Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Voters say “yes” to city-run broadband in Colorado
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/voters-reject-cable-lobby-misinformation-campaign-against-muni-broadband/
229 comments
I 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?
There is no money to be made.
You won't be able to build a network in more than a few cities at first because anything else would cost astronomical amounts of money.
That means that the current monopolist in those cities can afford to lower prices, making your investment unprofitable.
You won't be able to build a network in more than a few cities at first because anything else would cost astronomical amounts of money.
That means that the current monopolist in those cities can afford to lower prices, making your investment unprofitable.
I 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.
Only it doesn't always work out like that. In Chattanooga the local provider displaced Comcast as the largest ISP and they are making good money.
Also competition is bad. People might get ideas...
Also competition is bad. People might get ideas...
Government 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.
You should avoid citing that page; it's not credible. A specific instance that I know of is Sebewaing Light and Power in Michigan. They built out a publicly owned fiber network that now has over 500 of 1700 residents as customers as of June and will break even in 2018, earlier than expected, whereas your site claims there are only 150 customers. That site was created by Taxpayers Protection Alliance which a Koch front group.
"That site was created by Taxpayers Protection Alliance which a Koch front group."
So what? Ad hominem fallacy?
When the municipal broadbands fail taxpayers are on the hook for million dollars bail outs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2014/09/30/munic...
When the municipal broadbands fail taxpayers are on the hook for million dollars bail outs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2014/09/30/munic...
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.
As opposed to what? Billion dollars of taxpayer bail out because government have no incentive and have no idea how to run a commercial enterprise efficiently. If a private company fails on its obligation you can sue. If public company fail not only can't you sure but you have to pay more taxes to bail it out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2014/09/30/munic...
You forgot to say "that's socialism"!11!
Good! Internet access is a utility now.
No one should have to buy something they depend on from Comcast.
No one should have to buy something they depend on from Comcast.
It's another evidence that broadband is an utility like telephony or electricity
F u comcast.
Sorry had to let it out.
Sorry had to let it out.
I'm pretty proud of my hometown for passing this measure! Longmont, a town 30 miles south of Fort Collins, passed something similar a couple years ago, and it sounds like it's been pretty successful so far[1], so I'm excited to see where this goes.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15570559#up_15573817
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15570559#up_15573817
Some counties in Washington state have a Public Utility District which runs the fiber, then sells it through local ISPs. Lots of areas have 1Gb connections available for below $100/mo.
What's more interesting to me is the effect on rural access. Plenty of lake-side cabins in the woods with fiber available. One ISP has taken to putting up poles with Ubiquiti airFiber antennas, creating a mesh network that extends beyond the already large fiber coverage. In Chelan and Douglas counties you can get a 35/2 connection nearly anywhere over this extended wireless network, even way up some lonesome canyon.
It's amazing what a little competition does to the ISP market...
What's more interesting to me is the effect on rural access. Plenty of lake-side cabins in the woods with fiber available. One ISP has taken to putting up poles with Ubiquiti airFiber antennas, creating a mesh network that extends beyond the already large fiber coverage. In Chelan and Douglas counties you can get a 35/2 connection nearly anywhere over this extended wireless network, even way up some lonesome canyon.
It's amazing what a little competition does to the ISP market...
Do you happen to know where they hire people for working on this? Are they city or state employees, or are they using a bunch of contractors?
Edit: Hmm, looks like Fort Collins will use contractors for installs and hire 10 to 38 people over five years (p. 39 - Personnel Requirements): https://www.fcgov.com/broadband/pdf/7.27.17%20Broadband%20Bu...
However, this is excluding developers for things like customer portals. Maybe that will get contracted out as well.
Seems light to run an ISP, even for FC's size.
Edit: Hmm, looks like Fort Collins will use contractors for installs and hire 10 to 38 people over five years (p. 39 - Personnel Requirements): https://www.fcgov.com/broadband/pdf/7.27.17%20Broadband%20Bu...
However, this is excluding developers for things like customer portals. Maybe that will get contracted out as well.
Seems light to run an ISP, even for FC's size.
Good find! I was curious too, and that does seem pretty small. I wonder how many people NextLight employs and contracts out in Longmont?
Yes, all us front-rangers are envious of you, Longmont :)
I'm guessing word-of-mouth helped defeat incumbents' efforts to kill this, as much as anything. It's almost become a standard conversation piece around here: "I'm from Longmont." "Oh, you have decent internet, then? Jealous!"
I'm guessing word-of-mouth helped defeat incumbents' efforts to kill this, as much as anything. It's almost become a standard conversation piece around here: "I'm from Longmont." "Oh, you have decent internet, then? Jealous!"
it has indeed been quite successful: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6777148187
it's like that all the time now. Never been down for longer than 15 minutes and I've never been on hold trying to get assistance. All that for $50/mo :)
it's like that all the time now. Never been down for longer than 15 minutes and I've never been on hold trying to get assistance. All that for $50/mo :)
This passed in Boulder county as well, pretty overwhelmingly.
The Fort Collins vote was to allow the city the option to take out $150M in municipal bonds for city-wide fiber installation. This was pretty much the last voter hurdle before the city moves forward.
Boulder is still in an earlier phase -- the vote was to allow the city to start the planning process. Greeley also voted in favor of something similar.
Boulder is still in an earlier phase -- the vote was to allow the city to start the planning process. Greeley also voted in favor of something similar.
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.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb17-042
That particular bill ultimately failed, but it was on the right track.
If your town / city is less than 10k people simply going to city council open forum meetings (most places host those monthly or quarterly, some even weekly) and constantly hounding representatives about it being a problem with a straightforward solution (taxpayer funded public telecom operation in the city).
Probably the #1 problem is the ignorance of how bad the telecom monopoly is in the US, that there even are alternatives, and that this is the problem domain government needs to approach in the same way they approach electric access or roads.
