Maybe I'm being dramatic but I think Comcast's value would tank if accessible broadband alternatives existed in markets they dominate. They are one of the most hated companies that I know of. When I heard corporations were funding opposition to Philly's compensation history law I correctly assumed Comcast was leading it. They are just unlikable on so many levels.
Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#12I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the gr…
[deleted]
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#13I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the gr…
There are a number of well done municipal internet projects around the country that have done just that: Chattanooga, Tennessee; Longmont, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah to name just a few.
For more: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#14I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the gr…
> Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars!
Did the government dig those tunnels? No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price. So much for private enterprise saving the taxpayer money.
> why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid?
This is how most municipal broadband works right now. You, the ISP, rent the fiber from them. They can't make a profit so municipalities can only charge you what it costs to install and maintain. Most govt don't want to be in the ISP business but they are given the choice of doing it or letting the free market continue to ignore them they'll do it.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#15I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the gr…
> Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Did the government dig those tunnels? No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price. So much for private enterprise saving the taxpayer money. > why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid? This is how most municipal broadband works right now.…
>No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price
OT: if everyone can do that, what's preventing everyone from bidding $1 on multibillion dollar contracts? surely there must be a way to uphold them to the amount they bid for.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#16I mean, duh. They basically have a monopoly and a license to print money right now. they can't make the same profit margins they have been if they have to compete with local municipal providers who aren't based on a profit model unless those local providers are so incompetent that they can't deliver reliable fast internet to their area. Comcast can't do price hikes and data caps and generally continue treating their customers like abused spouses if there is an equally attractive alternative which doesn't have an incentive to nickle and dime you to death. If I could get municipal fiber, why would I pay comcast more for less? Comcast would need to completely reevaluate their business model from their abusive "but who are you going to turn to?" monopoly to a competitive service with a eye towards meeting customer expectations for reliability and service. In other words, comcast will have to spend a fair amount of their massive profits on things like service upgrades and customer relations.
And really, as a monopoly comcast should be busted up.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#17Good. Municipal broadband is only a thing because Comcast services are terribly below par
I've never understood this. If you have a real or de-facto monopoly, why would you jeopardize it by providing poor service/overpricing your product? That just draws attention to the situation. Keep things reasonable and it's a lot harder for people to make noise because the majority will be fine with the way things are.
When you have a real or de-facto monopoly you just assume you can get away with poor/overpriced service. Most corporate bean counters making such decisions don't take into account the second-order effects you describe, until they materialize into a real problem.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#18I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the gr…
It doesn't HAVE to be super political, there are municipal water, sewer, electric, and gas utilities all over the country and they are very rarely politicized. If you consider broadband a basic need (I do) then it makes sense for it to be provided by the community just like those other utilities.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood this. If you have a real or de-facto monopoly, why would you jeopardize it by providing poor service/overpricing your product? That just draws attention to the situation. Keep things reasonable and it's a lot harder for people to make noise because the majority will be fine with the way things are.
When you have a real or de-facto monopoly you just assume you can get away with poor/overpriced service. Most corporate bean counters making such decisions don't take into account the second-order effects you describe, until they materialize into a real problem.
At which point they choose lobbying to double down on monopolyship over caring.
Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Did the government dig those tunnels? No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price. So much for private enterprise saving the taxpayer money. > why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid? This is how most municipal broadband works right now.…
>No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price OT: if everyone can do that, what's preventing everyone from bidding $1 on multibillion dollar contracts? surely there must be a way to uphold them to the amount they bid for.
Possibly, but public private partnerships have a long and storied history of ripping off the taxpayers and government.
For example, take toll road highways. Not a single one exists in the USA that lasted the length of their contract without going bankrupt and ripping off everyone.
>Beginning with the contracting stage, the evidence suggests toll operating public private partnerships are transportation shell companies for international financiers and contractors who blueprint future bankruptcies. Because Uncle Sam generally guarantees the bonds – by far the largest chunk of “private” money – if and when the private toll road or tunnel partner goes bankrupt, taxpayers are forced to pay off the bonds while absorbing all loans the state and federal governments gave the private shell company and any accumulated depreciation. Yet the shell company’s parent firms get to keep years of actual toll income, on top of millions in design-build cost overruns….
>Of course, no executive comes forward and says, “We’re planning to go bankrupt,” but an analysis of the data is shocking. There do not appear to be any American private toll firms still in operation under the same management 15 years after construction closed. The original toll firms seem consistently to have gone bankrupt or “zeroed their assets” and walked away, leaving taxpayers a highway now needing repair and having to pay off the bonds and absorb the loans and the depreciation.
>The list of bankrupt firms is staggering, from Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway to Presidio Parkway in San Francisco to Canada’s “Sea to Sky Highway” to Orange County’s Riverside Freeway to Detroit’s Windsor Tunnel to Brisbane, Australia’s Airport Link to South Carolina’s Connector 2000 to San Diego’s South Bay Expressway to Austin’s Cintra SH 130 to a couple dozen other toll facilities.
>We cannot find any American private toll companies, furthermore, meeting their pre-construction traffic projections. Even those shell companies not in bankruptcy court usually produce half the income they projected to bondholders and federal and state officials prior to construction.
Thinking Highways by Randy Salzman https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/calpers-invests-in-t...