6 ms·

I'm sure it's within their regulatory laws to determine what can be rolled out where. Of course, the real question is where are all those free market Republican

I'm sure it's within their regulatory laws to determine what can be rolled out where. Of course, the real question is where are all those free market Republicans in Tennessee when it comes time for the market to compete with their donors?

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
>where are all those free market Republicans in Tennessee when it comes time for the market to compete with their donors? "Privatize profits, subsidize losses." —My neighbor Tennesseans (when I used to live on Lookout).
freedomben 3y ago
I've lived in a lot of red states, and the same thing repeatedly happens. I've given up trying to change things. For every 1 person who will care, there are 25 who just check that there is an "R" next to the name of the person. Ignorant votes make educated votes irrelevant.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Spivak 3y ago
> the real question is where are all those free market Republicans Blocking public services that naturally have a pricing advantage over private businesses because they're supported by tax dollars. Like if you're gonna drag Republicans for not living up to their free market ideals this really isn't what you should point to. People said the same thing when they opposed the public option in the '00's and the rationale was the same. "Competing" with government services is just roundabout price controls. I'm zero percent opposed to such things when the market fails to sort itself out but I can see why strict free market adherents wouldn't be on board.
- surge 3y ago
  They weren't using tax dollars. The service is paid for by the bills, its simply not for profit, it just treats the fiber lines like roads and side walks, a common public good. You can even choose your own ISP.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  ISPs and Pharma companies get subsidies from the government, I don't think your argument holds up here. Just another area that Republicans are happy to be hypocrites on. I would love to see Republicans set out "small government" legislation that removes subsidies to the core businesses in their states but you and I both know that will never happen. A child getting food stamps is an example of our 'welfare state' but it's never the billions that go to agriculture or pharma companies.
  - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
    I laugh often knowing that WalMart is the largest single recipient of "corporate welfare" in this fine state/country. What a term/fact. When my black nephew started working there, they walked him through "applying for foodstamps" as part of his training/onboarding.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Blocking public services that naturally have a pricing advantage over private businesses because they're supported by tax dollars. That's the stated rationale. The actual reason is that the entirety of Republican economic ideology revolves around the idea that the government isn't capable of providing better service than private companies and municipal broadband shows this to be a complete lie.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    Well, firstly, we should acknowledge that municipal broadband isn't a story of completely unmitigated success - there are cases of tremendous failure as well. I'm also fairly sure that most Republicans would not mind if municipal broadband were run - and competed on - commercial terms. However, if it's funded by municipal bonds that are backed by general obligation (i.e. all taxpayers subsidize, whether they use the service or not) then that seems obviously a problem to me. Even if they're revenue bonds, they're still implicitly subsidized by tax treatment.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  The real trick is them being able to claim that with a straight face and then turn around and give subsidies and handouts to the private services.
  - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
    I have always been terrible at the [empathy-lacking] trick. Oh'shucks, meself. /s
bigstrat2003 3y ago
If you think Democrats aren't just as corrupt and willing to pass bills that are bad for the people but good for their donors, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you. The problem here is that the vast majority of public officials are corrupt, not which party they happen to run with.
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  >THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE CORRUPT Again, for the people in the back! BRING BACK RANK-CHOICE VOTING (To Tennessee, specifically!)
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  Did I say that? The conversation here was about municipal broadband in Tennessee. Whataboutism isn't helpful for any discussion.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

>where are all those free market Republicans in Tennessee when it comes time for the market to compete with their donors? "Privatize profits, subsidize losses." —My neighbor Tennesseans (when I used to live on Lookout).

freedomben 3y ago

I've lived in a lot of red states, and the same thing repeatedly happens. I've given up trying to change things. For every 1 person who will care, there are 25 who just check that there is an "R" next to the name of the person. Ignorant votes make educated votes irrelevant.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Spivak 3y ago

> the real question is where are all those free market Republicans Blocking public services that naturally have a pricing advantage over private businesses because they're supported by tax dollars. Like if you're gonna drag Republicans for not living up to their free market ideals this really isn't what you should point to. People said the same thing when they opposed the public option in the '00's and the rationale was the same. "Competing" with government services is just roundabout price controls. I'm zero percent opposed to such things when the market fails to sort itself out but I can see why strict free market adherents wouldn't be on board.

surge 3y ago
They weren't using tax dollars. The service is paid for by the bills, its simply not for profit, it just treats the fiber lines like roads and side walks, a common public good. You can even choose your own ISP.
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
ISPs and Pharma companies get subsidies from the government, I don't think your argument holds up here. Just another area that Republicans are happy to be hypocrites on. I would love to see Republicans set out "small government" legislation that removes subsidies to the core businesses in their states but you and I both know that will never happen. A child getting food stamps is an example of our 'welfare state' but it's never the billions that go to agriculture or pharma companies.
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  I laugh often knowing that WalMart is the largest single recipient of "corporate welfare" in this fine state/country. What a term/fact. When my black nephew started working there, they walked him through "applying for foodstamps" as part of his training/onboarding.
p_j_w 3y ago
>Blocking public services that naturally have a pricing advantage over private businesses because they're supported by tax dollars. That's the stated rationale. The actual reason is that the entirety of Republican economic ideology revolves around the idea that the government isn't capable of providing better service than private companies and municipal broadband shows this to be a complete lie.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  Well, firstly, we should acknowledge that municipal broadband isn't a story of completely unmitigated success - there are cases of tremendous failure as well. I'm also fairly sure that most Republicans would not mind if municipal broadband were run - and competed on - commercial terms. However, if it's funded by municipal bonds that are backed by general obligation (i.e. all taxpayers subsidize, whether they use the service or not) then that seems obviously a problem to me. Even if they're revenue bonds, they're still implicitly subsidized by tax treatment.
plagiarist 3y ago
The real trick is them being able to claim that with a straight face and then turn around and give subsidies and handouts to the private services.
- ProllyInfamous 3y ago
  I have always been terrible at the [empathy-lacking] trick. Oh'shucks, meself. /s

bigstrat2003 3y ago

If you think Democrats aren't just as corrupt and willing to pass bills that are bad for the people but good for their donors, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you. The problem here is that the vast majority of public officials are corrupt, not which party they happen to run with.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago
>THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE CORRUPT Again, for the people in the back! BRING BACK RANK-CHOICE VOTING (To Tennessee, specifically!)
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
Did I say that? The conversation here was about municipal broadband in Tennessee. Whataboutism isn't helpful for any discussion.