Probably the #1 problem is the ignorance of how bad the telecom monopoly is in the US, that there even are alternatives, and that this is the problem domain government needs to approach in the same way they approach electric access or roads.
> Probably the #1 problem is the ignorance of how bad the telecom monopoly is in the US, that there even are alternatives, and that this is the problem domain government needs to approach in the same way they approach electric access or roads.
amusingly, boulder county, which passed this same thing, tried for years to get out of maintaining my neighborhood's roads. (and our electric service is privately provided.)
amusingly, boulder county, which passed this same thing, tried for years to get out of maintaining my neighborhood's roads. (and our electric service is privately provided.)
It sounds like they're working on it. I like that there are a number of test cases, which will hopefully lead to a little variety in results, and maybe some good ideas regarding which techniques are more effective than others. Like any municipal service, there will be the potential for it to run smoothly and efficiently, and there will be the potential for it to turn into a massive clusterfuck and money pit. Where a particular city's implementation falls on that spectrum will be determined by their own choices.
I'm in Colorado Springs (2nd largest city in Colorado) and we passed this last year although it didn't get any coverage. Colorado is definitely moving in the right direction.
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.
> non-giving up cable guy
gotta admire a great Simpsons reference when I see one
gotta admire a great Simpsons reference when I see one
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?
> 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.
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.
If Comcast can hijack our democracy and wield the state's power against public interest, then what's to stop it from hijacking our democracy to increase the state's power in the first place? How does creating a city-owned utility in any way change Comcast's lobbying position? Monopolies can and do form and persist without government intervention. The textbook example of this is utilities.
Finally, if creating a city-owned utility is beneficial to Comcast, why are they vehemently against it?
Finally, if creating a city-owned utility is beneficial to Comcast, why are they vehemently against it?
Arguably nothing. Look at Comcast's ad campaigns on twitter to promote its own version of net neutrality. Fortunately for now, it seems that there are more powerful institutions in directing the public dialogue.
Of course it is. If they'd have won this, it would have cost <$400,000.
Small change compared to upgrading infrastructure.
Small change compared to upgrading infrastructure.
Did you misinterpret? Obviously it's not just you. No consumer would be happier if Comcast didn't try to provide a better product. The point is that judging by their past actions, Comcast won't do that.
They did in Chattanooga, but not before trying to sue the city four times:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpk77/chattanoog...
A couple shorter articles on the same topic:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...
https://consumerist.com/2017/04/11/comcast-introduces-gigabi...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpk77/chattanoog...
A couple shorter articles on the same topic:
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...
https://consumerist.com/2017/04/11/comcast-introduces-gigabi...
No, he's agreeing with everybody that Comcast acts shitty when they do this.
I think the comment you're replying to understands that. I interpreted it as them calling out the fake bravery of saying "maybe it's just me" before sharing a very common and widely-held opinion.
You can’t “compete” with a municipal service. How many competing options do you have for your water or sewer or trash pickup? It’s a reasonable argument that broadband should be provided municipally. But cloaking it in the guise of “competition” is disingenuous.
> 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 and installers need to be trained and dispatched, payroll for all said employees, and all the other costs of running a business that should, in theory, scale to Comcast's advantage.
And of course Comcast can offer quicker upgrades in service. By bringing resources to bear, they should be able to iterate on technology faster than a municipal provider can.
Comcast also has the advantages of bundling services, another way to recoup costs and compete vs the municipal provided service.
A well ran national company with should be able to put up one heck of a good free market fight going up against a municipality. The real question becomes, is Comcast able to put up that fight?
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 and installers need to be trained and dispatched, payroll for all said employees, and all the other costs of running a business that should, in theory, scale to Comcast's advantage.
And of course Comcast can offer quicker upgrades in service. By bringing resources to bear, they should be able to iterate on technology faster than a municipal provider can.
Comcast also has the advantages of bundling services, another way to recoup costs and compete vs the municipal provided service.
A well ran national company with should be able to put up one heck of a good free market fight going up against a municipality. The real question becomes, is Comcast able to put up that fight?
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.
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.
> 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.
This is more of a problem of how things look like they are funded.
Customers still pay the same price, but instead of $60 for Internet service, it may be $50 for Internet and $10 somewhere else. Or of course the city can tax the heck out of one subgroup of people and redistribute the funds.
I'd actually be OK-ish with a law saying that municipal broadband has to be self funded after initial rollout, I imagine that would maintain sufficient competition.
This is more of a problem of how things look like they are funded.
Customers still pay the same price, but instead of $60 for Internet service, it may be $50 for Internet and $10 somewhere else. Or of course the city can tax the heck out of one subgroup of people and redistribute the funds.
I'd actually be OK-ish with a law saying that municipal broadband has to be self funded after initial rollout, I imagine that would maintain sufficient competition.
>Customers still pay the same price, but instead of $60 for Internet service, it may be $50 for Internet and $10 somewhere else. Or of course the city can tax the heck out of one subgroup of people and redistribute the funds.
No, in your scenario, customers pay $50, and EVERYONE pays $10, including those who use a private competitor.
The customers of a private competitor that also gets $60 of revenue per customer, would actually be paying $70. $60 for their own service, and $10 to subsidize the municipal service.
And even if you have some magic source of tax revenue that is not the citizens (or heavily tax some subgroup as you suggest), the municipal service is still charging $10 less to get the same revenue as the private service.
No, in your scenario, customers pay $50, and EVERYONE pays $10, including those who use a private competitor.
The customers of a private competitor that also gets $60 of revenue per customer, would actually be paying $70. $60 for their own service, and $10 to subsidize the municipal service.
