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

131–140 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#131

Post by ksk »

bduerst wrote: post #105
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?

The government already does, for regional monopolies (power, water, sewer, transportation, etc.) The problem isn't that the government should prop-up start ups in this specific industry to prevent a monopoly, but that the government should embrace communications as a regional monopoly - i.e. own the utility infrastructure and reduce costs for the entire economy. Obviously they can't nationalize the current companies,…

Classification of broadband as a public utility is a related, but separate argument.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#132

Post by ksk »

digikata wrote: post #103
ksk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But if last-mile links are a natural monopoly (or at least demonstrably low competition markets), how do we get better broadband than we have now? We have data points from other nations that seem to indicate that publicly owned or open-access last-mile links create market conditions that deliver broadband more…

Okay, so you could to break down the ISP vertical into companies that only supply service and companies that only do the last-mile infrastructure. It would allow the government to regulate the industry without being involved in the supply side of things.

One other option is to opt for a consumer ownership model where the each home pays for the bit of fiber that connects them to the neighborhood hub or w/e.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#133

Post by oldmanjay »

discardorama wrote: post #106
nostromo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But we're OK with letting them run water and power and roads and hospitals and sewage and ... , right? Plus, they won't be "running" the Internet; they would be providing a link from point A (your domicile) to point B (the gateway or NAP).

Not one of the municipalities I've called home in the last 40 years runs any of those things you've mentioned

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#134

Post by cbd1984 »

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…

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service.

Why? If the Free Market Fundamentalists are correct, the for-profit company should have it all over the tax-funded service, because the company would be interested in efficiency and technological advances and so on, as opposed to just being a... welfare... thing... like the US Post Office and everything else which, per dogma, Does Not Work.

> You can prevent rent-seeking by repealing any "sponsored" laws that protect their monopoly.

Like the property laws which prevent others from using the wires they pay to put in, or do you think three cable companies should mean three completely separate sets of coaxial cables running everywhere in town?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#135

Post by davidgerard »

bainsfather wrote: post #94
davidgerard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I was not being in the least sarcastic. It works better than the US does, however.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#136

Post by icelancer »

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…

>They get the municipal governments to sign exclusivity clauses and various other laws to keep competition out.

These contracts are signed under duress, then? Your representatives are free to not sign the contract.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#137

Post by drawkbox »

I hope his next step is setting a goal for 1-5Gbps internet access to everyone in this country within 5-6 years based on this. Reward companies for building it to allow expansion and to non economical areas, which could become more economical with it.

Let's build this internet cornerstone for commerce like Eisenhower's interstate system. Everyone can build on a platform that puts us back in competition for internet bandwidth/throughput with the surpassing world. We do not want to be behind in the bandwidth race, maybe if we make it a bandwidth race or war we can make it happen.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#138

Post by ksk »

shmerl wrote: post #116
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?

Isn't there Sherman act already? Why can't it be applied to ISPs? I.e. there are existing laws which can put an end to anticompetitive behavior of ISPs, but no one applies them. So why would adding more laws improve anything?

Well anti-trust law are mostly applied on case by case basis. I believe the un-official term for judging is "workable competition". I don't know whether the ISP market passes that definition.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#139

Post by hackerboos »

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.

It's different to what's being suggested.

BT is private company and runs most of the infrastructure. That's not what is being proposed here.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#140

Post by danans »

derekp7 wrote: post #118
WillNotDownvote wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'…

They already do this, with these things called roads. In fact, I saw a tax-payer funded road that gave access to a church, a bar, and an adult store.

A tax-funded road built with the explicit the purpose of giving access to all three of these? Did the places exist there before the road, and if so, how did people get to them? Are the places located very close to each other or just coincidentally on the same road that stretches a long distance?
Post reply on HN