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

Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#101

Post by thcipriani »

peterjmag wrote: post #2

I'm pretty proud of my hometown for passing this measure! Longmont, a town 30 miles south of Fort Collins, passed something similar a couple years ago, and it sounds like it's been pretty successful so far[1], so I'm excited to see where this goes. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15570559#up_15573817

it has indeed been quite successful: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6777148187

it's like that all the time now. Never been down for longer than 15 minutes and I've never been on hold trying to get assistance. All that for $50/mo :)

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#102

Post by sixstringtheory »

H1Supreme wrote: post #67
bkeroack wrote: post #48

What are the odds that the city will run an ISP better than, say, the DMV?

In my observations, problems at the DMV are usually because of the public, not the DMV. People show up to register a car without a title, have missing paperwork to get a license plate, and are generally unprepared. The DMV spells out what you need online, but people show up and need every little thing explained to them. I'm at the counter for 5 minutes, pay my fees, and walk out the door. Why was this other goof-ball…

Don't forget that the people who work at the DMV are the public, and they aren't perfect. I've had so many different sets of requirements explained to me by different people, counter clerks who wouldn't accept paperwork that was just examined by the line-keeper/ticket-giver, situations where one clerk tried to turn me away where their neighbor said "What's the problem? Here, gimme that..." and 5 minutes later everything is taken care of.

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#105

Post by moosey »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #90
krisdol wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't simultaneously advocate for superior free-market solutions and then complain when the government outcompetes the private sector.

I can when the government gives itself advantages that it doesn't give the private sector, like subsidies, taxes (paid whether you use the service or not), and regulatory exceptions.

You continually assert that subsidies, lowered taxes, and regulatory exceptions haven't been regularly given to these companies. I would assert instead that it isn't difficult to find the opposite, and that all too often that money is used to further profit margins.

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#106

Post by r00fus »

user-on1 wrote: post #35
r00fus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure other people in Colorado would gratefully accept the appropriate amount in "campaign funds" to run against those who would dare to compete against Comcast. I mean, really - how dare they?

I think you mean politicians and corporations. they are not really identified as people. This is how the whole world has already got ruined. I wish people grow some spine and invest enough energy and time and take a stand to get what interests them and not become submissive into paying their hard earned money to make millionaires billionaire.

So I take it you don't agree with Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people, my friend".

However, the fact is that without a rather sweeping change in how we recognize and reward incorporation in the US, they are currently "more equal" people.

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#107

Post by vidarh »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #89
lisper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can any private ISP compete with that? If the answer to your rhetorical question is supposed to be "they can't" then government-provided broadband is manifestly superior to anything the private sector can provide. Why would we as a society not want that?

It's not necessarily superior; it's subsidized and doesn't have to actually make money, or even break even. Ultimately its costs can be hidden away in taxes or debt, where they're still present but unseen. Municipal broadband also often gets fast-tracked or special-cased in regulation; governments don't do a good job of regulating themselves . Private ISPs can't do any of those things; they actually have to pay for i…

Historically, most places with government owned telco's starting ISPs still had arms length regulation. If that was really the concern, looking at the dozens of countries with experience in regulating this would be rather simple.

That said, I agree that you'd get far just by providing the last mile. In the EU, deregulation basically required the owners of monopoly last mile infrastructure to separate them out into separate business units that are heavily regulated to provide equal service. Nothing prevents providers from choosing to build their own, but this ensures "anyone" can start an ISP.

E.g. in the UK, BT separated out OpenReach - not only are they restricted to offering same service and prices to everyone, their wholesale prices are published on their web pages for everyone to see.

There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network. But those problems could have been solved by regulating profit-taking so that profits can only be taken as a proportion of investment.

OpenReach offer both local-loop-unbundling (IPSs put equipment in BT exchanges and handle backhaul themselves, and get a raw copper or fibre connection to the subscriber) and backhaul where ISPs connect to BT one or more places and get a raw IP connection to the subscriber.

It works ok, with the caveat above, and it also doesn't stop alternatives, like FTTP from other providers, in areas where it is economically viable to lay new networks.

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#108

Post by s73ver_ »

intopieces wrote: post #55
dchuk wrote: post #42

I’m failing to think of a single reason why it would ever be legally acceptable for a government to ban municipal broadband. I understand the whole corporate shill stuff, I’m speaking literally from the arguments FOR the ban...how is it justified at all?

Preface: Whether these fears are reasonable I am not saying either way. I am answering your question about how a ban on municipal broadband could be justified. Another way to describe municipal broadband: state-run media pipeline. Allowing the government to control the last mile of the Internet. Port all those fears you have about Comcast violating net neutrality, stifling competition, spying on users.. Now, increase…

I think those fears are extremely far-fetched because:

1). Don't most places that do this set up a company? As in, it's a company that happens to have one of it's owners as the city.

2). Does anyone honestly think that if such a thing were to happen, that private ISPs like Comcast would somehow, magically be exempt? That the government official would be like a Scooby Doo villan, saying, "Curses! I'd have gotten away with the censorship and spying if it wasn't for you meddling private ISPs!"

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#109

Post by WoodenChair »

We had this in Burlington, VT and now we're selling it off because the city could not run it effectively (massive debt). Be careful — government is usually not a great runner of a customer-service focused business. Further, do you really want government (municipal) or otherwise being your ISP? Having access to all of your traffic lines?

Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado

#110

Post by hexane360 »

jjawssd wrote: post #32
ssambros wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently corporations take the path of least resistance - it's cheaper to 'influence' the big state instead of competing in an open market. Now the question is: will increasing the power of the state make such behavior less or more lucrative?

> will increasing the power of the state make such behavior less or more lucrative? More lucrative because the state has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Legislation is cheap compared to real innovation. Furthermore, legislation is backed by the legal system which prevents the cash flow to Comcast from decreasing in this case. The legal system is fueled by tax money not Comcast's money. Comcast is benefiting fro…

If Comcast can hijack our democracy and wield the state's power against public interest, then what's to stop it from hijacking our democracy to increase the state's power in the first place? How does creating a city-owned utility in any way change Comcast's lobbying position? Monopolies can and do form and persist without government intervention. The textbook example of this is utilities.

Finally, if creating a city-owned utility is beneficial to Comcast, why are they vehemently against it?

Post reply on HN