And even if you have some magic source of tax revenue that is not the citizens (or heavily tax some subgroup as you suggest), the municipal service is still charging $10 less to get the same revenue as the private service.
> No, in your scenario, customers pay $50, and EVERYONE pays $10, including those who use a private competitor.
That is why I proposed the municipal broadband system be self funding, preventing any market distortion.
I admit I wasn't clear about it, and you are correct that in a scenario of anything other than 100% of the population switching over to the municipal provider, a subsidy effect does occur.
That is why I proposed the municipal broadband system be self funding, preventing any market distortion.
I admit I wasn't clear about it, and you are correct that in a scenario of anything other than 100% of the population switching over to the municipal provider, a subsidy effect does occur.
Yeah, I'm curious what the actual price per customer will be. Comcast may still offer lower prices.
There's competition in another sense. I'm east of Fort Collins where there's a pretty significant anti-government streak: but if Comcast manages to suck more than most government services they may have a problem.
They don't have to be the best or even only free-market option: they have to avoid pissing off their customer base enough that people vote for a municipal option. Not sure they're doing very well at that...
They don't have to be the best or even only free-market option: they have to avoid pissing off their customer base enough that people vote for a municipal option. Not sure they're doing very well at that...
You can get gigabit east of Fort Collins:
http://web.wigginstel.com/service-area/
http://www.nunntel.com/
Not in Fort Collins, though.
Thanks - didn't know about that! Doesn't cover my area, though :)
In the town of West Henrietta, there actually is competition for trash pickup as it is not provided by the town or county.
[deleted]
> 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.
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.
Don't forget corporations are people too! /s
It seems to me that it is unrealistic to expect a company -- even one as big as Comcast -- to compete with the government, with the power of eminent domain and subsidizing costs with local taxes.
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?
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 have rejected the state law to 31—nearly half of the state's 64 counties," Motherboard wrote today.
As far as I know, there have been attempts to make it impossible for a community to opt-out, but nothing's been successful yet. In fact, most recently, it looks like the tide has been turning in favor of repealing the ban state-wide (which wouldn't be surprising considering the 31 counties that have already opted out). Here's a bit more info:
https://co-wa.org/2017/01/26/senate-bill-152-primer/
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 have rejected the state law to 31—nearly half of the state's 64 counties," Motherboard wrote today.
As far as I know, there have been attempts to make it impossible for a community to opt-out, but nothing's been successful yet. In fact, most recently, it looks like the tide has been turning in favor of repealing the ban state-wide (which wouldn't be surprising considering the 31 counties that have already opted out). Here's a bit more info:
https://co-wa.org/2017/01/26/senate-bill-152-primer/
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.
To that end they didn’t sue Netflix out of existence they created HULU.
It's almost as if money in politics is the death of ethics. Almost.
> What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive
This is always a risk with any government. The problem is voters keep voting for these same people passing these laws (or worse yet, don't even vote claiming "nothing will change anyways."
This is always a risk with any government. The problem is voters keep voting for these same people passing these laws (or worse yet, don't even vote claiming "nothing will change anyways."
Yes. It's the voters' fault so I don't have sympathy for them. If they did their research instead of being so sure that their favourite party is better than the evil enemy party then they could make intelligent decisions that benefit themselves.
[deleted]
> What a sad, sad world we live in where a corporation can come in and use legislation to be obviously anti-competitive.
If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband (e.g. everyone in the country had a choice of at least 2-3 reasonable options, and DSL does not count as "reasonable" anymore), then I'd actually call the introduction of a government-backed option "anti-competitive", because how can any private ISP compete with that? A government-run ISP gives itself inherent anti-competitive boosts that it doesn't give anyone else.
However, in the world we have, where many people don't have enough reasonable choices to allow for actual competition among ISPs, municipal broadband seems like a perfectly reasonable response. In which case, rather than attempting to quash it, I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room.
If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband (e.g. everyone in the country had a choice of at least 2-3 reasonable options, and DSL does not count as "reasonable" anymore), then I'd actually call the introduction of a government-backed option "anti-competitive", because how can any private ISP compete with that? A government-run ISP gives itself inherent anti-competitive boosts that it doesn't give anyone else.
However, in the world we have, where many people don't have enough reasonable choices to allow for actual competition among ISPs, municipal broadband seems like a perfectly reasonable response. In which case, rather than attempting to quash it, I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room.
> how can any private ISP compete with that?
If the answer to your rhetorical question is supposed to be "they can't" then government-provided broadband is manifestly superior to anything the private sector can provide. Why would we as a society not want that?
If the answer to your rhetorical question is supposed to be "they can't" then government-provided broadband is manifestly superior to anything the private sector can provide. Why would we as a society not want that?
It's not necessarily superior; it's subsidized and doesn't have to actually make money, or even break even. Ultimately its costs can be hidden away in taxes or debt, where they're still present but unseen. Municipal broadband also often gets fast-tracked or special-cased in regulation; governments don't do a good job of regulating themselves.
Private ISPs can't do any of those things; they actually have to pay for infrastructure, follow regulations in installation, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer to see either community-run pseudo-ISPs ("we laid some fiber and contracted for bandwidth"), or fiber made available as infrastructure but the bandwidth handled via the market (much easier to have healthy competition).
Private ISPs can't do any of those things; they actually have to pay for infrastructure, follow regulations in installation, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer to see either community-run pseudo-ISPs ("we laid some fiber and contracted for bandwidth"), or fiber made available as infrastructure but the bandwidth handled via the market (much easier to have healthy competition).
Historically, most places with government owned telco's starting ISPs still had arms length regulation. If that was really the concern, looking at the dozens of countries with experience in regulating this would be rather simple.
That said, I agree that you'd get far just by providing the last mile. In the EU, deregulation basically required the owners of monopoly last mile infrastructure to separate them out into separate business units that are heavily regulated to provide equal service. Nothing prevents providers from choosing to build their own, but this ensures "anyone" can start an ISP.
