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

Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

reviews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#31

Post by shakezula »

at_a_remove wrote: post #4
spullara wrote: post #2

How in the world can someone "prefer their current provider" without something to compare against? I think in any kind of survey like this, I would like to see the actual questions that were asked.

I can imagine that some people would not prefer their current provider if their current provider is, say, Charter. I suspect people might willingly leap into a dark pit filled with who knows what over continuing with Charter.

Comcast was my only provider for 3 years. There were times I almost considered just canceling the contract and tethering on my phone because of how bad Comcast was.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#32

Post by muro »

Different country (Switzerland), have been using municipality broadband since we moved to this place. I'm happy with the service part - techs are knowledgeable, support is fast. Less happy with the price and speed - it's more expensive (about double) than places that have competition (e.g. Zurich, which is nearby) and while Zurich had 1Gb+ for years, ours was only enabled last year. They do fulfill what they promise - I pay for 600Mbit and that's what I get. No "up to" nonsense.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#33

Post by acdha »

imoverclocked wrote: post #5

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)

This involves politics so it's never going to be uncontentious and there's a valid concern about how well something will be operated. Your opinion of your local water utility, for example, probably varies a lot from someone who lives in Flint. As we've seen in other areas, it would not be impossible for the “municipal” option in some cases to end up being a no-bid contract with little accountability.

I don't think that means we shouldn't do it but it really does depend on citizens getting involved to lobby for an effective structure with real accountability and a viable economic model.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#34

Post by FalconSensei »

asdff wrote: post #11
imoverclocked wrote: post #5

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)

Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does. Addicted people need their hits of dopamine, and Comcast (or insert evil ISP here) controls the supply even with a municipal player in town. I wouldn't be surprised if Comcast charged you more for your TV package alone than if you bundled your internet as well.

> Municipal broadband doesn't bundle with TV and sports like Comcast does

My anecdata based on people I know is that no one gets TV anymore.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#35

Post by jonpurdy »

What I am interested in: a single entity responsible for trenching/fibre infrastructure, then allowing providers to resell access to it. Requiring each ISP to run their own fibre makes no sense to me. Let ISPs compete on price and quality of service, not on having billions in the bank to roll out the fibre (or take subsidies and not roll it out, like in many places in USA).

Even worse in condos (like in Toronto) where the condo board has signed an agreement with a provider and not allowing occupants any choice.

Huge shoutouts to Beanfield (Toronto) and Sonic (SF) for actually providing symmetric gigabit for cheaper than the incumbents with lower, asymmetric plans. If all companies were like them I wouldn't be advocating for municipal broadband.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#36

Post by Noughmad »

karmakaze wrote: post #15
imoverclocked wrote: post #5

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)

The government should govern and have multiple providers serving generally non-overlapping regions. Based on how well they serve their regions their region can be enlarged or shrunk, or they be given new regions to serve.

You're saying that the providers should have absolute monopolies? What could possibly go wrong!

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#37

Post by vkou »

karmakaze wrote: post #15
imoverclocked wrote: post #5

Given that cable companies are often monopolies in the region they operate and that they have a history of shady practices, I’m not sure why people are so hesitant to accept local governments from offering broadband instead. If they did then at least there would be public input on the implementation instead of just corporate interests deciding who is eligible and what they want to install (and when…)

The government should govern and have multiple providers serving generally non-overlapping regions. Based on how well they serve their regions their region can be enlarged or shrunk, or they be given new regions to serve.

This combines all the weakest attributes of market and planned economies together.

It would make sense if the exclusive non-overlapping regions were for maintenance contracts on common infrastucture, but it makes zero sense for last-mile.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#38

Post by Maxburn »

shakezula wrote: post #29
reilly3000 wrote: post #28

That’s fairly amazing to me considering the billions of dollars that corporate monopolies have invested in advertising and PR, compared to zero in towns that haven’t done any promotion of the idea of municipal broadband.

It's cause they've invested all that money in PR and advertising and not _actually running fiber to my god damn house_.

This

I literally get junk (physical) mail twice a week from my ISP trying to sell me different thing. They are using every combination of "open immediately", postcards, odd shaped, odd colors, things that fall out of envelopes when you open them etc etc. The marketing campaign must have a monster budget.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#39

Post by _23sd »

In Minneapolis there's no municipal broadband, but there is a local company that offers FTTH. I use it and it's clearly superior to any cable company I've ever had (more speed for the price, more reliable, when you call customer service an actual person picks up the phone instead of an automated system, etc). Even so, my perception is that Xfinity is more popular because people either aren't aware that there are other options or because they want to bundle it with their TV package, particularly sports. I would think municipal broadband anywhere wouldn't take over for similar reasons, and a government service would have even less ability to win at marketing unless they booted out the cable company.

Re: Study: 40.2% of Consumers Would Consider Switching to Municipal Broadband

#40

Post by q3k »

jonpurdy wrote: post #35

What I am interested in: a single entity responsible for trenching/fibre infrastructure, then allowing providers to resell access to it. Requiring each ISP to run their own fibre makes no sense to me. Let ISPs compete on price and quality of service, not on having billions in the bank to roll out the fibre (or take subsidies and not roll it out, like in many places in USA). Even worse in condos (like in Toronto) wher…

What you're talking about is called Unbundled Access / Bitstream access [1]. Although that's currently mostly talked about in the context of copper/DSL access.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbundled_access

Post reply on HN