6 ms·
It is absolutely true. Even in the middle of silicon valley for many houses comcast is the only viable option. In that regard, internet service is very similar
by snambi 13y ago
It is absolutely true. Even in the middle of silicon valley for many houses comcast is the only viable option. In that regard, internet service is very similar to public utility like electricity, water, sewage and phone service.
And it should be treated as such.
- rayiner 13y agoDo you actually know what kind of bad shape our electric, water, and sewage systems are in? In many cases, they consist of century old infrastructure with pipes leaching lead into water, sewage systems overflowing raw sewage into rivers, etc. Even with these companies being defacto monopolies in many places, they keep the infrastructure in far better condition and invest much more on upgrades than public utilities do. And I doubt you'd like the result if telecom infrastructure was upgraded on the timelines utilities operate under.
- 001sky 13y agoThis amusing anecdote belies a key fact: Comcast and other Cable Industry Groups proposed and lobbied for laws making municipal internet services <illegal>.
- rayiner 13y agoHow is that relevant to my point? If anything, it supports my point. Municipal utilities tend towards monopoly, because private entities can't compete with a universal government funded service. But what makes you think that these municipal broadband networks would be better maintained than our aging and deteriorating power, sewer, and water infrastructure? Humor me for a second and get past the fact that such a law would benefit cable companies. Is it a bad idea on its own merits? I don't think so. Municipal broadband would crowd out private investment in broadband. Given the state of other municipal infrastructure, there's a high probability it would be underfunded and low quality. Would that be a better state of affairs? Being stuck with an overloaded municipal system that never received enough funding because voters don't really care enough allocate a lot of money maintaining and upgrading it, that at the same time makes it impractical for private systems to operate? I don't think the solution is to allow municipalities to do more things that undermine competition. The solution is to deregulate at the state level. Force municipalities to make the kind of "hands off" deal Google demands in return for rolling out Google Fiber to any company willing to make the investment.
- ynniv 13y agoForce municipalities to make the kind of "hands off" deal Google demands in return for rolling out Google Fiber to any company willing to make the investment. This is really foolish. A company that wants to be a monopoly will provide fantastic service, but a company that has succeeded in establishing a monopoly no longer has any motivation to treat you as anything other than property. Why would any rational citizen let their municipality make such a deal?
- 001sky 13y agoThis is a bizarre series of comments. (Q1) Regulators should encourage competition? True/False (Q2) All government services are monopolies? True/False. (Q3) All municipal services are either (utilities, monopolies)? True/False. These are all absurd formulations. Public Services are a thing. Some examples: Ex 1> My public library is an ISP. Ex 2> My public library is Tax Filing Center. Ex 3> My public library is a copyright depository. Ex 4> My public libary is a copy/fax location. Competitors: Ex1'> Comcast Ex2'> TurboTax Ex3'> Netflix Ex4'> Staples I don't think the solution is to allow municipalities to do more things that undermine competition. Again, this is absurd. Public services do not undermine competition by implication. This formulation is akin to saying: "a good competitor undermines competition by being good." Or, "a new competitor undermines the competition, by entering the competition."... Um, no. This is not to say single payer healthcare would not change the business/policy landscape in the USA. But to even suggest that any municipal provisioning of communications services (public radio, public TV, public internet access) would be aking to "single payer healthcare" in scale/scope/completeness etc is simpley a rhetorical exaggeration. I think its interesting to debate the pitfalls here, butnot with such extreme poles as a starting point. Limited scope incremental services are fine, IMHO. Feasible, cost-effective, and market & competition extending. And the existence of national parks does not make the government a "land monopolist" or what not. =D
- nardi 13y agoGovernment competition is not fair, because governments don't play by the same rules as businesses. They can make money by fiat through taxes. They can and usually do lose money on services they provide. Businesses simply can't compete with the power of taxation. It should come as no surprise that there are no book rental companies when there are libraries.
- exelius 13y agoBut I bet you want to keep your unlimited usage, right? Water, phone service and electricity are metered; sewage isn't because it's just too hard to measure. If you want to treat broadband as a utility, you have to pay for it as such. Which means metered billing, which I don't think anyone wants.
- cmiles74 13y agoIf metered billing wasn't simply an excuse to gouge me for money then I might be interested. As it is now, we're seeing metered usage tacked on to plans that were sold under the title of "unlimited". In that situation, it feels like the ISP is trying to work around increasing capacity by discouraging usage.