E.g. in the UK, BT separated out OpenReach - not only are they restricted to offering same service and prices to everyone, their wholesale prices are published on their web pages for everyone to see.
There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network. But those problems could have been solved by regulating profit-taking so that profits can only be taken as a proportion of investment.
OpenReach offer both local-loop-unbundling (IPSs put equipment in BT exchanges and handle backhaul themselves, and get a raw copper or fibre connection to the subscriber) and backhaul where ISPs connect to BT one or more places and get a raw IP connection to the subscriber.
It works ok, with the caveat above, and it also doesn't stop alternatives, like FTTP from other providers, in areas where it is economically viable to lay new networks.
That said, I agree that you'd get far just by providing the last mile. In the EU, deregulation basically required the owners of monopoly last mile infrastructure to separate them out into separate business units that are heavily regulated to provide equal service. Nothing prevents providers from choosing to build their own, but this ensures "anyone" can start an ISP.
E.g. in the UK, BT separated out OpenReach - not only are they restricted to offering same service and prices to everyone, their wholesale prices are published on their web pages for everyone to see.
There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network. But those problems could have been solved by regulating profit-taking so that profits can only be taken as a proportion of investment.
OpenReach offer both local-loop-unbundling (IPSs put equipment in BT exchanges and handle backhaul themselves, and get a raw copper or fibre connection to the subscriber) and backhaul where ISPs connect to BT one or more places and get a raw IP connection to the subscriber.
It works ok, with the caveat above, and it also doesn't stop alternatives, like FTTP from other providers, in areas where it is economically viable to lay new networks.
European unbundling rules mostly don't apply to cable or fiber, which are the dominant modes of broadband access in the U.S.: http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/2-7.pdf.
> There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network.
The caveat is perhaps the opposite of what you suggest. Unbundling works okay in the U.K. because BT OpenReach has been allowed to be quite profitable. (Their profits as a percentage of revenue are between TWC and Comcast.) Unbundling in the U.S. failed, in contrast, because the FCC set wholesale rates so low there was basically no incentive to invest in DSL networks.
It's my theory that stuff that works in other countries fails in the U.S. because everyone is so ideological. In the U.K., the privatization of BT was preceded by tons of economic studies analyzing how to balance broadband availability and price against the need to make investing in broadband a profitable endeavor. In the U.S. it's entirely ideological. Pro-business free marketers on one side versus people who see broadband as a social justice issue, economics be damned. We lurch form one mode to the other based on who happens to be in power.
> There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network.
The caveat is perhaps the opposite of what you suggest. Unbundling works okay in the U.K. because BT OpenReach has been allowed to be quite profitable. (Their profits as a percentage of revenue are between TWC and Comcast.) Unbundling in the U.S. failed, in contrast, because the FCC set wholesale rates so low there was basically no incentive to invest in DSL networks.
It's my theory that stuff that works in other countries fails in the U.S. because everyone is so ideological. In the U.K., the privatization of BT was preceded by tons of economic studies analyzing how to balance broadband availability and price against the need to make investing in broadband a profitable endeavor. In the U.S. it's entirely ideological. Pro-business free marketers on one side versus people who see broadband as a social justice issue, economics be damned. We lurch form one mode to the other based on who happens to be in power.
It mostly does apply to fibre, where the fibre is installed as part of upgrading the dominant carriers network, which is to say: almost always.
Where other providers lay new networks, you're right, it doesn't apply, because when other providers lay new networks it is generally evidence there is an actual competitive situation. In the UK most of the fibre deployment is done by OpenReach, with Virgin Media second, and tiny ISPs focusing on high density urban deployments a distant third onwards.
> The caveat is perhaps the opposite of what you suggest. Unbundling works okay in the U.K. because BT OpenReach has been allowed to be quite profitable.
It works ok but could work much better. The problem today is that there is very limited reason for BT to upgrade. They've had to be dragged kicking and screaming into fibre upgrades, and have been given quite a lot of funding to incentivise it. If the UK had tied BT's ability to take out dividends from OpenReach to the amount invested in infrastructure improvements we could have done much better. In that case I'd even support allowing them to set higher profit margins. As long as it'd be matched with higher investments.
> In the U.S. it's entirely ideological. Pro-business free marketers on one side versus people who see broadband as a social justice issue, economics be damned.
But irony is that the European approach has been much more pro-business and free market than the US approach. The US approach is the one that has ended up with massive regulatory capture, but on behalf of the largest ISPs, where the European approach has centered on isolating and minimizing the un-competitive part of the business as much as possible exactly to ensure there's a free market competing over the rest.
Where other providers lay new networks, you're right, it doesn't apply, because when other providers lay new networks it is generally evidence there is an actual competitive situation. In the UK most of the fibre deployment is done by OpenReach, with Virgin Media second, and tiny ISPs focusing on high density urban deployments a distant third onwards.
> The caveat is perhaps the opposite of what you suggest. Unbundling works okay in the U.K. because BT OpenReach has been allowed to be quite profitable.
It works ok but could work much better. The problem today is that there is very limited reason for BT to upgrade. They've had to be dragged kicking and screaming into fibre upgrades, and have been given quite a lot of funding to incentivise it. If the UK had tied BT's ability to take out dividends from OpenReach to the amount invested in infrastructure improvements we could have done much better. In that case I'd even support allowing them to set higher profit margins. As long as it'd be matched with higher investments.
> In the U.S. it's entirely ideological. Pro-business free marketers on one side versus people who see broadband as a social justice issue, economics be damned.
But irony is that the European approach has been much more pro-business and free market than the US approach. The US approach is the one that has ended up with massive regulatory capture, but on behalf of the largest ISPs, where the European approach has centered on isolating and minimizing the un-competitive part of the business as much as possible exactly to ensure there's a free market competing over the rest.
