14 ms·

I don't see why this is a bad thing? Comcast is contributing to the campaign that is best in line with its interest. As long as political contributions by corpo

I don't see why this is a bad thing? Comcast is contributing to the campaign that is best in line with its interest. As long as political contributions by corporations are OK (which is another debate which is out of the scope of this issue) this seems completely reasonable.

bluthru 13y ago
It's legal, but it's bad. It's good to highlight examples of allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns minimizes's the citizen's voice.
- dx4100 13y ago
  You're trading one monopoly for another. There's no guarantee that the city will provide the same or better quality of service that Comcast has. People are somehow okay when the monopoly is government, even though time and time again government does a piss-poor job when given control.
  - dubfan 13y ago
    Gigabit Seattle is a public-private partnership.
  - lemonberry 13y ago
    If gigabit fiber is a go ahead Comcast is prohibited from offering services in the area?
  - greyfade 13y ago
    What does that matter? What's important is that this fiber infrastructure will compete directly against Comcast, and Comcast is working hard to eliminate or at least hamper that potential competition in order to maintain the status quo of their oligopoly. It is an incredibly bad thing for the City for Comcast to be doing this, because it's not in the Public's interest. Increased competition, however, is in the Public's interest.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Why would it be a monopoly?
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    > You're trading one monopoly for another. Considering it doesn't exist yet, you cannot really call it a monopoly. Thanks for confirming that you consider Comcast one though. > even though time and time again government does a piss-poor job when given control. You are correct there, the government's control over internet service has enabled a few mammoth carriers to become monopoly's of their realm. Be it for 'national security' interests like AT&T or be it piles of lobbyist money from Comcast. The end result is no competition amongst peers. The only thing coming close would be companies that lease off of Comcast trying to sell packages at a lower cost. This of course doesn't last long since AT&T Comcast and others worked out exactly how to kill leased operators at will subsidizing rates in areas leasers operate to remove any profit potential from the competition that was forced to buy from Comcast anyways. But complain about an operator that doesn't exist yet like it is a monopoly. Blame them for things they have not done yet. Try to push forward the fantasy that Comcast has a quality of service beyond destroying other quality services.
  - otterley 13y ago
    Are you dissatisfied with the municipal monopolies that provide you electricity, water and sewage? Does water and power flow 24x7 (subject to occasional blips)? Is your garbage picked up regularly? Are you being charged obscene rates relative to cost for them?
    - frankydp 13y ago
      Just a note, but not all areas in the country have monopoly utilities. There are in fact quite a few with required competition, much like the throttled pipe for internet argument. Ex: In Georgia if you have a gas line to your house you can purchase gas from any gas provider in the state. This style of legislation is probably more inline with what the constituents want than the municipally owned solution or the single provider solution.
    - schaub435 13y ago
      This is just completely ignorant. Private entities provide electricity and garbage cleanups and many other essential services. They're contracted by the government in the same manner that Comcast wins contracts from the local government.
    - Bluestrike2 13y ago
      Utilities such as electricity, sewage, and water are natural monopolies; mainly due to the significant capital costs involved with each, a sole competitor represents the most efficient long-run production costs. Though the capital costs are lower compared to the others you listed, most economists would also consider garbage collection to be a natural monopoly. In each case, additional competitors would increase average total costs for services by lowering economies of scale. But there's a far more significant characteristic: there's no differentiation between services. Combined with their being natural monopolies, you have the primary reasons for their status as government-granted monopolies. Broadband services, on the other hand, have seen an explosion in product differentiation. We're using one word, but what we're actually referring to are a variety of separate services with significant differences (speed, quality, manner of delivery, etc.) that offer different degrees of utility relative to each other. Whether a municipality grants exclusive or even just preferential rights to a provider, the end result is that the service provided is isolated from competitive forces outside the service region. Even if Google Fiber is in the next town over and offering an indisputably better quality service (such as endless speed and a free magical Genie with every install, wishes included), it has no consequence on the service available in your town. That's one of the sticking points when you're dealing with coercive monopolies. When you're talking about other utilities, the negative consequences of that coercion (in an economic sense and not the pejorative) pale by comparison to the efficiencies stemming from lower production costs. The analysis for broadband, however, isn't nearly as static. Municipal broadband certainly isn't a silver-bullet. Some have knocked their rollouts out of the park; others have bungled them. But dx4100 is missing the point by comparing municipal broadband to private firms. The status quo doesn't consist of competitive markets; it's a collection of non-contestable markets. When entry to the field is effectively closed with no competitive forces, municipal broadband and other alternative ideas represent some of the only real options available to us. In other words, what a sad little fucked up situation we have on our hands.
