3 ms·

Ten years ago my hometown built a municipal ISP. It since then has done the bare minimum to keep the network going, and is total crap. There is one other cable

by Torgo 12y ago

Ten years ago my hometown built a municipal ISP. It since then has done the bare minimum to keep the network going, and is total crap. There is one other cable ISP, but they effectively have to compete with the terrible speeds and service of the muni, which conspires to improve nothing. State laws preventing municipal ISPs should be gotten rid of, but some people seem to think that a municipal ISP will solve all their problems, and it won't.

jrochkind1 12y ago
> but they effectively have to compete with the terrible speeds and service of the muni, which conspires to improve nothing Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? You say it like terrible speeds and service are somehow challenging competition for the cable company? Of course, they would prefer no competition at all, as all companies would.
- Torgo 12y ago
  Muni had uptake mainly in the areas that commercial didn't service, and after that everything just kind of froze. They never, ever seem to try to compete on price, and I assume that upgrading equipment is expensive for either ISP. Wwhen it first started, it served unserved areas and was definitely better than commercial ISP by not being overutilized. Now that coverage is complete it just acts like there are two commercial ISPs. It seems like this a lot in the Midwestern rural areas, even with competition, they all settle into a low standard of service to avoid an arms race. My impression of what municipal Internet does, based on my experience, is they immediately implement state of the art, and then stagnate. By the way, our municipal ISP is opposed to net neutrality.
- biot 12y ago
  > Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? Oh, but it is. If the municipal service can only offer 1.5Mbps for $40/month, the private ISPs can offer 2.5Mbps for $70/month, 5Mbps for $125/month, 10Mbps for $199/month, or the ultimate in performance of 25Mbps for $350/month. They're effectively free to gouge people if the only alternative is the crappy, low-speed government service.
  - aphexairlines 12y ago
    Without the municipal service there, the alternative is no service at all.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    And if there is NO other alternative, what are they free to do? Many, many, locations have only one option for broadband service. Here in Baltimore, our only option is Comcast. (Verizon chose not to deploy FiOS in Baltimore, and won't sell you DSL anymore in Baltimore, although they have some legacy DSL customers). The suggestion that having competition which is 'crappy' somehow encourages worse service than having a monopoly with no competition at all, seems bizarre to me.
  - wnevets 12y ago
    why is an awful alterative worse than no alternative?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by Torgo 12y ago

jrochkind1 12y ago

> but they effectively have to compete with the terrible speeds and service of the muni, which conspires to improve nothing Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? You say it like terrible speeds and service are somehow challenging competition for the cable company? Of course, they would prefer no competition at all, as all companies would.

Torgo 12y ago
Muni had uptake mainly in the areas that commercial didn't service, and after that everything just kind of froze. They never, ever seem to try to compete on price, and I assume that upgrading equipment is expensive for either ISP. Wwhen it first started, it served unserved areas and was definitely better than commercial ISP by not being overutilized. Now that coverage is complete it just acts like there are two commercial ISPs. It seems like this a lot in the Midwestern rural areas, even with competition, they all settle into a low standard of service to avoid an arms race. My impression of what municipal Internet does, based on my experience, is they immediately implement state of the art, and then stagnate. By the way, our municipal ISP is opposed to net neutrality.
biot 12y ago
> Wait, shouldn't that be easy for them to compete with, then? Oh, but it is. If the municipal service can only offer 1.5Mbps for $40/month, the private ISPs can offer 2.5Mbps for $70/month, 5Mbps for $125/month, 10Mbps for $199/month, or the ultimate in performance of 25Mbps for $350/month. They're effectively free to gouge people if the only alternative is the crappy, low-speed government service.
- aphexairlines 12y ago
  Without the municipal service there, the alternative is no service at all.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  And if there is NO other alternative, what are they free to do? Many, many, locations have only one option for broadband service. Here in Baltimore, our only option is Comcast. (Verizon chose not to deploy FiOS in Baltimore, and won't sell you DSL anymore in Baltimore, although they have some legacy DSL customers). The suggestion that having competition which is 'crappy' somehow encourages worse service than having a monopoly with no competition at all, seems bizarre to me.
- wnevets 12y ago
  why is an awful alterative worse than no alternative?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]