Glad to see that my vote counted!
it was really close
Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
191–200 of 230 posts
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#192Government running commercial enterprises. Now that's a recipe for success! http://munibroadbandfailures.com/
I think we could make a map of “private broadband failures” that funneled hundreds of millions of public dollars to private enterprises to bring broadband infrastructure to millions of Americans and was never delivered.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#193Government running commercial enterprises. Now that's a recipe for success! http://munibroadbandfailures.com/
No contact information, hidden whois info. Surely this is a site to be trusted to be objective and get to the truth regarding the ethics and feasibility of municipal broadband.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can when the government gives itself advantages that it doesn't give the private sector, like subsidies, taxes (paid whether you use the service or not), and regulatory exceptions.
> subsidies, […] regulatory exceptions Amazon just had a big contest on subsidies and the only exceptional thing about it was how brazen they were about it. Regulatory exceptions often are part of such deals. > taxes (paid whether you use the service or not) Monopolists call that "bundling". For example co-financing internet service by requiring you also pay for phone service. The main difference is that a public ser…
Monopolists call that "bundling". For example co-financing internet service by requiring you also pay for phone service.
No. Bundling means the product I want becomes more expensive, and therefore less competitive. Taxes means I have to pay for the product in any case, removing any competitive pressure.
The main difference is that a public service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.
Neither does a company, that's a myth. Plus, non-profits and coops exist.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can when the government gives itself advantages that it doesn't give the private sector, like subsidies, taxes (paid whether you use the service or not), and regulatory exceptions.
You do realize that a) corporate welfare is egregiously prevelant in the United States and b) the “government” isn’t a single entity, right? If a democratically elected (roughly) assembly, e.g. people with a ballot measure, a city council, a state legislature, etc. decide that municipal internet is better for society and provided as a government service, that is absolutely that body’s right. Government doesn’t exist…
Arguing about what those services should be is part of the process. Nobody said it's not their "right".
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
What extra value would those service providers provide? I assume here that the service level would be Gbit internet with service levels as high as electricity, which is also a utility monopoly at least here in SF.
I assume they'd provide the connectivity to the outside world.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#197I don't understand why there is no competition. There must be other people wanting to trying their hand at starting a fibre ISP. Yeah it's expensive, but if there is money to be made there should be people willing to invest. Is there something else preventing competition in the US?
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#198Earlier 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.
Yeah, I'm curious what the actual price per customer will be. Comcast may still offer lower prices.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#199Good! Internet access is a utility now.
No one should have to buy something they depend on from Comcast.
Re: Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
#200I did not understand why Comcast and the other ISPs oppose these initiatives. After the city loses a ton of money running their own ISP, Comcast (or the ISP of your choice) will always be ready to pick up the pieces.