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

31–40 of 230 posts

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

#31

Post by gigatexal »

peterjmag wrote: post #18
exhilaration wrote: post #7

Whenever this happens - and it happens a lot - Comcast & Co just goes up a level to the state legislature and has them outlaw municipal broadband: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-tel... Can't they just do the same thing in Colorado?

Theoretically, yes. In fact, Senate Bill 152, passed in 2005, already outlaws municipal broadband. From the article: Colorado has a state law requiring municipalities to hold referendums before they can provide cable, telecom, or broadband service. Yesterday, voters in Eagle County and Boulder County authorized their local governments to build broadband networks, "bringing the total number of Colorado counties that h…

What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive. What would the world do if comcast or a group of content owners tried to sue netflix out of existence because their business model threatened the incumbents? There'd be pandemonium.

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

#32

Post by jjawssd »

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?

> 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 from an instrument created and paid for by the citizenry to create an unfair balance of power in their own favor because the legislators which supposedly represent the people created the laws which are unjust to the people and are no longer representing the people but are instead representing their own pocketbook which is being stuffed by Comcast. As this trend continues we may experience an influx of non traditional political opponents similar to what we saw in the national elections one year ago.

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

#33

Post by criddell »

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.

> the right thing for Comcast to do

Are you saying that as a Comcast shareholder? If so, bravo. I wish more of them thought the same way.

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

#34

Post by c0nducktr »

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?

City run broadband delivers a higher quality service at a lower cost everywhere I've heard of it happening. It's hardly something they have to 'resort' to. I wish my city was so lucky.

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

#35

Post by user-on1 »

r00fus wrote: post #30
user-on1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure people in colarado are bold and smart enough to not let such back door efforts come in the way of their expectations.

I'm sure other people in Colorado would gratefully accept the appropriate amount in "campaign funds" to run against those who would dare to compete against Comcast. I mean, really - how dare they?

I think you mean politicians and corporations. they are not really identified as people.

This is how the whole world has already got ruined. I wish people grow some spine and invest enough energy and time and take a stand to get what interests them and not become submissive into paying their hard earned money to make millionaires billionaire.

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

#37

Post by peterjmag »

user-on1 wrote: post #4

how to encourage other cities to do the same? can colorado guide the rest of the cities and states to through similar initiatives?

In addition to the other suggestions, it might be worth contacting your representative to voice your support of legislation to repeal the existing statewide ban. For instance, this bill was recently introduced in the state senate:

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-042

That particular bill ultimately failed, but it was on the right track.

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

#38

Post by jjawssd »

criddell wrote: post #33
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.

> the right thing for Comcast to do Are you saying that as a Comcast shareholder? If so, bravo. I wish more of them thought the same way.

A government created by the people for the people must limit the influence of corporations on the fabric of society and itself. As for-profit corporations necessarily do whatever possible to increase shareholder value the only limiting factor remains the threat of violence by social mandate. In other words The Government. Without this limiting factor we will witness an increasing scale of abuses and tragedies of the commons in the pursuit of ever-higher shareholder value.

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

#40

Post by kfriede »

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?

Competing in an open market would mean they actually need to be competitive. Why be competitive when you can shell out cash to the vending machine, get guaranteed business, and not break a sweat doing it?
Post reply on HN