-us/ http://www.marquetteadams.com/about-us/
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  The Amish don't get the benefit of all the highways in their area, generally don't need paved roads, and don't send their children to public school. Additionally they are pacifists who don't believe in war. They still pay taxes that fund all of that. My grandmother became interested in computing and learned how to use the internet in her 80's before she passed away a decade later. The number of people who don't require or want internet access going into the future is going to be very few.

barkerja 5y ago

I live in a small village in central NY and we are months away from rolling out municipal broadband. For years, Spectrum has had a stronghold on this region with prices they set without any competition. The citizens of this region have pleaded with numerous carriers to bring better internet, but all balk at the prospect. We finally said enough is enough and decided to rollout FTTH for every resident, without a single penny spent of tax dollar money. We've been fortunate to get enough grant money from both state and federal to get this off the ground. The service will be fully subscriber-funded and end up making the town money in several years. There is absolutely nothing about this service that is: 1. A handout from government. You must pay for the service. 2. Expanding the role of government. 3. Increasing taxes 4. Hostile. The only hostility until now has been Spectrum bullying the competition.

mimikatz 5y ago
"without a single penny spent of tax dollar money. We've been fortunate to get enough grant money from both state and federal to get this off the ground." How are state and federal grants not made up of tax dollars?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > How are state and federal grants not made up of tax dollars? State is different because the funding situation of state and federal governments are not equivalent, but marginal federal spending is not tied to marginal increases in tax revenue even in principal, so quite literally changes in federal spending do not come from tax dollars. If you assume that (1) the lifespan of the federal government is finite, and (2) the federal government will have no unpaid, transferred, forgiven, or externally covered debt from now until and including the eventual final shut-down, then it follows that any spending must eventually be covered by taxes, but while (1) is a reasonable assumption, (2) is...less clearly justified.
  - starik36 5y ago
    I am still confused how this isn't tax payer funded. If it comes from the government, it's tax payer funded.

the_only_law 5y ago

This the same state that wanted to make Google a public utility?

Vaslo 5y ago
Are you the same person who wants Google to remain public? Arguments like this work both ways.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  Not sure exactly what’s that’s supposed to means, but the difference ofc, is I hold no power and my opinions are mostly not worth anything.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Their question was a textbook tu quoque fallacy.
albertsondev 5y ago
As it happens, the state legislature and the attorney general are not one in the same. If it's a question of local politics, Ohio has recently leaned red but historically been considered a battleground state, so they're somewhat diverse.

mfer 5y ago

In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, telephone companies, and municipalities. This is why people want municipal broadband. You can't just start an ISP and get on the pole with your cable. > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. There are many places where municipal broadband is at cost rather than subsidized or a hand out. With little to no competition the higher prices vs at cost can look funny. > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. Totally. If ISPs could get on poles to run lines to peoples homes I expect there would be a lot less of a call for them as there would be more capability for competition. > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than I'd be curious to see the case. > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. Who can do broadband is constrained by law which is hostile to business. You can't just start and ISP and run lines to homes. That's against the law most places. Municipal broadband is often a work around to the other hostile laws that benefit telephone companies and cable tv companies which have staked out local monopolies most places.

hardtke 5y ago
Your first point is important. Governments have protected citizen's quality of life by restricting the number of wires going around on poles and/or digging up of the streets. This is why local governments created regulated telephone and cable monopolies in the first place. Unfortunately the regulated telephone and cable infrastructure later become much more valuable due to the emergence of broadband internet. The companies that owned this infra then loaded up on debt based on the skyrocketing value of this infrastructure and we are forced to pay for this debt.
viraptor 5y ago
> In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, ... I wonder if we'll ever see anyone trying to technically sidestep this requirement. "We're a TV company, you can go to this url to see our 'clear sky 24/7' channel. Also we provide internet access."

newacct583 5y ago

All of which are decent arguments in the abstract. Unfortunately the practical situation is that US broadband solutions outside of major urban cores are really bad (and even in the cities, we're essentially just barely at parity with the rest of the industrialized world). The free market, objectively, has failed us. That's why these initiative exist to begin with. Protecting the abstract market is a worthless philosophy when the effect is to impede progress.