  - bluthru 13y ago
    It's a monopoly where everyone is a shareholder. Competition doesn't work so well for infrastructure because it's both essential and it has a high physical barrier to entry. Private corporations exist to increase profit, and that means paying employees less and lowering consumer value. Municipal broadband is making citizens happier than Comcast, Time Warner, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      It's a monopoly where everyone is a shareholder. ... 90% of whom don't care if the product is any good or not.
      - hackula1 13y ago
        90% of people do not want better quality internet? I think even in our technophobic culture, people want to be able to watch videos of cats with greater speed and reliability.
  - ben0x539 13y ago
    Sounds like you're afraid Comcast can't compete with government, tho
MartinCron 13y ago
It may or may not be a bad thing, but it should at least be an entirely transparent thing. There have been some other campaign contributions in this race that have been funneled through PACs to the point where you can't see exactly who is backing a candidate.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
How is preventing a city from gaining access to gigabit connections anything other than bad? That statement is completely baffling.
- thekevan 13y ago
  Preventing a company from getting gigabit connections is not bad for you if you are the company that competes against those gigabit connections. It isn't wrong or shady of Comcast to donate like this, just like it isn't wrong for the original poster of this link to post it here and get awareness and activism for the other side. As an aside, I despise Comcast, Time Warner and many of their ilk, but they are completely well within bounds to do this.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    As a European, that's something I have a hard time understanding. How can it be legal for a corporation to buy politicians? Corporations are not people in any meaningful sense of the word.
    - thekevan 13y ago
      They are not buying any more than you are buying a politician by donating to their campaign, putting up a sign with their name on it in your yard or voting for them. Many people think this is buying, it is simply helping the candidate you agree with the most win the election.
  - lawnchair_larry 13y ago
    There is a benefit to society getting access to fast and affordable communications. There is no benefit to denying society this option. Therefore, preventing it, especially in the name of your corporate interest, is "bad". To say what they are doing is good is sociopathic. Legalities have no relevance to this at all.
    - thekevan 13y ago
saidajigumi 13y ago
Because corporations are not citizens. Corporations consolidate many orders of magnitude more financial power, skill at executing political leverage, and focus compared to individuals. They use that power to manipulate government in ways that are biased towards corporate need, but which don't balance other concerns. This is bad because it puts corporate power and influence very out of balance with personal power. The aims of corporations are often dead-set against the wishes of affected citizenry, the company's employees, sometimes even the corporate executives (wearing their "private citizen" hats).
- crusso 13y ago
  Yes, because corporations are made up of Martians who hate Earthlings... no, wait, corporations are made up of people. Stop all corporations and non-person entities from contributing to political campaigns! Stop unions! Stop the Sierra Club! Still with me? Are we down to allowing only individual citizen donations to political parties?
  - rattray 13y ago
    I donate to the Sierra Club, support unions (sometimes), and yes, I am still with you! I don't think any non-human entity (even if it's "made up of people") should have any sort of say in the democratic process. Corporations don't represent the best interest of their stakeholders (employees etc), but the narrow interest of their shareholders in a competitive marketplace where shareholders are only looking for one thing. In other words, it is not the job of a company to do what its employees find most pleasing.
    - ericingram 13y ago
      No. In a competitive marketplace (not saying Comcast is operating in a highly competitive marketplace in Seattle particularly) the corporation is incentivized to do what is most pleasing for its customers. And that's a good thing. Unions aren't exactly geared toward the best interest of its members either, even though they pretend to be.
marincounty 13y ago
Morally--Comcast has abused their customers for years. It's time to bust up their monopoly. Morality, trust, and honestly have steadily declined each decade, at least in my eyes. Just because it's legal doesn't make it O.K. I'll repeat, just because it's legal doesn't make it O.K...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 13y ago
It is just as equally bad as a KKK rally. Perfectly legal. And perfectly justified for them to espouse what they believe is in their own best interests. They're still assholes though.

