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

131–140 of 230 posts

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

#131

Post by noobermin »

rayiner wrote: post #94
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: I think we should have municipal options in places with adequate service (as a backstop, because I also think we should eliminate build-out obligations that require private companies to serve insuffiently profitable subscribers.) That said, municipal governments are not sovereign entities, they derive all their authority from the state. States get to decide, as a general matter, what to make a public service…

The last argument there seems one that would appeal to people on the right only who would be against this because it's considered "big government" anyway.

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

#132

Post by muninet »

dfee wrote: post #88
agumonkey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free market much ...

While I understand your sentiment, "free market" folk generally exclude "government-provided" from that notion. This is because those services are often coupled with sector-wide regulations that are counter to laissez faire principles, the government is able to subsidize operational costs against its tax base (unfair competition that distorts the market), and other such complexities.

Ah yes, because corporations obviously don’t do any of those things (all of which are enabled by governments anyway).

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

#134

Post by greymeister »

dfee wrote: post #88
agumonkey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free market much ...

While I understand your sentiment, "free market" folk generally exclude "government-provided" from that notion. This is because those services are often coupled with sector-wide regulations that are counter to laissez faire principles, the government is able to subsidize operational costs against its tax base (unfair competition that distorts the market), and other such complexities.

It depends on whether "government-provided" means that you now pay for it whether you wanted the service or not. If I don't pay my cable bill I lose my cable. If I don't pay my taxes...

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

#135

Post by carry_bit »

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.

For example, why does it have to be government run instead of being a consumer co-op?

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

#136

Post by agumonkey »

dfee wrote: post #88
agumonkey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free market much ...

While I understand your sentiment, "free market" folk generally exclude "government-provided" from that notion. This is because those services are often coupled with sector-wide regulations that are counter to laissez faire principles, the government is able to subsidize operational costs against its tax base (unfair competition that distorts the market), and other such complexities.

Federal absurd regulations are commie-scandalous while lobby absurd regulation are just fine ?

It's always the same. People don't see, don't control, when they try, resistance is so high they will cave before change occurs.

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

#137

Post by leesalminen »

peterjmag wrote: post #18
exhilaration wrote: post #7

Whenever this happens - and it happens a lot - Comcast & Co just goes up a level to the state legislature and has them outlaw municipal broadband: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel... Can't they just do the same thing in Colorado?

Theoretically, yes. In fact, Senate Bill 152, passed in 2005, already outlaws municipal broadband. From the article: Colorado has a state law requiring municipalities to hold referendums before they can provide cable, telecom, or broadband service. Yesterday, voters in Eagle County and Boulder County authorized their local governments to build broadband networks, "bringing the total number of Colorado counties that h…

IIRC, Longmont (a small city in Colorado) already offers municipal internet and city wide WiFi.

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

#138

Post by efm »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #50
rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t “compete” with a municipal service. How many competing options do you have for your water or sewer or trash pickup? It’s a reasonable argument that broadband should be provided municipally. But cloaking it in the guise of “competition” is disingenuous.

There's competition in another sense. I'm east of Fort Collins where there's a pretty significant anti-government streak: but if Comcast manages to suck more than most government services they may have a problem. They don't have to be the best or even only free-market option: they have to avoid pissing off their customer base enough that people vote for a municipal option. Not sure they're doing very well at that...

You can get gigabit east of Fort Collins: http://web.wigginstel.com/service-area/ http://www.nunntel.com/ Not in Fort Collins, though.

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

#139

Post by actuallyalys »

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?

I'm not sure governments are actually worse than businesses at that on average. I've had excellent service at libraries, for example. Polls suggest most people have a positive view of libraries. [0]

I don't see how a local municipality having access is worse than a large corporation. At least municipalities aren't incentivized to extract more revenue by selling data. It seems like regulations and technology are better solutions to privacy issues than keeping ISPs private.

[0] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/

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

#140

Post by Barrin92 »

sliverstorm wrote: post #83
kevindqc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else pointed out in the comments, then why not have the city put the fiber in the ground, but let private ISPs run the network devices and ISP stuff (ie: a bit similar to TekSavvy in Canada which uses other ISP's infrastructure - I assume they use more than just the fiber though)

The real free market maniacs, don't want the government involved at all , in anything, in any way whatsoever. Private streets, private pipes, private prisons, private judiciary system, private police... While I think pipes owned by the people and leased to private ISPs is a very interesting solution, I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crowd.

>I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crow

what I don't understand about these people is that they must recognise that comcast essentially functions the same way the dreaded government does. They are just as large, they are just as organised and powerful. But in contrast to the government there is not even a democratic check and balance, and an explicit profit motive.

I would assume someone who likes the 'market' part in 'free market' recognises that a single giant corporate entity is not very market like at all

Post reply on HN