3 ms·

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

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