bluthru 13y ago

It's legal, but it's bad. It's good to highlight examples of allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns minimizes's the citizen's voice.

dx4100 13y ago
You're trading one monopoly for another. There's no guarantee that the city will provide the same or better quality of service that Comcast has. People are somehow okay when the monopoly is government, even though time and time again government does a piss-poor job when given control.
- dubfan 13y ago
  Gigabit Seattle is a public-private partnership.
- lemonberry 13y ago
  If gigabit fiber is a go ahead Comcast is prohibited from offering services in the area?
- greyfade 13y ago
  What does that matter? What's important is that this fiber infrastructure will compete directly against Comcast, and Comcast is working hard to eliminate or at least hamper that potential competition in order to maintain the status quo of their oligopoly. It is an incredibly bad thing for the City for Comcast to be doing this, because it's not in the Public's interest. Increased competition, however, is in the Public's interest.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Why would it be a monopoly?
- streetnigga 13y ago
  > You're trading one monopoly for another. Considering it doesn't exist yet, you cannot really call it a monopoly. Thanks for confirming that you consider Comcast one though. > even though time and time again government does a piss-poor job when given control. You are correct there, the government's control over internet service has enabled a few mammoth carriers to become monopoly's of their realm. Be it for 'national security' interests like AT&T or be it piles of lobbyist money from Comcast. The end result is no competition amongst peers. The only thing coming close would be companies that lease off of Comcast trying to sell packages at a lower cost. This of course doesn't last long since AT&T Comcast and others worked out exactly how to kill leased operators at will subsidizing rates in areas leasers operate to remove any profit potential from the competition that was forced to buy from Comcast anyways. But complain about an operator that doesn't exist yet like it is a monopoly. Blame them for things they have not done yet. Try to push forward the fantasy that Comcast has a quality of service beyond destroying other quality services.
- otterley 13y ago
  Are you dissatisfied with the municipal monopolies that provide you electricity, water and sewage? Does water and power flow 24x7 (subject to occasional blips)? Is your garbage picked up regularly? Are you being charged obscene rates relative to cost for them?
  - frankydp 13y ago
    Just a note, but not all areas in the country have monopoly utilities. There are in fact quite a few with required competition, much like the throttled pipe for internet argument. Ex: In Georgia if you have a gas line to your house you can purchase gas from any gas provider in the state. This style of legislation is probably more inline with what the constituents want than the municipally owned solution or the single provider solution.
  - schaub435 13y ago
    This is just completely ignorant. Private entities provide electricity and garbage cleanups and many other essential services. They're contracted by the government in the same manner that Comcast wins contracts from the local government.
  - Bluestrike2 13y ago
    Utilities such as electricity, sewage, and water are natural monopolies; mainly due to the significant capital costs involved with each, a sole competitor represents the most efficient long-run production costs. Though the capital costs are lower compared to the others you listed, most economists would also consider garbage collection to be a natural monopoly. In each case, additional competitors would increase average total costs for services by lowering economies of scale. But there's a far more significant characteristic: there's no differentiation between services. Combined with their being natural monopolies, you have the primary reasons for their status as government-granted monopolies. Broadband services, on the other hand, have seen an explosion in product differentiation. We're using one word, but what we're actually referring to are a variety of separate services with significant differences (speed, quality, manner of delivery, etc.) that offer different degrees of utility relative to each other. Whether a municipality grants exclusive or even just preferential rights to a provider, the end result is that the service provided is isolated from competitive forces outside the service region. Even if Google Fiber is in the next town over and offering an indisputably better quality service (such as endless speed and a free magical Genie with every install, wishes included), it has no consequence on the service available in your town. That's one of the sticking points when you're dealing with coercive monopolies. When you're talking about other utilities, the negative consequences of that coercion (in an economic sense and not the pejorative) pale by comparison to the efficiencies stemming from lower production costs. The analysis for broadband, however, isn't nearly as static. Municipal broadband certainly isn't a silver-bullet. Some have knocked their rollouts out of the park; others have bungled them. But dx4100 is missing the point by comparing municipal broadband to private firms. The status quo doesn't consist of competitive markets; it's a collection of non-contestable markets. When entry to the field is effectively closed with no competitive forces, municipal broadband and other alternative ideas represent some of the only real options available to us. In other words, what a sad little fucked up situation we have on our hands.
- bluthru 13y ago
  It's a monopoly where everyone is a shareholder. Competition doesn't work so well for infrastructure because it's both essential and it has a high physical barrier to entry. Private corporations exist to increase profit, and that means paying employees less and lowering consumer value. Municipal broadband is making citizens happier than Comcast, Time Warner, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
  - CamperBob2 13y ago
    It's a monopoly where everyone is a shareholder. ... 90% of whom don't care if the product is any good or not.
    - hackula1 13y ago
      90% of people do not want better quality internet? I think even in our technophobic culture, people want to be able to watch videos of cats with greater speed and reliability.
- ben0x539 13y ago
  Sounds like you're afraid Comcast can't compete with government, tho

