Obama calls for municipal broadband

Post by jewel » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:43 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #180

justizin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten…

> it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Municipal broadband doesn't mean shutting out ISPs. If done right, it means that the municipalities own the last mile infrastructure and charge a per-customer rate to ISPs that serve residents. But what that does is significantly lower the bar for ISPs to offer service. It can cost millions of dollars to build out that infrastructure in a cit…

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

jzwinck wrote: post #184

ksk wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> break down the ISP vertical into companies The UK did this with British Telecom (BT). In a word, it sucks. It creates confusion for consumers: * "I get internet from Twinkle but they say they can't repair my line." * "I signed up for service with Floyd's Internet but a truck showed up at my house that says Ben's Broadband." * "Decker offered me fast fiber, but when I called to sign up, they said WestLane only has c…

Post by MaysonL » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 3:03 AM UTC

cbd1984 wrote: post #166

ksk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unfair? Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets. ¹Modulo obvious caveats.

> Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets. Except that shouldn't matter if the private company can compete on technology and service. If your opponent has unlimited funds but the customer service policies of the DMV and the technological acumen of, uh, some very-non-technical government office of your choice, shouldn't you win?

Post by bcheung » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 3:14 AM UTC

dj2stein9 wrote: post #194

bcheung wrote: post #176

Aren't we trading one monopoly for another? Not sure that is any better. Especially considering the track record of the post office or public education. There would need to be some way to allow competition so there is incentive to provide quality service.

You don't typically call publicly owned infrastructure a monopoly. Public utility companies are created to prevent exactly what's going in broadband internet service. If the city owned the lines, it would put all ISP's on a level playing field and enable broadband competition for the first time. They wouldn't be able overcharge you 10,000% mark up for the price of bandwidth anymore, and they'd have to compete based o…

Post by jMyles » Thu, Jan 15, 2015, 3:21 AM UTC

metaphorm wrote: post #42

jMyles wrote: post #15

Absent from the conversation is the actual obvious generational shift: final-mile mesh networks in every sufficiently large and dense community.

not a mature technology. how would the mesh be established? run ethernet cables between people's homes? have everyone open a port on their wifi router? this is beyond the technical capability of the vast majority of people. it would require a company to coordinate this, and at that point you've got just got an ISP running the last mile anyway.