Perhaps something like a coop would be optimal? The coop would have to turn a profit, but then it has to be transparent in its management because in the end, it must serve the interest of its members.
Agreed completely; I'd love to see this.
So yr ideal example is kinda like public roads (fiber) and private trucking (bandwidth). I think that's a neat solution tbh. Especially if the bandwidth suppliers are properly taxed for use of the public fiber, tax revenue which then could be used to maintain and expand the fiber infrastructure.
You can't simultaneously advocate for superior free-market solutions and then complain when the government outcompetes the private sector.
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 service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.
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 service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.
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.
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.
You continually assert that subsidies, lowered taxes, and regulatory exceptions haven't been regularly given to these companies. I would assert instead that it isn't difficult to find the opposite, and that all too often that money is used to further profit margins.
And I would argue against those too, consistently.
Alright, but you've missed the point. These companies have had the opportunity to make a superior product with the same allowances that you suggest that municipal would get. But they didn't.
Alternatively, I would argue that a municipal system is, in fact, fair competition. If a municipality decides that they, collectively, want to create and pay for a service due to lack of quality competition, then it is their right to do so. This has so far proven extremely effective, as even private services have improved in quality and price when it happens.
This is a win/win for the consumer. For me, they are the more important part of the equation.
Alternatively, I would argue that a municipal system is, in fact, fair competition. If a municipality decides that they, collectively, want to create and pay for a service due to lack of quality competition, then it is their right to do so. This has so far proven extremely effective, as even private services have improved in quality and price when it happens.
This is a win/win for the consumer. For me, they are the more important part of the equation.
> Alright, but you've missed the point. These companies have had the opportunity to make a superior product with the same allowances that you suggest that municipal would get. But they didn't.
My original comment very specifically said "If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband". I'm well aware that we don't, and because we don't, I don't consider it anti-competitive to provide infrastructure that the private sector has failed to.
> Alternatively, I would argue that a municipal system is, in fact, fair competition. If a municipality decides that they, collectively, want to create and pay for a service due to lack of quality competition, then it is their right to do so.
If they can do so without charging people who don't use the service, then by all means, they should. For instance, start a broadband co-op.
My original comment very specifically said "If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband". I'm well aware that we don't, and because we don't, I don't consider it anti-competitive to provide infrastructure that the private sector has failed to.
> Alternatively, I would argue that a municipal system is, in fact, fair competition. If a municipality decides that they, collectively, want to create and pay for a service due to lack of quality competition, then it is their right to do so.
If they can do so without charging people who don't use the service, then by all means, they should. For instance, start a broadband co-op.
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 to outcompete the private sector. Government is not just another Amazon or Google or Walmart (ideally; in practice it kind of is). It’s there to provide stability, basic services, justice, and an overall formal structure so civilized society can exist. If fiber is one of those services, and that’s the will of the people, then so be it.
Arguing about what those services should be is part of the process. Nobody said it's not their "right".
It it really a free market though...
"in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
It would be awesome if we actually had a choice of provider, however you're generally limited to whatever ISP's 'turf' you fall into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
EDIT: I just reread you comment and you're not claiming it's a free market <apologies>
"in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
It would be awesome if we actually had a choice of provider, however you're generally limited to whatever ISP's 'turf' you fall into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
EDIT: I just reread you comment and you're not claiming it's a free market <apologies>
Sounds like a good business opportunity for you, setting up your own ISP. Go for it.
> I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room.
What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost?
I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.
What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost?
I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.
> 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.
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.
This works rather well where I live, in Sweden. The local government runs fibre through the community, the ISPs provide services. Hundreds of local municipalities or towns are connected this way. I only had to pay to connect my house to the fibre, access from then on is free. The ISPs (12 of them) offers services over the fibre. 100 mbps unmetered from $29/month or 500 Mbps for $79/month.
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.
Just like roads don't get you from A to B, cars do using those roads, cables don't transfer your internet traffic from your house to the website you're trying to reach, ISPs do using those cables.
I assume they'd provide the connectivity to the outside world.
> how can any private ISP compete with that?
Offer faster speeds and more reliable connections (compared what might be a very congested public network), at reasonable prices.
Offer faster speeds and more reliable connections (compared what might be a very congested public network), at reasonable prices.
That assumes there are enough people who care about quality of service over price to make a private alternative tenable. There is a reason why there is no private competition to municipal bus systems, even really terrible ones.
Sure there is competition for the municipal bus system - taxis and ride share services. It's almost the perfect metaphor. For those who want faster service they look for options that offer these things at a reasonable price, and for those who don't care about fast speeds or cannot otherwise afford or justify the cost use the lowest common denominator, which is the public provided system. However, with internet service, there is no fallback.
There are totally private competitors to the private bus system, and there is private health insurance in places like the UK with social healthcare. I understand your point but I can't think of a single industry that doesn't have a natural monopoly where there wouldn't be room for two competitors based on differentiating solely on price
They don't have to be the ISP. Instead implementing a system like DSL was supposed to have with competition between CLECs on the same last mile infrastructure.
You mean country. This sort of out of control capitalism does not happen everywhere.
IIRC, Longmont (a small city in Colorado) already offers municipal internet and city wide WiFi.
Good, let the people have their choice, and accept their choice when they make it.
free market much ...
The situation is that the free market has said "We're going to pass on doing this". So the free market has left the door wide open for the government to do it.
The free market spending a half million dollars trying to keep the government from even coming up with a plan for what municipal broadband would look like, after not doing it themselves, is hilarious.
