I would consider it, but in light of the way my municipality runs its other services (water, trash, road maintenance, transit, etc.) I'd be hesitant. In other words, they have no demonstrated record of competence to stand upon.
Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
41–50 of 99 posts
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#42I assume the percentage would be higher if it just showed an actual comparison of upload/download speeds, bandwidth caps, and price. This poll may be just showing whether the consumers even know what "municipal broadband" means.
Probably also colored with people's perceptions of how sticky "bundles" they already have for TV and phone are, how they would get their cable channels, etc.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
In recent years that's not been the case. Municipal option has been faster, sometimes, fiber, and cheaper. It's far from failed, in Chatanooga for example it is very successful.
Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am. But the Planet Money episode on this topic mentioned municipal broadband has more failure stories than success. It's worth a listen if you have the time. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/865908114/small-america-vs-bi...
>But the Planet Money episode on this topic mentioned municipal broadband has more failure stories than success.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/865908114
I'm not seeing that in the transcript. I'm seeing a story about corporations being so afraid of municipal broadband that they pay for laws to make it illegal.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine that some people would not prefer their current provider if their current provider is, say, Charter. I suspect people might willingly leap into a dark pit filled with who knows what over continuing with Charter.
Comcast was my only provider for 3 years. There were times I almost considered just canceling the contract and tethering on my phone because of how bad Comcast was.
I've been on Starlink for a few months. It's honestly been a pain in my ass, and nowhere near as reliable as Comcast. But I am being patient and waiting, because right now it's worth it to me just to tell Comcast to fuck right off. Starlink has been improving though quite a lot just since I got it... so I'll keep giving it time.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#45That’s fairly amazing to me considering the billions of dollars that corporate monopolies have invested in advertising and PR, compared to zero in towns that haven’t done any promotion of the idea of municipal broadband.
How is it amazing that a significant fraction of Americans said they might consider leaving a service provider if the alternative actually existed? (if, say, it was cheaper or better).
If I asked you if you'd be interested in cheaper electricity, would you be more likely to say "no, I like the ads this company does" or "maybe"?
Advertising lets people know that stuff exists and makes some things sexy (not so much broadband...). It doesn't render consumers incapable of considering alternatives.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#46Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)
Theoretical democratic accountability and public input haven't stopped public transit from sucking. Perhaps more people use the internet and so would be inclined to care, but governments aren't automatically under any pressure to execute well as long as they make the right ideological signals.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine that some people would not prefer their current provider if their current provider is, say, Charter. I suspect people might willingly leap into a dark pit filled with who knows what over continuing with Charter.
Comcast was my only provider for 3 years. There were times I almost considered just canceling the contract and tethering on my phone because of how bad Comcast was.
I must be on some special list at Comcast. Every time I have had to deal with them lately for changing service or helping debug an outage their online chat has been extremely competent and solved the problem. Which is a big change from years ago.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#48In Minneapolis there's no municipal broadband, but there is a local company that offers FTTH. I use it and it's clearly superior to any cable company I've ever had (more speed for the price, more reliable, when you call customer service an actual person picks up the phone instead of an automated system, etc). Even so, my perception is that Xfinity is more popular because people either aren't aware that there are othe…
[deleted]
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#49The best experience for the price are companies like Sonic, Webpass and Monkeybrains. All small providers doing something WAY better than the huge incumbents, for typically way cheaper.
100% would be off the local cable company if my municipality offered anything similar speed what I have. While I've not had much in the way of bad experiences, it's mostly because they aren't Comcast level huge.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#50Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)
It is generally local governments that have explicitly granted and enforced those monopolies. The other issue is with them not ending up as purely fee for service, and people that don't choose to consume as much end up paying for some portion of it.