Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama calls for municipal broadband

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 289 posts

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#171

Post by dsrguru »

cbd1984 wrote: post #169
dsrguru wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent is asking/claiming that public options are almost universally less desirable than the product of self-interest in the presence of competition, so their main effect is just to ensure that the private would-be monopolies need to actually provide a good service. In domains like Internet infrastructure and health insurance which are empirically pretty terrible when there's no public option, I think the…

> I think the parent is asking/claiming that public options are almost universally less desirable than the product of self-interest in the presence of competition, so their main effect is just to ensure that the private would-be monopolies need to actually provide a good service. Well, actually, I'm claiming that a Free Market alternative should be able to win even if the Free Market includes the government. Nobody i…

Right. Free market alternative should be able to beat government, so in cases where the free market isn't producing acceptable results, rather than forcing them to change through legislation, government can just compete with them until they beat the government.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#172

Post by redi90000 »

shmerl wrote: post #112
justizin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten…

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#173

Post by redi90000 »

jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

Which ISPs have monopolies exactly and in what city? Go to broadbandmap.gov and find me one.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#174

Post by Retra »

ksk wrote: post #45
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

> you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it. How so? Whether its good or bad, ISPs would be against it. Most companies do not want competition. (regardless of what they say) >by allowing the option of municipal networks. I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. >Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking You can…

Those for-profit companies have been at it for a while, and it's clear they don't provide acceptable services. Maybe they should have thought about this situation a little earlier? Then none of this would be necessary, nor even considered.

Regardless, this issue is a municipal government's decision-making. If a municipal government doesn't like how their ISPs are acting, they should be able to do something about it. There's no reason for it to be _illegal_, even if it is a bad idea in some places: the local government should be able to do what they think is best for them.

Also, if ISP's have so little trouble making obscene profits, there should be little risk of the government failing to do the same.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#175

Post by digikata »

ksk wrote: post #132
digikata wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. But if last-mile links are a natural monopoly (or at least demonstrably low competition markets), how do we get better broadband than we have now? We have data points from other nations that seem to indicate that publicly owned or open-access last-mile links create market conditions that deliver broadband more…

Okay, so you could to break down the ISP vertical into companies that only supply service and companies that only do the last-mile infrastructure. It would allow the government to regulate the industry without being involved in the supply side of things. One other option is to opt for a consumer ownership model where the each home pays for the bit of fiber that connects them to the neighborhood hub or w/e.

I think that kind of structural split you mention first could be a nice low-regulation/high effectiveness solution, at least compare to other alternatives. However, I haven't seen any kind of willingness to impose that kind of regulation by agencies for at least the past two or three decades. As a matter of fact past structural regulatory market walls have been getting consistently removed in other industries.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#176

Post by bcheung »

Aren't we trading one monopoly for another? Not sure that is any better. Especially considering the track record of the post office or public education. There would need to be some way to allow competition so there is incentive to provide quality service.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#177

Post by pgrote »

redi90000 wrote: post #172
shmerl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.

I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov , can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

For wired connections my zip code shows 4 providers. This was exciting since there is only 1 right now that is equipped for high speed internet.

The other 3 are dedicated business telecom companies and do not offer residential service.

It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't differentiate between residential and business.

Looking at the wireless I was excited to see Wimax offered in my zip code according to the site. When I go the provider's map of coverage I only see a small section of the metro area covered and it doesn't include my zip code.

It appears broadbandmap.gov doesn't include the actual wireless coverage provided.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#179

Post by deciplex »

cbd1984 wrote: post #166
ksk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unfair? Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets. ¹Modulo obvious caveats.

> Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets. Except that shouldn't matter if the private company can compete on technology and service. If your opponent has unlimited funds but the customer service policies of the DMV and the technological acumen of, uh, some very-non-technical government office of your choice, shouldn't you win?

The hidden assumption is that by favoring, or at least not opposing, municipal broadband, you are supporting the total ban of competing networks, subsidizing network infrastructure with property taxes, five-year plans, gulags, etc etc.

Re: Obama calls for municipal broadband

#180

Post by curun1r »

justizin wrote: post #21
jfb wrote: post #6

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten…

> it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband.

Municipal broadband doesn't mean shutting out ISPs. If done right, it means that the municipalities own the last mile infrastructure and charge a per-customer rate to ISPs that serve residents. But what that does is significantly lower the bar for ISPs to offer service. It can cost millions of dollars to build out that infrastructure in a city/town and that's assuming you have right of way to actually lay the fiber. If the city does that itself, then ISPs only need to connect the city's infrastructure to the larger internet...something that's significantly cheaper.

The Comcasts of the world would still be free to offer service to customers. But they'd have to compete with the smaller ISPs on equal footing and without the giant markups they have today.

Post reply on HN