3 ms·

I just don't get why anyone would want their city to run an internet service? It seems like the most of awful thing that I could ever be forced to endure. I'll

I just don't get why anyone would want their city to run an internet service? It seems like the most of awful thing that I could ever be forced to endure. I'll give you a few easy examples: I moved from one house to another, the city owned electric company demanded a $200 deposit. Literally in the same area, same city owned electric. According to them I had a "history of non-payment". I asked about my original deposit, the employee told me I got it back. I asked when, he told me he could not tell me. I asked to speak to his supervisor, who also told me he could not tell me. He then proceeded to tell me to shut up about it. So far, I've payed $400 in deposits that I'll never see again. The same city utility routinely sent me water bills that made no sense. I would get bills for <500 gallons of usage per month. Then suddenly a bill for 10x the usage amount, but all billed for water. Somehow I didn't use any sewer. Had a plumber confirm no leaks in the system. Later I would find out the meter readers simply falsify the readings in that area. Somehow when I moved, they put trash service on my account. I'm not even in their service area for trash. But the real icing is COVID! For years the city has operated a bulk trash collection at the curb and hazardous waste collection at a facility. When COVID started, they just suspended it. For health concerns. 2 years later they are still collecting fees while city council is holding meetings about the increase in illegal dumping of trash in the area. This is the same group that is going to provide me internet service? Pass.

rectang 5y ago
> I just don't get why anyone would want their city to run an internet service? It seems like the most of awful thing that I could ever be forced to endure. I agree, but the "limited government" alternative in practice is monopoly telcos. What's the difference? Actual competition is not on offer from anyone.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  A government granting a monopoly to a private business is in no way "limited". In fact, it is one of the largest uses of power a state can apply.
  - rectang 5y ago
    I agree. The "limited government" advocates in the US are just hypocrites. They grant so much power to corporations that behemoths like the telcos can buy the government and write the laws granting themselves de facto monopolies — so it's not "limited government" any more.
verall 5y ago
So your city sucks, and has a monopoly on your utilities - that sucks. Comcast sucks and has a monopoly on tons of people's broadband. Even from your position, it must make sense that municipal broadband gives the possibility of improved services to tons of people who live in less sucky cities.
jrm4 5y ago
This is an unfortunately common, but incredibly naive and overly simplistic conception of what "private v. public" means in the context of utilities and similar services, and as someone who has worked in this area I wish I could do even more to dispel it. We can do anecdata all day; my city owned electricity is great. But more to the point, the line between "public" and "private" in a lot of these cases is rather thin; given the heavy amount of outsourcing that occurs regardless. The major difference is this, and only this: If you call the thing public, you get a better view and say of how the proverbial sausage is made. Due to a naive public this ends up cutting both ways. When it works well, you see it. When it doesn't work well, you still see it and other parties take advantage of it based on their own interests. I assure you, you will find no non-anecdotal relationship between quality of service and public/private status.
- q1w2 5y ago
  The issue is monopolies. Whether it is private or public, a monopoly will always provide shit service.
  - jrm4 5y ago
    That is correct. What makes utilities wildly different from e.g. hamburgers is the extent to which legal fictions must necessarily remove skin-in-the-game type problems that are glossed over. (e.g. what if I didn't WANT this wire in my land or over my house, my property?) Thus why, generally, you want to lean toward public.

rectang 5y ago

> I just don't get why anyone would want their city to run an internet service? It seems like the most of awful thing that I could ever be forced to endure. I agree, but the "limited government" alternative in practice is monopoly telcos. What's the difference? Actual competition is not on offer from anyone.

sidewndr46 5y ago
A government granting a monopoly to a private business is in no way "limited". In fact, it is one of the largest uses of power a state can apply.
- rectang 5y ago
  I agree. The "limited government" advocates in the US are just hypocrites. They grant so much power to corporations that behemoths like the telcos can buy the government and write the laws granting themselves de facto monopolies — so it's not "limited government" any more.

verall 5y ago

So your city sucks, and has a monopoly on your utilities - that sucks. Comcast sucks and has a monopoly on tons of people's broadband. Even from your position, it must make sense that municipal broadband gives the possibility of improved services to tons of people who live in less sucky cities.

jrm4 5y ago

This is an unfortunately common, but incredibly naive and overly simplistic conception of what "private v. public" means in the context of utilities and similar services, and as someone who has worked in this area I wish I could do even more to dispel it. We can do anecdata all day; my city owned electricity is great. But more to the point, the line between "public" and "private" in a lot of these cases is rather thin; given the heavy amount of outsourcing that occurs regardless. The major difference is this, and only this: If you call the thing public, you get a better view and say of how the proverbial sausage is made. Due to a naive public this ends up cutting both ways. When it works well, you see it. When it doesn't work well, you still see it and other parties take advantage of it based on their own interests. I assure you, you will find no non-anecdotal relationship between quality of service and public/private status.

q1w2 5y ago
The issue is monopolies. Whether it is private or public, a monopoly will always provide shit service.
- jrm4 5y ago
  That is correct. What makes utilities wildly different from e.g. hamburgers is the extent to which legal fictions must necessarily remove skin-in-the-game type problems that are glossed over. (e.g. what if I didn't WANT this wire in my land or over my house, my property?) Thus why, generally, you want to lean toward public.