3 ms·
Parent's argument wasn't that the existent private market was great, but rather that a public utility monopolizing the market might not be great in the future.
by ethbr1 3y ago
Parent's argument wasn't that the existent private market was great, but rather that a public utility monopolizing the market might not be great in the future.
- akie 3y agoMany of these remote areas are barely being served by companies at the moment because they’re not profitable (enough). Why would anyone object to the people just doing it themselves instead? That way at least they’re not at the mercy of some company that needs to earn a dime.
- mikeyouse 3y agoObjecting to people providing their own infrastructure where private companies have failed to do so, because at some undefined point in the distant future those same companies hypothetically could offer better service is the most worm-brained thing I've read in awhile. If the 10gbps network isn't fast enough in 10 years (already a hilarious premise), the same citizens who voted to invest in muni fiber to begin with could choose to increase their speed/capacity.
- bobthepanda 3y agoWho says they’re monopolizing it? I’m not aware of any municipal deployment that is a monopoly, and the one in the article is open-access. > The inter-local agency collaborative venture then set about building an “open access” fiber network that allows any ISP to then come and compete on the shared network. Comcast et. al can still build all the fiber they want to in these markets.