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

171–180 of 230 posts

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

#171

Post by conanbatt »

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…

You have a glimpse of a chance of an alternative option if its private. If its done by the government and its bad, you are going to have it for the rest of your life.

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

#172

Post by remir »

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…

Perhaps something like a coop would be optimal? The coop would have to turn a profit, but then it has to be transparent in its management because in the end, it must serve the interest of its members.

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

#173

Post by bjelkeman-again »

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.

This works rather well where I live, in Sweden. The local government runs fibre through the community, the ISPs provide services. Hundreds of local municipalities or towns are connected this way. I only had to pay to connect my house to the fibre, access from then on is free. The ISPs (12 of them) offers services over the fibre. 100 mbps unmetered from $29/month or 500 Mbps for $79/month.

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

#174

Post by com2kid »

wildmusings wrote: post #161
com2kid wrote: post #158

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. 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, w…

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

That is why I proposed the municipal broadband system be self funding, preventing any market distortion.

I admit I wasn't clear about it, and you are correct that in a scenario of anything other than 100% of the population switching over to the municipal provider, a subsidy effect does occur.

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

#176

Post by JoshTriplett »

remir wrote: post #172
JoshTriplett wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps something like a coop would be optimal? The coop would have to turn a profit, but then it has to be transparent in its management because in the end, it must serve the interest of its members.

Agreed completely; I'd love to see this.

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

#177

Post by JoshTriplett »

moosey wrote: post #154
JoshTriplett wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

> 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.

My original comment very specifically said "If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband". I'm well aware that we don't, and because we don't, I don't consider it anti-competitive to provide infrastructure that the private sector has failed to.

> 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.

If they can do so without charging people who don't use the service, then by all means, they should. For instance, start a broadband co-op.

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

#178

Post by dfee »

muninet wrote: post #132
dfee wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I think you nailed it with “government enablement”. Free market folks probably aren’t so different from you. Unless we’re talking about wolves in sheeps clothing, they oughta be vehemently against those actions you allude to.

It’s the folk in the middle (on both the govt and corp sides) that benefit from the foul play. Both sides might call these “defensive actions”, but it’s often just tit-for-tat greed.

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

#179

Post by ThrwyAct »

alexasmyths wrote: post #62

Good idea at this stage - but it would also be very dangerous. In Canada, in my youth - the entire telelphone network was socialized - it was a byzantine mess. You had to buy your telephone from the government (i.e. Bell, state owned). In Saskatchewan, it's still the same. Imagine if the networks were run like the DMV. Even worse - with massive, bloated government subsidies and 'guaranteed revenue stream' through tax…

I've always been annoyed at this "imagine if X was like the DMV" libertarian argument. Anecdotally, I've never really had this mythical terrible experience at DMVs in the states I've lived in, and (further anecdotally) the experience has always been better in states with higher taxes.

The free market is one way of efficiently incorporating user preferences. Responsive democratic government is another. It might be slower to adapt, but it compensates by having less perverse incentives.

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

#180

Post by sanderjd »

mtnsun wrote: post #100
sanderjd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I live in Boulder County, which passed something similar.) As far as I know, competition is allowed, it just doesn't exist. The market has failed to provide us with broadband options. This vote is not actually for the government to run it themselves, it's just to override a state-level ban on municipal broadband. The next step will be for Comcast to lobby against municipalities actually setting up competing broadban…

The Boulder vote was to override the ban, but the Fort Collins vote was to allow the city to grab $150M in bonds for fiber deployment. FoCo already voted to override the ban a few years ago.

Ah! Sorry, I didn't realize that.
Post reply on HN