3 ms·

I think I can articulate the argument: In order to ensure the best outcome for consumers, we want customers to have a variety of competing options for broadban

I think I can articulate the argument: In order to ensure the best outcome for consumers, we want customers to have a variety of competing options for broadband service. That way they can select the option which gives them the best cost/value proposition. No individual provider can abuse or take advantage of customers, because they can just switch to another provider. Municipal broadband, by its nature, is incompatible with this competition. Such service is at least partially taxpayer funded which means that everyone pays for it whether they use it or not. Further, the city controls access to the corridors needed for providing internet service. The consequence is that the city ISP would have a great advantage over other ISPs, preventing any real competition. The case then is that we need to ban city-run ISPs so as to promote competition amongst ISPs in order to ensure the best service. However: I'm not sure of a good defense of forbidding it at the state level, instead of allowing individual municipalities to make their own decisions. Furthermore, I'm not sure of a good defense ensuring competition by forbidding public isps but not also requiring cities to make it easy for new isps to enter markets by giving access to corridors.

philjohn 5y ago
That's all well and good, but 88.3m americans are only served by a single ISP. The market has resoundingly failed to work.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  The response to this should measures to increase competition rather than government managed providers which kill competition even further. For example: * fewer regulations * additional taxes for monopolies * tax subsidies for new internet providers
yazaddaruvala 5y ago
By and large, thank you for the argument it’s well articulated. The one thing I want to no clarify, > Such service is at least partially taxpayer funded which means that everyone pays for it whether they use it or not. If the muni-broadband increases competition from 1 to two, and reduces costs for everyone, then even if some tax payer that fund the muni-broadband don’t use it actively, they do benefit from its existence.
- winstonewert 5y ago
  I think it would be pretty hard to ensure that: 1) The prices offered by the muni-broadband aren't too low driving out all competition 2) The prices offered by the muni-broadband are low enough to force competitors to offer the best pricing 3) The cost to taxpayers of the muni-broadband are less then the decreased prices to consumers brought about by this competition. The end result being, that I doubt a scenario where taxpayers benefit by funding a municipal competitor will actually work out.
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
    > I doubt a scenario where taxpayers benefit by funding a municipal competitor will actually work out. Umm, I hear your concerns and I agree if muni-broadband reduces competition, that is not ideal. That said, this is an odd statement to make. There is data to show muni-broadband can be successful and is many times successful. > The cost to taxpayers of the muni-broadband are less then the decreased prices to consumers brought about by this competition. Again, I hear you. The municipality has to be competent and use funds appropriately. Ideally, no net-new taxes should be used. Ideally, muni-broadband is a net-positive venture funding other municipality endeavors. There are a lot of cases where both versions of this story are true, the same way a lot of companies succeed and a lot of companies fail. It is not intrinsic to muni-broadband but rather intrinsic to the people running it. Meanwhile, I was just responding to "do all of the taxpayers in the municipality benefit from the muni-broadband?" And specifically to that one question, yes if there are 0 or 1 broadband providers serving a municipality, then every tax payer benefits from muni-broadband. Either: 1. The price of the muni-broadband is too-low, i.e. everyone in the municipality move over to it. 2. The price of the muni-broadband is competitive, i.e. everyone in the municipality has reduced prices through competition. 3. The price of the muni-broadband is too-high, i.e. everyone in the municipality learns that their elected officials need to be changed. And/or some policy changes need to be made by learning from other municipalities.
    - winstonewert 5y ago
      Can you point me in the direction of data about how muni-broadband has turned out? But my skepticism was a bit narrower than muni-broadband in general. In particular, I am skeptical of scenario where we have taxpayers paying higher taxes to subsidize muni-broadband, don't use that broadband, and yet are still better off due to increased competition, which is the sort of scenario I took you as suggesting. But it seems that wasn't what you were talking about. It currently seems that you are arguing that if we just look at the benefits of municipal broadband, everybody benefits. Sure. But I don't see the point in looking only at the benefit side of the equation.

philjohn 5y ago

That's all well and good, but 88.3m americans are only served by a single ISP. The market has resoundingly failed to work.

asteroidbelt 5y ago
The response to this should measures to increase competition rather than government managed providers which kill competition even further. For example: * fewer regulations * additional taxes for monopolies * tax subsidies for new internet providers

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

By and large, thank you for the argument it’s well articulated. The one thing I want to no clarify, > Such service is at least partially taxpayer funded which means that everyone pays for it whether they use it or not. If the muni-broadband increases competition from 1 to two, and reduces costs for everyone, then even if some tax payer that fund the muni-broadband don’t use it actively, they do benefit from its existence.

winstonewert 5y ago
I think it would be pretty hard to ensure that: 1) The prices offered by the muni-broadband aren't too low driving out all competition 2) The prices offered by the muni-broadband are low enough to force competitors to offer the best pricing 3) The cost to taxpayers of the muni-broadband are less then the decreased prices to consumers brought about by this competition. The end result being, that I doubt a scenario where taxpayers benefit by funding a municipal competitor will actually work out.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  > I doubt a scenario where taxpayers benefit by funding a municipal competitor will actually work out. Umm, I hear your concerns and I agree if muni-broadband reduces competition, that is not ideal. That said, this is an odd statement to make. There is data to show muni-broadband can be successful and is many times successful. > The cost to taxpayers of the muni-broadband are less then the decreased prices to consumers brought about by this competition. Again, I hear you. The municipality has to be competent and use funds appropriately. Ideally, no net-new taxes should be used. Ideally, muni-broadband is a net-positive venture funding other municipality endeavors. There are a lot of cases where both versions of this story are true, the same way a lot of companies succeed and a lot of companies fail. It is not intrinsic to muni-broadband but rather intrinsic to the people running it. Meanwhile, I was just responding to "do all of the taxpayers in the municipality benefit from the muni-broadband?" And specifically to that one question, yes if there are 0 or 1 broadband providers serving a municipality, then every tax payer benefits from muni-broadband. Either: 1. The price of the muni-broadband is too-low, i.e. everyone in the municipality move over to it. 2. The price of the muni-broadband is competitive, i.e. everyone in the municipality has reduced prices through competition. 3. The price of the muni-broadband is too-high, i.e. everyone in the municipality learns that their elected officials need to be changed. And/or some policy changes need to be made by learning from other municipalities.
  - winstonewert 5y ago
    Can you point me in the direction of data about how muni-broadband has turned out? But my skepticism was a bit narrower than muni-broadband in general. In particular, I am skeptical of scenario where we have taxpayers paying higher taxes to subsidize muni-broadband, don't use that broadband, and yet are still better off due to increased competition, which is the sort of scenario I took you as suggesting. But it seems that wasn't what you were talking about. It currently seems that you are arguing that if we just look at the benefits of municipal broadband, everybody benefits. Sure. But I don't see the point in looking only at the benefit side of the equation.