MartinCron 13y ago

It may or may not be a bad thing, but it should at least be an entirely transparent thing. There have been some other campaign contributions in this race that have been funneled through PACs to the point where you can't see exactly who is backing a candidate.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

How is preventing a city from gaining access to gigabit connections anything other than bad? That statement is completely baffling.

thekevan 13y ago
Preventing a company from getting gigabit connections is not bad for you if you are the company that competes against those gigabit connections. It isn't wrong or shady of Comcast to donate like this, just like it isn't wrong for the original poster of this link to post it here and get awareness and activism for the other side. As an aside, I despise Comcast, Time Warner and many of their ilk, but they are completely well within bounds to do this.
- mercurial 13y ago
  As a European, that's something I have a hard time understanding. How can it be legal for a corporation to buy politicians? Corporations are not people in any meaningful sense of the word.
  - thekevan 13y ago
    They are not buying any more than you are buying a politician by donating to their campaign, putting up a sign with their name on it in your yard or voting for them. Many people think this is buying, it is simply helping the candidate you agree with the most win the election.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  There is a benefit to society getting access to fast and affordable communications. There is no benefit to denying society this option. Therefore, preventing it, especially in the name of your corporate interest, is "bad". To say what they are doing is good is sociopathic. Legalities have no relevance to this at all.
  - thekevan 13y ago

saidajigumi 13y ago

Because corporations are not citizens. Corporations consolidate many orders of magnitude more financial power, skill at executing political leverage, and focus compared to individuals. They use that power to manipulate government in ways that are biased towards corporate need, but which don't balance other concerns. This is bad because it puts corporate power and influence very out of balance with personal power. The aims of corporations are often dead-set against the wishes of affected citizenry, the company's employees, sometimes even the corporate executives (wearing their "private citizen" hats).

crusso 13y ago
Yes, because corporations are made up of Martians who hate Earthlings... no, wait, corporations are made up of people. Stop all corporations and non-person entities from contributing to political campaigns! Stop unions! Stop the Sierra Club! Still with me? Are we down to allowing only individual citizen donations to political parties?
- rattray 13y ago
  I donate to the Sierra Club, support unions (sometimes), and yes, I am still with you! I don't think any non-human entity (even if it's "made up of people") should have any sort of say in the democratic process. Corporations don't represent the best interest of their stakeholders (employees etc), but the narrow interest of their shareholders in a competitive marketplace where shareholders are only looking for one thing. In other words, it is not the job of a company to do what its employees find most pleasing.
  - ericingram 13y ago
    No. In a competitive marketplace (not saying Comcast is operating in a highly competitive marketplace in Seattle particularly) the corporation is incentivized to do what is most pleasing for its customers. And that's a good thing. Unions aren't exactly geared toward the best interest of its members either, even though they pretend to be.

marincounty 13y ago

Morally--Comcast has abused their customers for years. It's time to bust up their monopoly. Morality, trust, and honestly have steadily declined each decade, at least in my eyes. Just because it's legal doesn't make it O.K. I'll repeat, just because it's legal doesn't make it O.K...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 13y ago

It is just as equally bad as a KKK rally. Perfectly legal. And perfectly justified for them to espouse what they believe is in their own best interests. They're still assholes though.