The free market spending a half million dollars trying to keep the government from even coming up with a plan for what municipal broadband would look like, after not doing it themselves, is hilarious.
of all the mottos the only one that should remain is "lobby free"
While I understand your sentiment, "free market" folk generally exclude "government-provided" from that notion. This is because those services are often coupled with sector-wide regulations that are counter to laissez faire principles, the government is able to subsidize operational costs against its tax base (unfair competition that distorts the market), and other such complexities.
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.
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 free market advocates.
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 free market advocates.
You're right and that part of the point. State or Market is not the factor here. This old opposition is a false dichotomy / semantic slip. Control/Opacity are more important.
[deleted]
Ah yes, because corporations obviously don’t do any of those things (all of which are enabled by governments anyway).
I think you nailed it with “government enablement”. Free market folks probably aren’t so different from you. Unless we’re talking about wolves in sheeps clothing, they oughta be vehemently against those actions you allude to.
It’s the folk in the middle (on both the govt and corp sides) that benefit from the foul play. Both sides might call these “defensive actions”, but it’s often just tit-for-tat greed.
It’s the folk in the middle (on both the govt and corp sides) that benefit from the foul play. Both sides might call these “defensive actions”, but it’s often just tit-for-tat greed.
It depends on whether "government-provided" means that you now pay for it whether you wanted the service or not. If I don't pay my cable bill I lose my cable. If I don't pay my taxes...
muni broadband already has an established history in colarado - for example nextlight by Longmont, CO
[deleted]
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 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.
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.
So I take it you don't agree with Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people, my friend".
However, the fact is that without a rather sweeping change in how we recognize and reward incorporation in the US, they are currently "more equal" people.
However, the fact is that without a rather sweeping change in how we recognize and reward incorporation in the US, they are currently "more equal" people.
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?
Comcast is in rent-seeking mode at this point; extracting as much money as possible from existing infrastructure.
By "infrastructure" I mean last-mile fiber buried/strung throughout neighborhoods and into peoples' homes. It's expensive to build such infrastructure, due to varieties of local laws, right-of-way access, and for the same reasons leaf nodes are most numerous in typical tree data structures.
So, Comcast's approach is to extract as much money as they can from existing infrastructure which they've built, acquired, or gained exclusive rights to, while directing minimal resources to building new such.
Along with that, they expend a lot of effort lobbying to protect that infrastructure from encroachment or competition by other entities, like other private ISPs, unbundling laws, municipal broadband, and the like.
By "infrastructure" I mean last-mile fiber buried/strung throughout neighborhoods and into peoples' homes. It's expensive to build such infrastructure, due to varieties of local laws, right-of-way access, and for the same reasons leaf nodes are most numerous in typical tree data structures.
So, Comcast's approach is to extract as much money as they can from existing infrastructure which they've built, acquired, or gained exclusive rights to, while directing minimal resources to building new such.
Along with that, they expend a lot of effort lobbying to protect that infrastructure from encroachment or competition by other entities, like other private ISPs, unbundling laws, municipal broadband, and the like.
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.
My city has a pretty sweet hybrid of this. We have a local company that provides electricity/cable/internet which received grants from the city to get off the ground. But it's now self-sufficient while still remaining cheaper than Comcast, with gigabit speeds.
> 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.
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.
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.
it's expensive to lay cable through a whole city. digging / horizontal drilling aren't cheap, and if you're not the city, you've got to deal with the permitting process and accompanying hassle.
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.)
Your financial viability as an infrastructure provider is do, instead by your uptake rate. Most of your cost is in passing each house. Your cost per customer is thus driven by your uptake ratio (subscribers divided by houses passed). Fiber deployments struggle to get to 0.4 or so, meaning you have to pass 2.5 houses for each paying customer. Forcing build out in all neighborhoods tanks your uptake ratio by forcing you to build in lots of places where people can’t necessarily afford your service.
Your financial viability as an infrastructure provider is do, instead by your uptake rate. Most of your cost is in passing each house. Your cost per customer is thus driven by your uptake ratio (subscribers divided by houses passed). Fiber deployments struggle to get to 0.4 or so, meaning you have to pass 2.5 houses for each paying customer. Forcing build out in all neighborhoods tanks your uptake ratio by forcing you to build in lots of places where people can’t necessarily afford your service.
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.
My neighborhood isn’t rich by any means, and I can get gigabit fiber from either Verizon or Comcast. Verizon is about breaking even on FiOS at $110/month per subscriber (including television). That’s affordable for a lot of people. (It’s about as much as my electric bill, and less than my heating bill or car insurance).
It would leave out people near the poverty line. But the government can subsidize those people specifically, or build municipal networks in those areas. Better to do that than to distort the entire market by requiring every telecom provider to basically run a public service arm. That ensures only mega-corps can afford to get into the businsss.
It’s illustrative to look at what Stockholm did. A municipal entity built the dark fiber, but it was not subsidized. Nor was it subject to any build out requirement or mandatory cross subsidies. The entity built out based on demand, targeting businesses first. The resulting service is actually pretty expensive (about $130 for gigabit, plus a fee for building the fiber if necessary). For rural areas, the government simply gave a tax subsidy for rural residents to pay to wire themselves with fiber.
I’ll also note that we don’t build other kinds of utilities this way either! If there isn’t sufficient demand for sewer or water, a water utility simply doesn’t build it. And it charges every house about $20-30,000 to do so, regardless of whether they can afford it.
It would leave out people near the poverty line. But the government can subsidize those people specifically, or build municipal networks in those areas. Better to do that than to distort the entire market by requiring every telecom provider to basically run a public service arm. That ensures only mega-corps can afford to get into the businsss.
It’s illustrative to look at what Stockholm did. A municipal entity built the dark fiber, but it was not subsidized. Nor was it subject to any build out requirement or mandatory cross subsidies. The entity built out based on demand, targeting businesses first. The resulting service is actually pretty expensive (about $130 for gigabit, plus a fee for building the fiber if necessary). For rural areas, the government simply gave a tax subsidy for rural residents to pay to wire themselves with fiber.
