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

161–170 of 230 posts

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

#161

Post by wildmusings »

com2kid wrote: post #158
wildmusings wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somewh…

>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.

No, in your scenario, customers pay $50, and EVERYONE pays $10, including those who use a private competitor.

The customers of a private competitor that also gets $60 of revenue per customer, would actually be paying $70. $60 for their own service, and $10 to subsidize the municipal service.

And even if you have some magic source of tax revenue that is not the citizens (or heavily tax some subgroup as you suggest), the municipal service is still charging $10 less to get the same revenue as the private service.

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

#162

Post by tsbertalan »

conanbatt wrote: post #146
jdavis703 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont think the state would be better running broadband, but i dont quite see the point of making a law that bans the state from doing it. There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.

If it's cheaper and better-quality (which are certainly not given), then I don't think you could really call it "unfair". At least, in the moral sense, that it would be better for society. If the overriding governmental policy goal is indeed to maximize the public good, not to maximize shareholder value.

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

#163

Post by tsbertalan »

Barrin92 wrote: post #140
sliverstorm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Astroturfing.

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

#164

Post by deusofnull »

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…

So yr ideal example is kinda like public roads (fiber) and private trucking (bandwidth). I think that's a neat solution tbh. Especially if the bandwidth suppliers are properly taxed for use of the public fiber, tax revenue which then could be used to maintain and expand the fiber infrastructure.

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

#165

Post by british_india »

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.

Yet, there are none of your hypothetical competitors and so your idea is a big, wet kiss to Comcast.

Comcast has FOREVER lost the right to be considered anything other than: "the scummiest company in America".

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

#166

Post by conanbatt »

hexane360 wrote: post #152
conanbatt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Utilities have a considerable tax participation in municipal and state level governments. The infrastructure was definitely built with taxation, and there is a virtual monopoly of it.

Im not making an opinion about it being the best system or not, because i haven't looked at this topic at all, but its delusional to think there is no force in this application.

Just googling shows that for example, Florida has a mandate to be on the grid.

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

#167

Post by conanbatt »

tsbertalan wrote: post #162
conanbatt wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think the state would be better running broadband, but i dont quite see the point of making a law that bans the state from doing it. There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.

If it's cheaper and better-quality (which are certainly not given), then I don't think you could really call it "unfair". At least, in the moral sense, that it would be better for society. If the overriding governmental policy goal is indeed to maximize the public good, not to maximize shareholder value.

It rarely is cheaper and better quality. What if its more expensive, and worse quality, do you get to skip paying the taxes that went into it?

In the moral sense, you've been ripped off if that happens and you have no recourse, and the only thing that was maximized was the good of the public servant, not of the public.

Lets not forget that the monopoly cable and internet companies have has a huge collaboration from the State itself.

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

#168

Post by cderwin »

chungy wrote: post #9
sizzzzlerz wrote: post #6

Keep your powder dry, Coloradians. COMCAST is like some non-giving up cable guy who simply won't let citizens determine their own fate when there is oodles of money to be made from them instead. Prepare for them to come back through the rear door, bribing the legislature and congress to enact laws that restrict the practice just approved.

Maybe it's just me, but the right thing for Comcast to do is try to provide a better product. Competition is healthy, legislation is illness.

It seems to me that it is unrealistic to expect a company -- even one as big as Comcast -- to compete with the government, with the power of eminent domain and subsidizing costs with local taxes.

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

#169

Post by cderwin »

hexane360 wrote: post #110
jjawssd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-…

Arguably nothing. Look at Comcast's ad campaigns on twitter to promote its own version of net neutrality. Fortunately for now, it seems that there are more powerful institutions in directing the public dialogue.

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

#170

Post by sliverstorm »

Barrin92 wrote: post #140
sliverstorm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

They basically believe the single-giant-corporate-entity exists only because of government. If government disappeared, all markets would become competitive, single-giants would vanish completely, there would always be choice.
Post reply on HN