3 ms·

Can someone tell me how a corporation can argue that a group of people in a city are not allowed to get together and decide to offer whatever they think it's in

by lutorm 18y ago

Can someone tell me how a corporation can argue that a group of people in a city are not allowed to get together and decide to offer whatever they think it's in their own best interests to?

Xichekolas 18y ago
You know, this is probably the most insightful comment I have ever seen on this topic, and I wish I could give you 100 karma for it alone. I'm even in favor of municipal broadband, because I'm sick of having the same speed of DSL that I had seven years ago, but I had never considered the absurdity of the idea (that companies can constrain a city's actions) itself. An altogether startling wakeup call.
- DTrejo 18y ago
  Maybe the city needs to have it's own puppet corporation that would be more resistant? I wonder if that would work at all.
wmf 18y ago
The arguments against municipal networks are not that trivial. If a muni network is funded with tax money, ISPs can legitimately claim that they have no power to tax. If a city both runs its own network and regulates networks, there is a possible conflict of interest. There is also an argument that municipal bonds have a lower cost of capital, but I don't understand the details.
noonespecial 18y ago
A group of people are certainly free to organize a non-profit and do this whenever they want. When "the government" (state, local, etc) does it, its quite a different animal. Lets say it actually costs $40 to provide this service. TWarner currently provides it for $45 and makes $5 a month per subscriber. The local government provides it for $35. They make -$5 per subscriber. The deficit is covered by taxes (probably a $10-$20 tax increase as government is rarely very efficient). It is now impossible for any carrier to provide the service and make money. Its actually costing the consumers more. People who don't even use it are paying for it. The market has been defacto-socialized, perhaps without even a proper vote. The cable companies suck monkey balls but this is not automatically the right thing either. It might very well be. Local governments usually do a pretty good job with water. Still, it should not be undertaken lightly no matter how mad at comcast you might be.
- lutorm 18y ago
  I guess in my mind there is little difference between "the government", at least at a city level, and a group of people cooperating for their own good. Your example is a strawman argument, as there is no evidence that government is less efficient than a private enterprise. (The example that comes to mind is Medicare, which as far as I understand it has lower administrative costs than most private plans.) That's not the point of the lawsuit, in any case. I agree there is a difference between the government providing a service as a nonprofit, self-financing corporation and using taxes to finance a service. But you can't just argue that the market has been "defacto-socialized" without saying why that would be bad. There are many instances where people who don't use it are paying for it. Roads, for example. A "fair" system would be to have every inch of roadway be toll road, where the toll would be in proportion to the amount of space used and wear inflicted on the roadway. Pedestrians would pay next to nothing, bikes slightly more, then motorcycles, cars and finally SUVs and trucks. Every lane on the freeway should be toll, with an increasing toll for the lower-numbered lanes in case you want to go "faster". Such a system would be ridiculously inefficient and cumbersome, so I'm fine paying my share of the roads even if I use them less than average, because roads are an essential infrastructure. In the same vein, a city should be able to decide that a fiber network is an essential infrastructure that should be provided to all inhabitants and that shrinking the digital divide is important enough that low-income people should have subsidized access. And no corporation should be able to argue that this is "illegal". Private corporations are allowed to exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around.

by lutorm 18y ago

Can someone tell me how a corporation can argue that a group of people in a city are not allowed to get together and decide to offer whatever they think it's in their own best interests to?

Xichekolas 18y ago

You know, this is probably the most insightful comment I have ever seen on this topic, and I wish I could give you 100 karma for it alone. I'm even in favor of municipal broadband, because I'm sick of having the same speed of DSL that I had seven years ago, but I had never considered the absurdity of the idea (that companies can constrain a city's actions) itself. An altogether startling wakeup call.

DTrejo 18y ago
Maybe the city needs to have it's own puppet corporation that would be more resistant? I wonder if that would work at all.

wmf 18y ago

The arguments against municipal networks are not that trivial. If a muni network is funded with tax money, ISPs can legitimately claim that they have no power to tax. If a city both runs its own network and regulates networks, there is a possible conflict of interest. There is also an argument that municipal bonds have a lower cost of capital, but I don't understand the details.

noonespecial 18y ago

A group of people are certainly free to organize a non-profit and do this whenever they want. When "the government" (state, local, etc) does it, its quite a different animal. Lets say it actually costs $40 to provide this service. TWarner currently provides it for $45 and makes $5 a month per subscriber. The local government provides it for $35. They make -$5 per subscriber. The deficit is covered by taxes (probably a $10-$20 tax increase as government is rarely very efficient). It is now impossible for any carrier to provide the service and make money. Its actually costing the consumers more. People who don't even use it are paying for it. The market has been defacto-socialized, perhaps without even a proper vote. The cable companies suck monkey balls but this is not automatically the right thing either. It might very well be. Local governments usually do a pretty good job with water. Still, it should not be undertaken lightly no matter how mad at comcast you might be.

lutorm 18y ago
I guess in my mind there is little difference between "the government", at least at a city level, and a group of people cooperating for their own good. Your example is a strawman argument, as there is no evidence that government is less efficient than a private enterprise. (The example that comes to mind is Medicare, which as far as I understand it has lower administrative costs than most private plans.) That's not the point of the lawsuit, in any case. I agree there is a difference between the government providing a service as a nonprofit, self-financing corporation and using taxes to finance a service. But you can't just argue that the market has been "defacto-socialized" without saying why that would be bad. There are many instances where people who don't use it are paying for it. Roads, for example. A "fair" system would be to have every inch of roadway be toll road, where the toll would be in proportion to the amount of space used and wear inflicted on the roadway. Pedestrians would pay next to nothing, bikes slightly more, then motorcycles, cars and finally SUVs and trucks. Every lane on the freeway should be toll, with an increasing toll for the lower-numbered lanes in case you want to go "faster". Such a system would be ridiculously inefficient and cumbersome, so I'm fine paying my share of the roads even if I use them less than average, because roads are an essential infrastructure. In the same vein, a city should be able to decide that a fiber network is an essential infrastructure that should be provided to all inhabitants and that shrinking the digital divide is important enough that low-income people should have subsidized access. And no corporation should be able to argue that this is "illegal". Private corporations are allowed to exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around.