I’ll also note that we don’t build other kinds of utilities this way either! If there isn’t sufficient demand for sewer or water, a water utility simply doesn’t build it. And it charges every house about $20-30,000 to do so, regardless of whether they can afford it.
It's not about the absolute wealth of the neighborhood so much as customers per linear foot of fiber (with some scaling for how hard it is to lay that fiber). Apartment buildings with lots of potential customers can end up being much more attractive than mansions with huge yards and one customer in each, even if the mansions' uptake rate is 100% and the apartments' uptake rate is much lower.
> 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?
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?
"Isn't that how everything works"...?
No, that isn't how everything works. Sometimes we forego the financial means of individuals and create things that would not otherwise emerge. Both the US telephony and US electrical systems were built out to include the vast bulk of residences in the US regardless of the means of individuals to fund that small part of the system they privately benefited from. Many of the "capitalists" of the time understood that the net value of this enterprise was strongly positive despite the subsidy gifted to those who had not paid all of their part.
Universality has value. It is difficult to calculate that value; simple ledgers and simple views of economics do not suffice. It is looong past time that we set aside the simple, failed model we have endured and solve this problem. That is what these municipalities, in their disparate, halting and often flawed ways, are trying to do.
No, that isn't how everything works. Sometimes we forego the financial means of individuals and create things that would not otherwise emerge. Both the US telephony and US electrical systems were built out to include the vast bulk of residences in the US regardless of the means of individuals to fund that small part of the system they privately benefited from. Many of the "capitalists" of the time understood that the net value of this enterprise was strongly positive despite the subsidy gifted to those who had not paid all of their part.
Universality has value. It is difficult to calculate that value; simple ledgers and simple views of economics do not suffice. It is looong past time that we set aside the simple, failed model we have endured and solve this problem. That is what these municipalities, in their disparate, halting and often flawed ways, are trying to do.
This site has some opinions on the matter:
https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor...
https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
https://consumerist.com/2014/05/10/why-starting-a-competitor...
https://consumerist.com/2014/03/07/heres-what-lack-of-broadb...
They have a lot of lobbying power.
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 the power from "firm that can put other firms out of business" to "group of people who can put other people in jail."
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 the power from "firm that can put other firms out of business" to "group of people who can put other people in jail."
I think those fears are extremely far-fetched because:
1). Don't most places that do this set up a company? As in, it's a company that happens to have one of it's owners as the city.
2). Does anyone honestly think that if such a thing were to happen, that private ISPs like Comcast would somehow, magically be exempt? That the government official would be like a Scooby Doo villan, saying, "Curses! I'd have gotten away with the censorship and spying if it wasn't for you meddling private ISPs!"
1). Don't most places that do this set up a company? As in, it's a company that happens to have one of it's owners as the city.
2). Does anyone honestly think that if such a thing were to happen, that private ISPs like Comcast would somehow, magically be exempt? That the government official would be like a Scooby Doo villan, saying, "Curses! I'd have gotten away with the censorship and spying if it wasn't for you meddling private ISPs!"
> 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.
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.
I felt the same way about prison guard unions lobbying against legal recreational weed. Like, what even is a good thing you could pretend this is about?
Protecting children from harmful drugs. I'm not saying it does that, I'm saying that's the argument to be made.
But it is not harmful.
I'm a big supporter of legal weed, but even I know better than that. It's less harmful than alcohol, and about on par with caffeine.
There are definitely effects from long term use. Both science and my personal anecdata of long time smoking friends tell me that.
There are definitely effects from long term use. Both science and my personal anecdata of long time smoking friends tell me that.
It is harmful, it's just almost certainly less harmful than alcohol.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but if you believe in a strong free-market with a minimal state then you could argue that the government should not be providing a service that private individuals could provide. Now I think most people are more pragmatic and say "whatever get's the job done," but that's the reason why some people are against many municipal services, including broadband.
As someone else pointed out in the comments, then why not have the city put the fiber in the ground, but let private ISPs run the network devices and ISP stuff (ie: a bit similar to TekSavvy in Canada which uses other ISP's infrastructure - I assume they use more than just the fiber though)
The real free market maniacs, don't want the government involved at all, in anything, in any way whatsoever. Private streets, private pipes, private prisons, private judiciary system, private police...
While I think pipes owned by the people and leased to private ISPs is a very interesting solution, I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crowd.
While I think pipes owned by the people and leased to private ISPs is a very interesting solution, I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crowd.
>I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crow
what I don't understand about these people is that they must recognise that comcast essentially functions the same way the dreaded government does. They are just as large, they are just as organised and powerful. But in contrast to the government there is not even a democratic check and balance, and an explicit profit motive.
I would assume someone who likes the 'market' part in 'free market' recognises that a single giant corporate entity is not very market like at all
what I don't understand about these people is that they must recognise that comcast essentially functions the same way the dreaded government does. They are just as large, they are just as organised and powerful. But in contrast to the government there is not even a democratic check and balance, and an explicit profit motive.
I would assume someone who likes the 'market' part in 'free market' recognises that a single giant corporate entity is not very market like at all
They basically believe the single-giant-corporate-entity exists only because of government. If government disappeared, all markets would become competitive, single-giants would vanish completely, there would always be choice.
You have a glimpse of a chance of an alternative option if its private. If its done by the government and its bad, you are going to have it for the rest of your life.
Astroturfing.
Where exactly is the "strong free-market" here?
I dont think the state would be better running broadband, but i dont quite see the point of making a law that bans the state from doing it.
There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.
There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.
