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

181–190 of 230 posts

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

#181

Post by s73ver_ »

rayiner wrote: post #142
noobermin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The AFSCME (lobbying organization for public employees) is in the top 5 for campaign contributors since 1990 and supports Democrats almost exclusively. Lots of republicans who aren't hardline ideologues oppose expending the influence of public employees' unions.

Given that the GOP constantly disparages and insults them and their members, I can completely see why they wouldn't want to support GOP candidates.

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

#182

Post by Clubber »

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.

>is limited by government (government decides who gets access to build-out lines).

The local municipalities should build out the lines on the taxpayer dime, then lease them to the IPS's and get an ROI. Contract out maintenance.

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

#183

Post by s73ver_ »

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?

"Further, do you really want government (municipal) or otherwise being your ISP? Having access to all of your traffic lines?"

Why do people keep bringing this up? They act like government is going to be able to bypass the current laws in place in a way that they couldn't with Comcast.

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

#184

Post by s73ver_ »

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.

You're gonna have to prove that claim, that this makes it easier for governments to spy on people.

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

#185

Post by InTheArena »

Boulder had much less fanfare, but much greater techie population also passed this. Its at the point where cities that don't provide great internet will start to see people go live in other communities. The boulder vote was something like 3:1 in favor, as Comcast knew better then to go massively negative.

Unfortunately, Boulder city has been trying to go municipal with energy as well, which appears to be failing badly, and that's taking most of their time.

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

#186

Post by leepowers »

intopieces wrote: post #55
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: Whether these fears are reasonable I am not saying either way. I am answering your question about how a ban on municipal broadband could be justified. Another way to describe municipal broadband: state-run media pipeline. Allowing the government to control the last mile of the Internet. Port all those fears you have about Comcast violating net neutrality, stifling competition, spying on users.. Now, increase…

> state-run media pipeline

I have similar concerns but I think municipal would win out:

1) The First Amendment protects us against government interference with free speech. It does not apply to private companies like Comcast - they face no such constraints. This is especially true with the current FCC, where they're considering excluding internet utilities from common carrier rules. It's far more likely that Comcast would be granted monopoly or duopoly status by a local government, and then use that privileged position to control or censor speech or net traffic it unilaterally deems unacceptable, with no recourse or restraint that the First Amendment provides.

2) With municipal broadband citizens can always go to the ballot box and elect new leadership to increase transparency, accountability, and service level. What rights does the citizenry have to monitor and audit Comcast's decision making process? Zero. It's a private company beholden to shareholders - a situation that's often orthogonal to free speech and individual rights.

3) The public utility models works extraordinarily well for gas, electricity, water, sewage, garbage, streets, and other essentials for our modern life. Internet access can also thrive under this model, as like other utilities it is a natural monopoly.

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

#187

Post by FireBeyond »

ssambros wrote: post #13
chungy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently corporations take the path of least resistance - it's cheaper to 'influence' the big state instead of competing in an open market. Now the question is: will increasing the power of the state make such behavior less or more lucrative?

Of course it is. If they'd have won this, it would have cost Small change compared to upgrading infrastructure.

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

#188

Post by Bromskloss »

jclulow wrote: post #17
Bromskloss wrote: post #14

I hear a lot of people being dissatisfied with Comcast. What is it that makes them so hard to compete with that people have to resort to city-run networks?

I don't really see why having the city run its own Internet service should be considered a resort. Getting the profit motive as far away from basic utilities like Internet transit as possible seems like a win, because you don't want an undifferentiated bit pipe to have to continue to make more and more money over time.

> I don't really see why having the city run its own Internet service should be considered a resort.

It's not about the Internet specifically. It's just that every law or public spending is a shitty thing for those who don't want it, but have to pay for it anyway, or play by some rules they can't opt out of. In every other situation, we would consider such things shitty behaviour, so I think it makes sense to acknowledge that consequence and only do it if we really must.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] »

conanbatt wrote: post #143
agumonkey wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Federal absurd regulations are commie-scandalous while lobby absurd regulation are just fine ? Laissez fair would generally say all regulations are bad. Regulations that help monopolies are one of the main reasons free market advocates are againt regulations. All regulations start with "good intentions". Comcast and phone companies are great examples of monopolies that are protected by the State, not failures of fr…

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by Bromskloss »

s73ver_ wrote: post #113
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real explanation is that cities make competing hard through well intentioned but misguided requirements. Getting a cable franchise means shouldering substantial public interest obligations, in particular the obligation to serve a whole city without regard to proven demand. (You can tell that’s the real reason because waiver of that requirement was the key concession Google demanded where it rolled out Fiber.) You…

At the same time, without those requirements, only the most profitable (read: rich) neighborhoods would be cherry picked, leaving the rest of us without service. That would make the digital divide even bigger, widening the gap between rich and poor.

> without those requirements, only the most profitable (read: rich) neighborhoods would be cherry picked

Isn't that how everything works, that goods and services are bought by those who can pay for them? Isn't that what having money means? Isn't that why people strive to earn money?

Post reply on HN