5 ms·

> Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices. Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the municipality. Even

> 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.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    And the Amish do opt out of some taxes and benefits that almost no other group does. So, there is clear precedent for not paying some common taxes and not using the benefits.
- asdff 5y ago
  I generally don't need a fire department every day either. That doesn't make it a good idea to sever the connection to that utility.
- tekromancr 5y ago
  Other replies to you post make some good points, but there is also the fact that having a fiber line running to her property significantly increases the value of the property and attractiveness to future purchasers.
lliamander 5y ago
> 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. But if I wish to purchase internet from a different provider, I still have to subsidize other people's internet. I'm forced to pay for something whether I use it or not.
- fabbari 5y ago
  You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative. I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?
  - Spivak 5y ago
    This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - nickff 5y ago
    I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.
dominotw 5y ago
> To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point, municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. I think 'business' in second sentence means business its competing with( ISP) not business in general. But in general it discourages any business by signaling that govt might swoop in and kill your business that you build over decades by starting it own that isnt' bound by the same pressures of market.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  I seriously doubt there are very many (any?) entrepreneurs worried about that. Government is going to swoop in and provide free nail care. Government is going to swoop in and provide free Mexican food. Government is going to swoop in and paint homes for free. Etc.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If I'm to believe the free market folks it won't be very good nail care, so nobody will use it. I'm all for having strategic nail care. I'd grab some free nail care, and if it's any good, I'd be a customer of paid nail care
  - dominotw 5y ago
    > I seriously doubt there are very many (any?) entrepreneurs worried about that. Why is that?

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.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  And the Amish do opt out of some taxes and benefits that almost no other group does. So, there is clear precedent for not paying some common taxes and not using the benefits.
asdff 5y ago
I generally don't need a fire department every day either. That doesn't make it a good idea to sever the connection to that utility.
tekromancr 5y ago
Other replies to you post make some good points, but there is also the fact that having a fiber line running to her property significantly increases the value of the property and attractiveness to future purchasers.

lliamander 5y ago

> 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. But if I wish to purchase internet from a different provider, I still have to subsidize other people's internet. I'm forced to pay for something whether I use it or not.

fabbari 5y ago
You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative. I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?
- Spivak 5y ago
  This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- nickff 5y ago
  I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.

dominotw 5y ago

> To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point, municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. I think 'business' in second sentence means business its competing with( ISP) not business in general. But in general it discourages any business by signaling that govt might swoop in and kill your business that you build over decades by starting it own that isnt' bound by the same pressures of market.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
I seriously doubt there are very many (any?) entrepreneurs worried about that. Government is going to swoop in and provide free nail care. Government is going to swoop in and provide free Mexican food. Government is going to swoop in and paint homes for free. Etc.
- 8note 5y ago
  If I'm to believe the free market folks it won't be very good nail care, so nobody will use it. I'm all for having strategic nail care. I'd grab some free nail care, and if it's any good, I'd be a customer of paid nail care
- dominotw 5y ago
  > I seriously doubt there are very many (any?) entrepreneurs worried about that. Why is that?