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

201–210 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#201

Post by FireBeyond »

redi90000 wrote: post #172
shmerl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

Ehhh...

For my home, 2.5mi from the Capital Building in Washington State, I'm offered four wired broadband providers:

1. Comcast, "advertised 100mbps to 1gbps" (true enough, although you can only get 150mbps, so I'm not sure if that's bracketing)

2. CenturyLink, "25-50mbps" (CenturyLink's own website says "Our systems indicate that our High Speed Internet is not currently available at your service address." I tried several other streets in the area that indicated that none of them had availability either.)

3. Platinum Equity LLC, "10-25mbps" (err, Platinum Equity is an investment firm - oh, one of their portfolio offers "T1 and Bonded T1" lines to businesses)

4. Integra Telecom Holdings, "3-6mbps" (a Vancouver telco that does business fiber).

So there's one - Olympia, WA.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#202

Post by ochoseis »

> As a result, households there can now get 1 gigabit (1,000 Mbps) service for just $70 per month.

> The Obama administration is also planning to offer subsidies to promote investments in local broadband.

While $70 doesn't seem like an outrageously great deal (it is good), it brings up an interesting point my dad had the other day. Is the true cost of that gigabit internet $100/mo, and tax dollars subsidize $30 while you cover the other $70 as stated? If municipalities truly can provide faster cheaper internet I'm all for it; however, I would hate to have another reason to bump taxes, nor a reason to crowd out competition and remove the incentive for innovation.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#203

Post by cpitman »

pgrote wrote: post #177
redi90000 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet. The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service. It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business. Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. Whe…

This is one of the real issues with the FCC's collection of this data. Broadband providers don't report where they have customers they are providing service, they report areas that they "cover", where "cover" may just mean an intention to provide service. It may also mean that broadband (>3Mbps) is available, for the low low price of your first born.

There's also a potentially anti-competitive slant to this: There are government subsidies available to provide coverage to unserved areas, which might help a small ISP or competitor move into the area. But if we say we cover it...

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#204

Post by FireBeyond »

acdha wrote: post #61
lukeschlather wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparable Verizon service appears to cost between $200-$400 a month (though it's available almost nowhere.) At that price you can bet they'll waive a $100 installation fee.

You're talking about Verizon, though – the dslreports.com forums are full of people talking about being charged installation fees even when they've moved into a place which was already wired by the previous occupant. In my neighborhood they ran promos (we have 3 competing high-speed ISPs) but even then some people reported having to call to actually get the correct bill.

That wouldn't surprise me. CenturyLink here did a door to door campaign advertising their Gigabit service.

Wouldn't be anything unusual, except for the fact that the nearest address to these doorsteps that could get this service were 55 miles away in Seattle.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#205

Post by orthecreedence »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #107

From the perspective of a non-American, it's sad to see you taking _another_ step away from laissez-faire capitalism. In what world is it reasonable to take money from people by force and use it to compete with private business? If people want municipal broadband, let them form non-profits to provide it through voluntary donations. That should be legal, and if it's not, that'd be something to fix.

Wow, so much wrong with your statement.

Obama isn't trying to rally all the states to create broadband that competes with the big telecoms, he's proposing we strike down laws that telecoms lobbied for that forces people not to form their own local broadband. So what we have currently is citizens being forced NOT to exercise the democratic process thanks to the efforts of large companies. That is laissez-faire capitalism at work, my friend, in it's most common form.

Secondly, I can't imagine anybody in the world (US citizen or not) thinking the US needs to move more towards laissez-faire capitalism. It's about as brutally capitalist/monopolistic/imperialist as anyone could ever want, and the citizens' collective voice has never been so drowned out as it has right now. Any time anyone even talks about some kind of social service or public good (including local broadband), everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming "COMMUNISM!!!"

What we need is to strangle our corporate culture back into complete submission of the American people. No more spending our tax dollars invading countries or setting up puppet dictators so the corporate good ol' boys can steal from the locals. No more politicians entirely in the pocket of a bunch of greedy fucks, fighting for legislation they don't even understand. No more US banks destroying the world economy and having zero repercussions whatsoever.

In what world is it reasonable to want more of these things?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#206

Post by cpitman »

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?

The local government has plenty of other advantages. For one, they have a vested interest in not imposing costly requirements on themselves, while they continue to do so to private ISPs. In other words, they set the rules that everyone has to play by (ie you must cover this entire area, event the parts where no one can afford your service) while preferentially setting better rules for themselves. In the same way, I wouldn't be surprised if they can get permits and other government imposed roadblocks out of the way faster.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#207

Post by discardorama »

oldmanjay wrote: post #133
discardorama wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Surely water and roads, of all things listed, are managed by the municipality? Who maintains the local streets otherwise?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#208

Post by cpitman »

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…

Do other countries also have problems with their roads and bridges being in disrepair? How about their water mains, do they break and wash out streets on a regular basis?

US local governments do not seem to have a good record of maintaining public infrastructure, so why would public internet be any different?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#209

Post by heywood33 »

grecy wrote: post #162
metaphorm wrote: post #13

I wish we had seen this more progressive, pro-active Obama 6 years ago. Squandered his political capital on a shitty health care reform bill, got shell shocked by Republican opposition and crawled up his own ass for a couple of years. Now that he doesn't give a shit about elections anymore he's actually doing something.

> Squandered his political capital on a shitty health care reform bill I suspect he thought health care for all was more important than fast internet for all.

Yeah, too bad we voted for health care and got nothing but lousy high deductible insurance. I'll never spend more than $6000 a year on a doctor to make use of it, but that fat ass shoving cheeseburgers in his face can get his third triple bypass on my dime.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#210

Post by finid »

> Municipal broadband is controversial — especially among Republicans

> But House Republicans don't agree. Last year, the Republican-controlled House passed language banning the FCC from banning states from banning cities from building municipal networks.

You can always trust those guys to work against consumers.

Post reply on HN