Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

reviews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#81

Post by [deleted] »

streblo wrote: post #63
nightski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Not every city in America is terrible. Fine, but MANY are. In the past 5 years I've lived in two of America's biggest cities and only had one ISP to choose from. > 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. As if the go…

[deleted]

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#82

Post by nightski »

vangelis wrote: post #66
nightski wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I also don't want the government tracking my internet history in any fashion. The government already can compel your ISP to hand over that data.

I'm sure they can but there is a big difference between the two situations to me. One makes the data readily available. The other requires effort on behalf of the government on a case by case basis.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#83

Post by alistairSH »

tyingq wrote: post #42

I 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.

It definitely strikes me as a low quality poll. Or, at least not enough information reported here.

I have Verizon Fios. The day-to-day service is fine and I get roughly what I pay for (200/200 for $39/month with an option to go quite a bit faster if I want to pay more).

But, I'd love to have some competition and downward price pressure. Don't much care if it's municipal or private, I just want an option.

And I live in a wealthy suburb and realize lots of people don't even have one good option. Heck, even within my zip, Fios isn't 100% available and the cable internet providers are universally awful.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#84

Post by csdreamer7 »

acdha wrote: post #33
imoverclocked wrote: post #5

Given 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…)

This involves politics so it's never going to be uncontentious and there's a valid concern about how well something will be operated. Your opinion of your local water utility, for example, probably varies a lot from someone who lives in Flint. As we've seen in other areas, it would not be impossible for the “municipal” option in some cases to end up being a no-bid contract with little accountability. I don't think th…

I think you are mixing two forms of government and their incentives.

The above poster was talking about local government which has an incentive to establish local network effects and raise property values.

Flint was caused by the state of Michigan taking over their water management and ignoring warnings of what would happen.

It feels like states are much more beholden to telecommunications lobbies than the local areas. TN, despite Chattanooga being the poster child for municipal broadband, banned other cities from building their own networks. CO forces both the local government and the citizens later in an election to authorize local networks. WA just repealed their ban on municipal broadband networks.

I do not feel that a remote possibility of no-bid contracts is a reasonable concern over the current corrupt and no accountability of these large ISPs who lobby state governments to ban local networks. It is a lot easier to change local government than many state governments if a project goes wrong.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#86

Post by megaframe »

spullara wrote: post #2

How 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.

I don't think it's that they "prefer their current provider" it's that they prefer not to think about it or go through the hassle of changing. Like if someone got an oil change and it works for them every time and you sent them a flyer telling them there's a better place with better oil that's slightly cheaper. The product they buy serves their need and they don't want the work of having to try a new place out.

I'm not really surprised by this. In my old building, out of 6 units I was the only to get fiber and after a few years someone new moved in they were up to two people. I know for a fact 2 other units were work from home business sales folk who did regular video calls (even before covid) and they continued with comcast despite slower up/down at a higher price. In my new building again the same thing. This time 10 units, only myself and one other with fiber despite the same issues. Even with multiple household having a very compelling reason to switch (work from home and home schooling).

I asked an older neighbor in my old building why they hadn't switched and their response was that comcast was good enough for them, I explained it was also cheaper, they said they'd "look into it" and 3 years later still on comcast.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#88

Post by DangitBobby »

cozzyd wrote: post #71
DangitBobby wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought starlink was for people living in rural areas with no real broadband alternatives.

Yeah, any place with comcast broadband is almost certainly a poor fit for Starlink due to the limited total bandwidth over a geographic region.

My parents' only option for broadband right now is mobile hotspots. Unless you count traditional satellite internet, which I do not.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#89

Post by dont__panic »

alistairSH wrote: post #83
tyingq wrote: post #42

I 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.

It definitely strikes me as a low quality poll. Or, at least not enough information reported here. I have Verizon Fios. The day-to-day service is fine and I get roughly what I pay for (200/200 for $39/month with an option to go quite a bit faster if I want to pay more). But, I'd love to have some competition and downward price pressure. Don't much care if it's municipal or private, I just want an option. And I live i…

200/200 for $39 in the US? You don't know how lucky you are!

I personally have gigabit up/down for $70/mo, but I would happily slash my rates to 200/200 for 50% off or so. However, I wouldn't want to go below 100 up/down for any amount of savings since at some point you're actually hurting download speeds for OS/game updates and 4k video.

Where in the US do you live? My only experience with Fios was in NYC, and the lowest rates I've seen there are around 60-70.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#90

Post by dont__panic »

FalconSensei wrote: post #34
asdff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does. Addicted people need their hits of dopamine, and Comcast (or insert evil ISP here) controls the supply even with a municipal player in town. I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast charged you more for your TV package alone than if you bundled your internet as well.

> Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does My anecdata based on people I know is that no one gets TV anymore.

There is likely a strong inverse correlation between "people who have enough knowledge to recognize the benefits of municipal broadband" and "people who still watch cable TV."
Post reply on HN