Could we possibly tag posts like this as something like "US Only" - there are no municipal broadband networks in (for example) the UK. Unless perhaps in Hull?
Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
51–60 of 99 posts
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#52I suspect the major considerations for choosing a service provider are price, availability, and service quality. Potential customers are more likely to consider municipal broadband if they are either unhappy with their current service or that service is less than gigabit speed.
I also suspect the incumbents aren't troubled by competition in areas where they provide gigabit service with strong reliability but they will fight to the death to keep municipal broadband out of areas they hope to expand into.
Both of those assumptions, if accurate, would suggest network access is, at least secretly, perceived as a utility by both the providers and customers.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#53I 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.
Its also hard to discount how much American's distrust the government. "Send all your data through a government owned server" is going to have a negative knee-jerk reaction from many/most people.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#54I'm not necessarily against municipal broadband - I'd probably use it over my current ISP - but it feels like a poor solution to the problem. Municipal broadband doesn't help anyone outside the municipality.
Ideally, broadband ISPs would just compete with eachother. But the infrastructure is expensive, so it seems most of them have unofficially agreed it's just not worth the cost to expand into eachothers' territory and compete for customers.
How did we get around this issue with the telephone grid and what's stopping us from doing the same with ISPs?
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#55How in the world can someone "prefer their current provider" without something to compare against? I think in any kind of survey like this, I would like to see the actual questions that were asked.
Not every city in America is terrible. I live in a city of ~250k, we have multiple competing cable companies here and we get very reliable, fast, gig internet for a good price.
In my childhood hometown they have muni internet. It started out great as it was cutting edge. They have barely upgraded in over a decade. It's crap and the cable company in town has largely won.
I also don't want the government tracking my internet history in any fashion. Too many government services could tie into knowledge about you and I want the government to have only the minimum information necessary to provide those services.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not currently impressed with municipal _anything_ living in Seattle Are the water and sewage systems that bad in Seattle? I was unaware, but will now be detouring to learn more (although I am a little hesitant to find out what problems could be arising on the sewage front).
The water quality is fine, and I haven't had sewage problems. But they are both pretty crazy expensive given how much accessible clean water there is in the PNW ( https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/rain-soaked-s... ). I'm not impressed with trash or recycling pickup, which are intermittent and expensive. Electricity is fine I guess, but we have solar and don't end up paying anything on net so I don't pay…
I think the high cost of water is largely due to sewage treatment costs, which are higher because we’re surrounded by water. I think Seattle Public Utilities contracts out trash pickup to companies like Waste Management, just based on what I see on the side of the garbage trucks driving in my neighborhood, so if they’re not doing a good job perhaps the city should re-evaluate that contract.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of internet OTT services that provide live TV like Hulu Live, YouTube TV, Sling, etc. These days if you’re not into sports, there is really no need for live TV. You can mix and match streaming services.
And you can always just pay for MLB, NFL, NBA, etc. streaming services. You get hit with the same blackout dates too! Also, digital antennas can come in handy if the local channels provide the news and sports content that you could otherwise not get with Internet TV services.
I wish there was some kind of non-blackout streaming for local teams. I paid for youtube tv before the implemented blackouts and it was great. I'd totally pay the leagues directly! The only option seems to be the massive "all the games" packages on top of a cable subscription.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I thought starlink was for people living in rural areas with no real broadband alternatives.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#59What I am interested in: a single entity responsible for trenching/fibre infrastructure, then allowing providers to resell access to it. Requiring each ISP to run their own fibre makes no sense to me. Let ISPs compete on price and quality of service, not on having billions in the bank to roll out the fibre (or take subsidies and not roll it out, like in many places in USA). Even worse in condos (like in Toronto) wher…
What you're talking about is called Unbundled Access / Bitstream access [1]. Although that's currently mostly talked about in the context of copper/DSL access. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbundled_access
Thanks for the clarification; that's exactly what I was referring to. I'd like to see fibre included in that since it's likely to be the physical medium that will last a century or more, regardless of the protocols on top of it.
Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband
#60How in the world can someone "prefer their current provider" without something to compare against? I think in any kind of survey like this, I would like to see the actual questions that were asked.
Not every city in America is terrible. I live in a city of ~250k, we have multiple competing cable companies here and we get very reliable, fast, gig internet for a good price. In my childhood hometown they have muni internet. It started out great as it was cutting edge. They have barely upgraded in over a decade. It's crap and the cable company in town has largely won. I also don't want the government tracking my in…
That an ISP is municipal is hardly any sort of deciding factor on if government tracking has been welcomed into a given data service or not. Large private telecoms imho are both much more likely to be targeted and to cooperate.