5 ms·

It has everything to do with politics: one party is more prone to regulation than the other, and it's easier to build where there is less regulation. There's a

by cjensen 12y ago

It has everything to do with politics: one party is more prone to regulation than the other, and it's easier to build where there is less regulation. There's a spectrum of regulation levels in the country, and Republican areas tend towards the lower-regulation side of the spectrum.

shmerl 12y ago
That logic doesn't seem to work as expected. Didn't community broadband face problems because of the local overregulation backed by existing monopolists? Many of those states are Republican dominated. So it means they are perfectly fine with regulation which protects monopolists, and they oppose one which boosts competition. Google is a threat to existing monopolists too, so why aren't they opposing the effort?
- rayiner 12y ago
  You don't need lobbying to convince republicans to oppose public sector solutions to markets already served by the private sector.
- cjensen 12y ago
  You're right. A more nuanced way of putting it would be that the Republicans prefer that government interfere less with economy. To that end, they support regulation which restrains government from interfering with the economy, and are against the more-typical regulation which directly interferes with the economy. I think this restraint has merit, but not when applied to interference with monopolies and utilities.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > more nuanced way of putting it would be that the Republicans prefer that government interfere less with economy. To that end, they support regulation which restrains government from interfering with the economy, and are against the more-typical regulation which directly interferes with the economy. But in this case this logic isn't even correct. Since they support laws which ban competition, and that is clearly interfering with the economy. I.e. it's interfering for the benefit of monopolists, and against the benefit of their competitors and the public. I get an impression that this abstract idea of "don't interfere with the economy" is simply inconsistent. More consistently that position looks like "against competition", which equals against free market.
    - ams6110 12y ago
      Community broadband is not competition, it's seizure of a market by the government, an entity that does not have to make a profit and has generally broad authority to take other people's money by force.
      - shmerl 12y ago
        More ISPs is competition and more choice for the public. Having a monopoly is surely not competition. There are no two ways about it and no amount of demagoguery will change that fact.

by cjensen 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago

That logic doesn't seem to work as expected. Didn't community broadband face problems because of the local overregulation backed by existing monopolists? Many of those states are Republican dominated. So it means they are perfectly fine with regulation which protects monopolists, and they oppose one which boosts competition. Google is a threat to existing monopolists too, so why aren't they opposing the effort?

rayiner 12y ago
You don't need lobbying to convince republicans to oppose public sector solutions to markets already served by the private sector.
cjensen 12y ago
You're right. A more nuanced way of putting it would be that the Republicans prefer that government interfere less with economy. To that end, they support regulation which restrains government from interfering with the economy, and are against the more-typical regulation which directly interferes with the economy. I think this restraint has merit, but not when applied to interference with monopolies and utilities.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > more nuanced way of putting it would be that the Republicans prefer that government interfere less with economy. To that end, they support regulation which restrains government from interfering with the economy, and are against the more-typical regulation which directly interferes with the economy. But in this case this logic isn't even correct. Since they support laws which ban competition, and that is clearly interfering with the economy. I.e. it's interfering for the benefit of monopolists, and against the benefit of their competitors and the public. I get an impression that this abstract idea of "don't interfere with the economy" is simply inconsistent. More consistently that position looks like "against competition", which equals against free market.
  - ams6110 12y ago
    Community broadband is not competition, it's seizure of a market by the government, an entity that does not have to make a profit and has generally broad authority to take other people's money by force.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      More ISPs is competition and more choice for the public. Having a monopoly is surely not competition. There are no two ways about it and no amount of demagoguery will change that fact.