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

111–120 of 230 posts

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

#111

Post by pgeorgi »

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.

> subsidies, […] regulatory exceptions

Amazon just had a big contest on subsidies and the only exceptional thing about it was how brazen they were about it. Regulatory exceptions often are part of such deals.

> taxes (paid whether you use the service or not)

Monopolists call that "bundling". For example co-financing internet service by requiring you also pay for phone service.

The main difference is that a public service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.

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

#112

Post by sounds »

cavisne wrote: post #95

Has any city / company tried to build such a network since docsis 3.1 became available? Google seems to have basically given up. This will likely be a disaster for any city that tries, Comcast will just undercut them with higher speeds than any consumer will notice a difference. And taxpayers will be left with a huge bill.

DOCSIS 3.1 is impressive, but it's really the HFC infrastructure that even remotely threatens a FTTx build.

The comments far and wide (except as Ajit sees fit to hide) show a new carrier could not even be competitive at DOCSIS 3.1 levels, and still win.

Comcast has found such impressive execration that the "speed wars" only matter a little bit. It's just that Comcast has neglected their networks for so long that even at the most basic level, i.e. speeds, they regularly fail the previous administration's metric for "high speed internet" at peak times -- you know, the times when people actually use their internet.

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

#113

Post by s73ver_ »

rayiner wrote: post #53
Bromskloss wrote: post #14

I hear a lot of people being dissatisfied with Comcast. What is it that makes them so hard to compete with that people have to resort to city-run networks?

The real explanation is that cities make competing hard through well intentioned but misguided requirements. Getting a cable franchise means shouldering substantial public interest obligations, in particular the obligation to serve a whole city without regard to proven demand. (You can tell that’s the real reason because waiver of that requirement was the key concession Google demanded where it rolled out Fiber.) You…

At the same time, without those requirements, only the most profitable (read: rich) neighborhoods would be cherry picked, leaving the rest of us without service. That would make the digital divide even bigger, widening the gap between rich and poor.

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

#114

Post by Clubber »

WoodenChair wrote: post #109

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?

All of your points are valid, but let me counter argue.

Be careful — government is usually not a great runner of a customer-service focused business.

Maybe, maybe not, but we know Comcast and TWC aren't a great runner of customer-service focused business.

Further, do you really want government (municipal) or otherwise being your ISP? Having access to all of your traffic lines?

No, but I'm assuming they already have access without a warrant now.

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

#115

Post by sounds »

jamesaepp wrote: post #65

Wow they exchanged one monopoly for another monopoly that can use force. Genius voter population over there.

State-enforced law to prevent city fiber builds was exchanged for city-led coop. Said state-enforced law bought and paid for by Comcast, deceptive ad campaign bought and paid for by Comcast, and the city still won.

Sounds like a classic underdog win to me.

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

#116

Post by s73ver_ »

tooltalk wrote: post #46

Knowing so little about the situation in Colorado, why can't they just allow more competition in the city, instead of running it themselves?

Few want to compete against such an entity as Comcast. Hell, most of the other large ISPs don't want to.

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

#117

Post by subroutine »

rayiner wrote: post #97
subroutine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can any private ISP compete with that? Offer faster speeds and more reliable connections (compared what might be a very congested public network), at reasonable prices.

That assumes there are enough people who care about quality of service over price to make a private alternative tenable. There is a reason why there is no private competition to municipal bus systems, even really terrible ones.

Sure there is competition for the municipal bus system - taxis and ride share services. It's almost the perfect metaphor. For those who want faster service they look for options that offer these things at a reasonable price, and for those who don't care about fast speeds or cannot otherwise afford or justify the cost use the lowest common denominator, which is the public provided system. However, with internet service, there is no fallback.

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

#118

Post by lovich »

rayiner wrote: post #97
subroutine wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can any private ISP compete with that? Offer faster speeds and more reliable connections (compared what might be a very congested public network), at reasonable prices.

That assumes there are enough people who care about quality of service over price to make a private alternative tenable. There is a reason why there is no private competition to municipal bus systems, even really terrible ones.

There are totally private competitors to the private bus system, and there is private health insurance in places like the UK with social healthcare. I understand your point but I can't think of a single industry that doesn't have a natural monopoly where there wouldn't be room for two competitors based on differentiating solely on price

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

#119

Post by s73ver_ »

jamesaepp wrote: post #65

Wow they exchanged one monopoly for another monopoly that can use force. Genius voter population over there.

You'll have to point out where they exchanged monopolies, rather than simply set up a competitor to keep the existing monopoly in check.
Post reply on HN