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

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#91

Post by pbhjpbhj »

api wrote: post #53
NoPiece wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

What will the federal policy be on encrypted traffic? Only two possibilities: ban it -- untenable -- or allow it.

They're not the only possibilities - for example they can refuse it but not police it, they can refuse it and police it, they can allow it but discourage it somehow (eg rate-limiting), I'm sure there are more if someone cared to thing about them for a minute.

Not sure what you're trying to say here?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#93

Post by discardorama »

Someone1234 wrote: post #28

The ultimate solution is for the government (federal and local) to run the physical side of the internet (e.g. run wires to homes/business, manage the exchanges, etc) but let private companies actually sell the data access directly to the public. As an analogy this is like the Greyhound Bus Line. When you buy a ticket to go from A to B on Greyhound you pay the bus company money and they provide you the service (and s…

I agree.

Another example would be power (electricity). In some states, you can choose to buy power from solar, renewable sources, etc. The underlying infrastructure is the same; but the offerings change.

In the case of Internet, the government basically would give you access to some NAP or exchange; to get onto the Internet, you would have to buy access from some provider. Providers could differentiate themselves by a variety of services: some offering total privacy; some offering caching services so you get your content faster; some offering DVR/cloud services; etc. etc.

It is time we started treating access to the Internet as a service provided by the municipality, like water, power, sewage, roads, etc.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#94

Post by bainsfather »

davidgerard wrote: post #80
Someone1234 wrote: post #28

The ultimate solution is for the government (federal and local) to run the physical side of the internet (e.g. run wires to homes/business, manage the exchanges, etc) but let private companies actually sell the data access directly to the public. As an analogy this is like the Greyhound Bus Line. When you buy a ticket to go from A to B on Greyhound you pay the bus company money and they provide you the service (and s…

Yes. This works really well in the UK. OpenReach, the bit of BT that operates the infrastructure, is part of a private company, but operates like part of the civil service. They are completely impartial. It is so illegal for OpenReach to offer BT anything they don't offer anyone else, that both BT Broadband and OpenReach staff cringe at the very concept. tl;dr public wires that many ISPs can supply service over.

I've read that twice, and I'm still not sure if you are being sarcastic.

For me, those 'public wires' are old and slow - all 3 places I have lived recently. The government have gifted lots of money to BT to roll out fiber, and BT have taken the cash and sat on their hands. It is an awful situation - allowing BT to sabotage our nation's competitiveness whilst stealing taxpayer money [0].

So having competition on the common infrastructure is indeed good, but the overall system definitely does not work "really well".

[0] A House of Commons Select Committee slammed the whole setup - e.g. here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/...

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#95

Post by jfb »

GhotiFish wrote: post #89
ksk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of asymmetry of resources exists in all domains that have high sunk costs. To reduce monopolies, using your logic ("you need countervailing size") the government would have to get involved in all of the other industries like shipping, oil refining, TV networks, etc. Instead, why not change the law (if needed) to prevent monopolies from happening?

Friendly reminder to people of HN. Please don't downvote to disagree. Is your objective to discourage dissenting opinion? Seriously? That's not healthy for a community. ksk's comments were not out of place.

No, he's asking very good questions.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#96

Post by lhc- »

sp332 wrote: post #59
metaphorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes. some communities have 10000 people per square mile (Brooklyn, where I live) while other communities have 6 people per square mile (rural Wyoming), and we've also got everything in between. the infrastructure requirements, costs, and issues for these communities are extremely different.

Yes, but that's not that hard to account for. Private companies don't seem to have much trouble. My question isn't "would municipal government be better than private companies", but "would federal government be worse"?

Private companies often don't serve (or underserve) those less populated areas. Their solution to that problem is to not provide service as they aren't required. Municipal broadband which is provided as a public service/utility, however, is better suited to serve everyone, as they are often required to do that rather than only focus on the areas that generate the most profit.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#97

Post by discardorama »

nostromo wrote: post #11

Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs. Municipal governments: the cause of, and solution to, your ISP woes. It reminds me of housing. 1) Governments restrict new housing. 2) Housing becomes unaffordable. 3) Government builds public housing because "the free market has failed."

> Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs.

And whose fault is that? Yep, that's right, the ISPs.

The ISPs love to play this game of "shut the door after I've gone through it". They get the municipal governments to sign exclusivity clauses and various other laws to keep competition out.

I mean, think about it: nothing gets done in the government unless someone wants it and is willing to bribe the right people for it. Why the heck would the government go out of its way to set up roadblocks for ISPs if no one wanted it?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#99

Post by worklogin »

ksk wrote: post #45
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

> you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it. How so? Whether its good or bad, ISPs would be against it. Most companies do not want competition. (regardless of what they say) >by allowing the option of municipal networks. I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. >Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking You can…

Maybe private companies shouldn't run the physical infrastructure - maybe it should be a public utility. In today's society, you need gas, electric, water and internet (which has replaced phone).

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#100

Post by nostromo »

discardorama wrote: post #97
nostromo wrote: post #11

Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs. Municipal governments: the cause of, and solution to, your ISP woes. It reminds me of housing. 1) Governments restrict new housing. 2) Housing becomes unaffordable. 3) Government builds public housing because "the free market has failed."

> Municipal governments are a big part of the problem. They make it nearly impossible for companies to build new ISPs. And whose fault is that? Yep, that's right, the ISPs. The ISPs love to play this game of "shut the door after I've gone through it". They get the municipal governments to sign exclusivity clauses and various other laws to keep competition out. I mean, think about it: nothing gets done in the governme…

With such a dim view of local government, I'm confused as why you want them to run your internet.
Post reply on HN