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

151–160 of 230 posts

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

#151

Post by TallGuyShort »

efm wrote: post #138
TallGuyShort wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks - didn't know about that! Doesn't cover my area, though :)

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

#152

Post by hexane360 »

conanbatt wrote: post #148
hexane360 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

> When was the last time your water/electric/gas company "used force" against public interest? Everyday. Think of it this way, people that don't want to use the service can't opt out for the tax loss incurred by the state running it.

I don't know about your local utilities, but mine are only government regulated, not subsidized.

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

#153

Post by 15charlimit »

WoodenChair wrote: post #122
Clubber wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There are great commercial ISPs too.

Sure, if you're lucky enough to live in an area with "actual" competition, which is the crux of the entire issue.

The vast, vast majority of us are stuck with 1 or 2 (if we're lucky) options, both relatively shitty, with one being markedly inferior, and both absurdly overpriced for the connection you get.

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

#154

Post by moosey »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #124
moosey wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alright, but you've missed the point. These companies have had the opportunity to make a superior product with the same allowances that you suggest that municipal would get. But they didn't.

Alternatively, I would argue that a municipal system is, in fact, fair competition. If a municipality decides that they, collectively, want to create and pay for a service due to lack of quality competition, then it is their right to do so. This has so far proven extremely effective, as even private services have improved in quality and price when it happens.

This is a win/win for the consumer. For me, they are the more important part of the equation.

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

#155

Post by borvo »

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.

Where exactly is the "strong free-market" here?

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

#156

Post by wildmusings »

com2kid wrote: post #72
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.

> You can’t “compete” with a municipal service. Sure you can. The inherent costs to provide services is similar, but Comcast can amortize costs over a larger customer base. If Comcast is at all competent (a huge if!) then they should have overall lower costs, even taking (probably reduced) profits into account. Customer service needs to be provided, a mailing center to send out hardware, a billing system, technicians…

Municipal services usually don’t have to turn a profit, since they can make up the shortfall with tax revenue. You’re missing that crucial point. You can’t effectively compete against someone who can operate at a loss in perpetuity.

I don’t know what the specifics are in this case, but if they allow the municipal service to be funded by tax revenue, then it’s incredibly unfair.

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

#157

Post by matt_wulfeck »

Tasboo wrote: post #141
matt_wulfeck wrote: post #80

I love to see cities exert their power. In some ways we’ve acquiesced to a powerful central government, whether it be federal or state, but its local governments that should be powerful. After all, they have the best handle on the needs and desires of their citizens.

So if some city wants to enact Jim Crow laws, it should be allowed to do that without interference from the state or federal level?

Yes, but more specifically if our federal government wants to enact "jim-crow" type laws, our state and local governments should have the power to say "go fly a kite".

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

#158

Post by com2kid »

wildmusings wrote: post #156
com2kid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t “compete” with a municipal service. Sure you can. The inherent costs to provide services is similar, but Comcast can amortize costs over a larger customer base. If Comcast is at all competent (a huge if!) then they should have overall lower costs, even taking (probably reduced) profits into account. Customer service needs to be provided, a mailing center to send out hardware, a billing system, technicians…

Municipal services usually don’t have to turn a profit, since they can make up the shortfall with tax revenue. You’re missing that crucial point. You can’t effectively compete against someone who can operate at a loss in perpetuity. I don’t know what the specifics are in this case, but if they allow the municipal service to be funded by tax revenue, then it’s incredibly unfair.

> Municipal services usually don’t have to turn a profit, since they can make up the shortfall with tax revenue. You’re missing that crucial point. You can’t effectively compete against someone who can operate at a loss in perpetuity.

This is more of a problem of how things look like they are funded.

Customers still pay the same price, but instead of $60 for Internet service, it may be $50 for Internet and $10 somewhere else. Or of course the city can tax the heck out of one subgroup of people and redistribute the funds.

I'd actually be OK-ish with a law saying that municipal broadband has to be self funded after initial rollout, I imagine that would maintain sufficient competition.

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

#159

Post by SaltyBackendGuy »

krisdol wrote: post #78
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…

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

It it really a free market though...

"in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."

It would be awesome if we actually had a choice of provider, however you're generally limited to whatever ISP's 'turf' you fall into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

EDIT: I just reread you comment and you're not claiming it's a free market

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

#160

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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…

They don't have to be the ISP. Instead implementing a system like DSL was supposed to have with competition between CLECs on the same last mile infrastructure.
Post reply on HN