5 ms·

The government should not be prohibited (in some places they are! Muni broadband as an example) from offering competing services. Proper competition would limi

The government should not be prohibited (in some places they are! Muni broadband as an example) from offering competing services. Proper competition would limit market malfunction.

roenxi 3y ago
The prohibition should stand. People should have a voluntary option to pay or not pay for services as they choose. Except I suppose in quite exceptional circumstances. If a group of locals want to pool their cash and start up a local broadband service then good on them, best of luck. But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them.
- mjevans 3y ago
  USPS is an example. It's sort of a public utility that has some strange requirements, like it _must_ __offer__ service to everyone. In some places this is less profitable, and private postal / shipping firms might not even offer their own service (or pay USPS for the last leg instead). However, because USPS exists, there is a ceiling to how much other firms can charge without differentiating their services to make it worth the difference in cost. It helps ensure the market functions with proper competition. For any other market where distortion (dysfunctional market) is observed, the solution is not to mandate the impossible from the existing players, but to modify the market conditions where they are broken.
  - dimensi0nal 3y ago
    competing with USPS mail delivery is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
- GreenWatermelon 3y ago
  > But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them. Aren't said locals literally tax payers? And they want their tax money to go to something actually useful for them.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Say we have a Centiville, a conveniently sized community of 100 people. 90 of them want municipal broadband because they like the internet. That 90% should be allowed to pool their resources, start a "Centiville Fibre" company, build out fibre locally and charge locals a fair rate. Then the remaining 10 don't have to be involved in something they don't want. Or they can pay market rate for it without getting a dividend, which is effectively a penalty. No government involvement required outside maybe permitting. The people who want it pay, it probably happens faster and all is good. > And they want their tax money to go to something actually useful for them. They're going to have their taxes raised to pay for the installation costs. Doing it through the government doesn't mean there is more money (unless they're harvesting resources off people who think it is a bad idea / don't want it / can't afford it which is unfair).
  - hellotomyrars 3y ago
    I don’t have children but I still pay for the schools. The idea that your tax dollars should only get spent on something you use personally is laughable.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Well, yes. But that is a straw man because nobody argued that. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for things that they don't use and don't think are good ideas. If you use it, you should pay for it. If you think it is a good idea, you should pay for it. But if people think something is a bad idea they should only have to pay for it under highly exceptional circumstances. There is no need to force people to pay for broadband. This is a problem that a company can solve using voluntary action.
      - hellotomyrars 3y ago
        What straw man is constructed here? There are people who don’t think they should pay for schools with their taxes. There are people who literally are advocating to instead be paid to not use public schools at all. Many people strongly disagree about the places their tax dollars go. It is maybe one of the single most common complaints people utter and this is an example of it? People are able to make decisions about where their tax dollars go but only in the abstract of collective action via legislation. It’s kind of how governments work on a fundamental level and most of politics is about where the tax dollars go. If a strong majority of people choose to do something as a municipality, that is the system at work. Sorry to the 10% of people who think they’re getting a bad deal (and are also almost certainly wrong on an objective level unless they just don’t want internet at all). The suggestion that instead a private enterprise should be spun up for it so they can choose to not subscribe is the antithesis of the entire point. The entire point is that the cost is already beared by the taxpayers in the first place and that it should serve them. It makes more sense to invest directly in the creation and keep it in the hands of those who bore the cost. We give billions out in corporate welfare and yet the companies who get that money are quite often the most reviled in the nation based on public polling (Telcos). It is almost like the incentives aren’t aligned.
MandieD 3y ago
Example: Germany’s mostly-public (Gesetzliche - more like, extremely strictly regulated) health insurance system putting a market-based cap on what private (more like, more lightly-regulated) insurance can cost and cover. I was on the private system my first 13 years working in Germany. I was obligated (but didn’t try to fight) switch to public recently. The change has overall been positive.
marcusverus 3y ago
I'm all for government 'competition' so long as they play by the rules of the market. If government 'competition' means a money-losing (i.e. tax-supported) enterprise, then it's not competition, it's just price-setting with extra steps.

