3 ms·

This amusing anecdote belies a key fact: Comcast and other Cable Industry Groups proposed and lobbied for laws making municipal internet services <illegal>.

by 001sky 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
How 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 ago
  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. 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Government 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.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      I'm a libertarian but i believe in public rights of way. I'm finw with a single provider of roads, provided they are not toll roads but rather "dumb" roads that let me go when and where I please. This is in contrast to government-sanctioned but opportunistically managed toll-roads with dynamic pricing that rips me off every time I have an important meeting to get to by turning into a "protection racket" for my important business. The rest of the stuff about "fair" x or y is not really relevant. Markets are supposed to be "free" and not "rigged", but neither of these two concepts imply "fair" in the sense you are using it. Every company on the NYSE hasi its own cost of capital--is that 'fair'? no. its not fair to the owners. But that does not imply that the market is not free for capiral or that the market for capital is 'rigged'. There are plenty of ways that government services can be provided to extend markets geographic reach, variety, and product depth without getting into some nasty discussion of socialism/totalitarianism etc. There are some services that are more-efficiently organized through the government. In that respect, a government entity is just like a non-profit that competes with a for-profit or private foundation entity (eg universities). And more ...

This amusing anecdote belies a key fact: Comcast and other Cable Industry Groups proposed and lobbied for laws making municipal internet services <illegal>.

by 001sky 13y ago

This amusing anecdote belies a key fact: Comcast and other Cable Industry Groups proposed and lobbied for laws making municipal internet services <illegal>.

rayiner 13y ago

How 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 ago
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. 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 ago
This 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 ago
  Government 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.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    I'm a libertarian but i believe in public rights of way. I'm finw with a single provider of roads, provided they are not toll roads but rather "dumb" roads that let me go when and where I please. This is in contrast to government-sanctioned but opportunistically managed toll-roads with dynamic pricing that rips me off every time I have an important meeting to get to by turning into a "protection racket" for my important business. The rest of the stuff about "fair" x or y is not really relevant. Markets are supposed to be "free" and not "rigged", but neither of these two concepts imply "fair" in the sense you are using it. Every company on the NYSE hasi its own cost of capital--is that 'fair'? no. its not fair to the owners. But that does not imply that the market is not free for capiral or that the market for capital is 'rigged'. There are plenty of ways that government services can be provided to extend markets geographic reach, variety, and product depth without getting into some nasty discussion of socialism/totalitarianism etc. There are some services that are more-efficiently organized through the government. In that respect, a government entity is just like a non-profit that competes with a for-profit or private foundation entity (eg universities). And more ...