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

121–130 of 230 posts

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

#121

Post by donatj »

jdavis703 wrote: post #64
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?

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but if you believe in a strong free-market with a minimal state then you could argue that the government should not be providing a service that private individuals could provide. Now I think most people are more pragmatic and say "whatever get's the job done," but that's the reason why some people are against many municipal services, including broadband.

Believer in strong free-markets here, and I'm fine with private industry competing with the government as long as the government entity itself isn't propped up by taxpayers cough post office cough amtrak cough.

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

#122

Post by WoodenChair »

Clubber wrote: post #114
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 a…

So, you chose the red herrings of the worst possible ISPs. There are great commercial ISPs too. What's more important is competition, which again is limited by government (government decides who gets access to build-out lines).

I agree, federal government does have the resources to spy, and uses them very effectively. Why make it that much easier for our local governments to do that as well.

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

#123

Post by hexane360 »

jamesaepp wrote: post #65

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

>another monopoly

Comcast won't cease to exist. Other ISPs can form.

>that can use force

When was the last time your water/electric/gas company "used force" against public interest?

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

#124

Post by JoshTriplett »

moosey wrote: post #105
JoshTriplett wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I would argue against those too, consistently.

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

#125

Post by asabjorn »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #63
gigatexal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive. What would the world do if comcast or a group of content owners tried to sue netflix out of existence because their business model threatened the incumbents? There'd be pandemonium.

> What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive. If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband (e.g. everyone in the country had a choice of at least 2-3 reasonable options, and DSL does not count as "reasonable" anymore), then I'd actually call the introduction of a government-backed option "anti-competitive", because how can a…

> I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room.

What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost?

I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.

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

#126

Post by JoshTriplett »

asabjorn wrote: post #125
JoshTriplett wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive. If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband (e.g. everyone in the country had a choice of at least 2-3 reasonable options, and DSL does not count as "reasonable" anymore), then I'd actually call the introduction of a government-backed option "anti-competitive", because how can a…

> I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room. What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost? I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.

> What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost?

No, it would be having the government provide the infrastructure that we only need one of (fiber to individual homes), while encouraging competition among service providers, rather than stagnation with a single monopoly.

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

#127

Post by rayiner »

s73ver_ wrote: post #113
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My neighborhood isn’t rich by any means, and I can get gigabit fiber from either Verizon or Comcast. Verizon is about breaking even on FiOS at $110/month per subscriber (including television). That’s affordable for a lot of people. (It’s about as much as my electric bill, and less than my heating bill or car insurance).

It would leave out people near the poverty line. But the government can subsidize those people specifically, or build municipal networks in those areas. Better to do that than to distort the entire market by requiring every telecom provider to basically run a public service arm. That ensures only mega-corps can afford to get into the businsss.

It’s illustrative to look at what Stockholm did. A municipal entity built the dark fiber, but it was not subsidized. Nor was it subject to any build out requirement or mandatory cross subsidies. The entity built out based on demand, targeting businesses first. The resulting service is actually pretty expensive (about $130 for gigabit, plus a fee for building the fiber if necessary). For rural areas, the government simply gave a tax subsidy for rural residents to pay to wire themselves with fiber.

I’ll also note that we don’t build other kinds of utilities this way either! If there isn’t sufficient demand for sewer or water, a water utility simply doesn’t build it. And it charges every house about $20-30,000 to do so, regardless of whether they can afford it.

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

#128

Post by tonycoco »

cletus wrote: post #84

So I'm all for this effort but there are a lot of opinions in this thread that are (IMHO) too simplistic and ignore history. 1. Building more than one version of given infrastructure is often called an "overbuild" and it tends to be bad. Like you don't have two different electric, gas or water companies running a whole set of wires, poles, pipes or whatever to your house. The capex cost of any such network is massive…

Thanks for this. I needed some sanity.

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

#129

Post by asabjorn »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #126
asabjorn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room. What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost? I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.

> What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost? No, it would be having the government provide the infrastructure that we only need one of (fiber to individual homes), while encouraging competition among service providers, rather than stagnation with a single monopoly.

What extra value would those service providers provide? I assume here that the service level would be Gbit internet with service levels as high as electricity, which is also a utility monopoly at least here in SF.

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

#130

Post by muninet »

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 do realize that a) corporate welfare is egregiously prevelant in the United States and b) the “government” isn’t a single entity, right? If a democratically elected (roughly) assembly, e.g. people with a ballot measure, a city council, a state legislature, etc. decide that municipal internet is better for society and provided as a government service, that is absolutely that body’s right. Government doesn’t exist to outcompete the private sector. Government is not just another Amazon or Google or Walmart (ideally; in practice it kind of is). It’s there to provide stability, basic services, justice, and an overall formal structure so civilized society can exist. If fiber is one of those services, and that’s the will of the people, then so be it.
Post reply on HN