The government should not be prohibited (in some places they are! Muni broadband as an example) from offering competing services. Proper competition would limit market malfunction.

roenxi 3y ago

The prohibition should stand. People should have a voluntary option to pay or not pay for services as they choose. Except I suppose in quite exceptional circumstances. If a group of locals want to pool their cash and start up a local broadband service then good on them, best of luck. But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them.

mjevans 3y ago
USPS is an example. It's sort of a public utility that has some strange requirements, like it _must_ __offer__ service to everyone. In some places this is less profitable, and private postal / shipping firms might not even offer their own service (or pay USPS for the last leg instead). However, because USPS exists, there is a ceiling to how much other firms can charge without differentiating their services to make it worth the difference in cost. It helps ensure the market functions with proper competition. For any other market where distortion (dysfunctional market) is observed, the solution is not to mandate the impossible from the existing players, but to modify the market conditions where they are broken.
- dimensi0nal 3y ago
  competing with USPS mail delivery is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
GreenWatermelon 3y ago
> But taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook to help them. Aren't said locals literally tax payers? And they want their tax money to go to something actually useful for them.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Say we have a Centiville, a conveniently sized community of 100 people. 90 of them want municipal broadband because they like the internet. That 90% should be allowed to pool their resources, start a "Centiville Fibre" company, build out fibre locally and charge locals a fair rate. Then the remaining 10 don't have to be involved in something they don't want. Or they can pay market rate for it without getting a dividend, which is effectively a penalty. No government involvement required outside maybe permitting. The people who want it pay, it probably happens faster and all is good. > And they want their tax money to go to something actually useful for them. They're going to have their taxes raised to pay for the installation costs. Doing it through the government doesn't mean there is more money (unless they're harvesting resources off people who think it is a bad idea / don't want it / can't afford it which is unfair).
- hellotomyrars 3y ago
  I don’t have children but I still pay for the schools. The idea that your tax dollars should only get spent on something you use personally is laughable.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Well, yes. But that is a straw man because nobody argued that. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for things that they don't use and don't think are good ideas. If you use it, you should pay for it. If you think it is a good idea, you should pay for it. But if people think something is a bad idea they should only have to pay for it under highly exceptional circumstances. There is no need to force people to pay for broadband. This is a problem that a company can solve using voluntary action.
    - hellotomyrars 3y ago
      What straw man is constructed here? There are people who don’t think they should pay for schools with their taxes. There are people who literally are advocating to instead be paid to not use public schools at all. Many people strongly disagree about the places their tax dollars go. It is maybe one of the single most common complaints people utter and this is an example of it? People are able to make decisions about where their tax dollars go but only in the abstract of collective action via legislation. It’s kind of how governments work on a fundamental level and most of politics is about where the tax dollars go. If a strong majority of people choose to do something as a municipality, that is the system at work. Sorry to the 10% of people who think they’re getting a bad deal (and are also almost certainly wrong on an objective level unless they just don’t want internet at all). The suggestion that instead a private enterprise should be spun up for it so they can choose to not subscribe is the antithesis of the entire point. The entire point is that the cost is already beared by the taxpayers in the first place and that it should serve them. It makes more sense to invest directly in the creation and keep it in the hands of those who bore the cost. We give billions out in corporate welfare and yet the companies who get that money are quite often the most reviled in the nation based on public polling (Telcos). It is almost like the incentives aren’t aligned.

MandieD 3y ago

Example: Germany’s mostly-public (Gesetzliche - more like, extremely strictly regulated) health insurance system putting a market-based cap on what private (more like, more lightly-regulated) insurance can cost and cover. I was on the private system my first 13 years working in Germany. I was obligated (but didn’t try to fight) switch to public recently. The change has overall been positive.

marcusverus 3y ago

I'm all for government 'competition' so long as they play by the rules of the market. If government 'competition' means a money-losing (i.e. tax-supported) enterprise, then it's not competition, it's just price-setting with extra steps.