4 ms·
> 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 c
by 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 agoWithout the municipal service there, the alternative is no service at all.
- jrochkind1 12y agoAnd 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 agowhy is an awful alterative worse than no alternative?