Taek 5y ago

Just wanted to say thanks. I disagree with these arguments but they helped me to understand how the other side feels.

meristohm 5y ago

Even if I don’t directly benefit from a service, if other people benefit is that a good thing? If I’m acting selfishly, perhaps I can console myself that some of those beneficiaries might spend more money on my for-profit service.

valec 5y ago

> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. prices are artificially high due to pseudo or actual monopolies in part due to existing regulation and prohibitive costs. internet is effectively a utility anyways so cheaper is better. - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. not necessarily a bad thing - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. a large majority of residents use internet in most of the USA. either way, removing the right for a community to choose seems heavy handed and anti-libertarian to me - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. does everything have to be exploitable for profit??

takinola 5y ago

Seems like the simple solution is to require that all infrastructure be open. Anyone can lease, for a reasonable cost (margins set by regulation), the wires that any other entity has laid. This way, there is still incentive to lay and upgrade infrastructure but you don't get to gouge consumers by being the only game in town

greydius 5y ago

- building and maintaing roads is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. - building and maintaing roads expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage. - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from building and maintaing roads. - building and maintaing roads is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access. Doesn't have to be true. With enough launch day subscriber you can build the infrastructure without any additional taxes. > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into. That's the reason FedEx and American Airline went bankrupt; they simply couldn't compete against the US Postal Service and Amtrak!

redler 5y ago
Notwithstanding the humor of your assertion, Amtrak and the USPS are indeed perpetual GOP targets for hobbling, creatively destructive encumbrance, and dissolution.

ineedasername 5y ago

All of these assume municipal broadband is subsidized by taxes. That might or might not be true, and could vary from example to example, but is something you need data to support, and it should be possible to determine if such operations are revenue positive or negative. It is also difficult to swallow that it's hostile to competition in those cases where the alternative is a private monopoly by an ISP. The theory of competition in a free market is that it is also beneficial to consumers. If there is already no potential for private competition, then the market has failed and consumers may be harmed. If the municipality steps in to offer an alternative-- as long as it is not subsidizing it & artificially lowering prices-- then it is enhancing the competitive landscape.

exporectomy 5y ago

I think your last point should be that it's hostile to competition which could, in theory, benefit the consumer. That's kind of the big reason against government run businesses, that they stifle innovation and competition because they don't have to be profitable while their private sector competitors do. Though it sounds like competition doesn't work properly for broadband so it's more of an in theory reason.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I think the question then becomes: what did the government give to these private companies. If they gave big discounts and provided right of way access, one could argue it would be fair to either: take some public ownership in the private companies (controversial) or at least provide the same benefits to a private collective if requested. If the government is handing out subsidies to private companies it would seem only fair to at least also provide that to private collectives.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

WillPostForFood 5y ago

I think it is more: once the government enters the market with a subsidized or free product, you not only kill existing businesses, but any hope of future competition. The 1 gif fiber from the city looks good today, but 10-20 years down the road when 100gb is cutting edge, who is going to risk offering it?

Teever 5y ago

Those are all pretty standard garden variety small government proponent talking points but do you have any idea what arguments they make regarding the natural monopoly issue?

pseudalopex 5y ago
- Natural monopolies don't exist. No inefficiency lasts long in a free market. There are areas with competition. Lifting regulations would create more. Or maybe most people are satisfied with the service they have. - Competition is everywhere. Satellite is good enough for most people. Maybe it costs more. But you choose where to live. - 5G and Starlink are about to change the game.

ghayes 5y ago

What confuses me here is that this isn’t “The Ohio state government will not offer municipal broadband”; it’s “cities like Fairlawn are no longer allowed to run broadband.” To me, that sounds like the state restricting rights of the citizens in a given township or municipality.