If it's cheaper and better-quality (which are certainly not given), then I don't think you could really call it "unfair". At least, in the moral sense, that it would be better for society. If the overriding governmental policy goal is indeed to maximize the public good, not to maximize shareholder value.
It rarely is cheaper and better quality. What if its more expensive, and worse quality, do you get to skip paying the taxes that went into it?
In the moral sense, you've been ripped off if that happens and you have no recourse, and the only thing that was maximized was the good of the public servant, not of the public.
Lets not forget that the monopoly cable and internet companies have has a huge collaboration from the State itself.
In the moral sense, you've been ripped off if that happens and you have no recourse, and the only thing that was maximized was the good of the public servant, not of the public.
Lets not forget that the monopoly cable and internet companies have has a huge collaboration from the State itself.
For example, why does it have to be government run instead of being a consumer co-op?
Believer in strong free-markets here, and I'm fine with private industry competing with the government as long as the government entity itself isn't propped up by taxpayers cough post office cough amtrak cough.
Preface: I think we should have municipal options in places with adequate service (as a backstop, because I also think we should eliminate build-out obligations that require private companies to serve insuffiently profitable subscribers.)
That said, municipal governments are not sovereign entities, they derive all their authority from the state. States get to decide, as a general matter, what to make a public service and what to leave to the private market. Moreover, municipal governments do lots of stupid short sighted things. Remember, they’re the ones who are responsible for giving companies monopolies in the first place, which Congress had to step in an fix in the Cable Act of 1994.
There is also another matter of politics to consider. Municipal services are heavily unionized. Telecom services are also pretty heavily unionized, but less so. By shifting telecom from a private service into a public one, you’re giving more power to public unions. That’s not a good reason to oppose municipal broadband, but its undoubtedly a major consideration.
That said, municipal governments are not sovereign entities, they derive all their authority from the state. States get to decide, as a general matter, what to make a public service and what to leave to the private market. Moreover, municipal governments do lots of stupid short sighted things. Remember, they’re the ones who are responsible for giving companies monopolies in the first place, which Congress had to step in an fix in the Cable Act of 1994.
There is also another matter of politics to consider. Municipal services are heavily unionized. Telecom services are also pretty heavily unionized, but less so. By shifting telecom from a private service into a public one, you’re giving more power to public unions. That’s not a good reason to oppose municipal broadband, but its undoubtedly a major consideration.
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.
I'm on the left, am extremely pro-union (I think tech needs to organize ASAP), and I'm troubled by public sector unions. Private sector unions have different incentives than public sector unions, and there's a pretty obvious track record of abuses among public sector unions.
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.
Knowing so little about the situation in Colorado, why can't they just allow more competition in the city, instead of running it themselves?
(I live in Boulder County, which passed something similar.)
As far as I know, competition is allowed, it just doesn't exist. The market has failed to provide us with broadband options. This vote is not actually for the government to run it themselves, it's just to override a state-level ban on municipal broadband. The next step will be for Comcast to lobby against municipalities actually setting up competing broadband offerings. A few steps after that and Comcast might actually start responding as if they are competing in an actual market, for instance by improving their services and/or lowering their prices. If they clean up their act enough, they might even get to keep their monopoly. But their reputation is already so bad that it seems somewhat unlikely at this point.
As far as I know, competition is allowed, it just doesn't exist. The market has failed to provide us with broadband options. This vote is not actually for the government to run it themselves, it's just to override a state-level ban on municipal broadband. The next step will be for Comcast to lobby against municipalities actually setting up competing broadband offerings. A few steps after that and Comcast might actually start responding as if they are competing in an actual market, for instance by improving their services and/or lowering their prices. If they clean up their act enough, they might even get to keep their monopoly. But their reputation is already so bad that it seems somewhat unlikely at this point.
There are other ISPs in Fort Collins (CenturyLink/FRII) but it is something like 90%~ of the town is serviced by Comcast. This gives them massive amounts of control when it comes to pricing in the town.
Few want to compete against such an entity as Comcast. Hell, most of the other large ISPs don't want to.
What are the odds that the city will run an ISP better than, say, the DMV?
In my observations, problems at the DMV are usually because of the public, not the DMV. People show up to register a car without a title, have missing paperwork to get a license plate, and are generally unprepared.
The DMV spells out what you need online, but people show up and need every little thing explained to them. I'm at the counter for 5 minutes, pay my fees, and walk out the door.
Why was this other goof-ball at the window for 25 minutes? 99% of the time, because they did something wrong.
The DMV spells out what you need online, but people show up and need every little thing explained to them. I'm at the counter for 5 minutes, pay my fees, and walk out the door.
Why was this other goof-ball at the window for 25 minutes? 99% of the time, because they did something wrong.
Don't forget that the people who work at the DMV are the public, and they aren't perfect. I've had so many different sets of requirements explained to me by different people, counter clerks who wouldn't accept paperwork that was just examined by the line-keeper/ticket-giver, situations where one clerk tried to turn me away where their neighbor said "What's the problem? Here, gimme that..." and 5 minutes later everything is taken care of.
No need for heavy stats here, but let's look at popular opinion of the DMV. If there is broad variance in the amount of time it takes to tackle simple issues (such as paying a fine), then I'd suggest someone look at the process, the operations, or both. A "human behavior be damned" perspective isn't going to help anyone.
> let's look at popular opinion of the DMV
Let's look at popular opinion of Comcast!
In all seriousness, we are exiting (I hope) a time of anti-government fervor where no matter what the government did (unless it's the police and military) it was by default assumed to be done poorly. I no longer think this is the case, and there is a ton of stuff that our government does extremely well.
Let's look at popular opinion of Comcast!
In all seriousness, we are exiting (I hope) a time of anti-government fervor where no matter what the government did (unless it's the police and military) it was by default assumed to be done poorly. I no longer think this is the case, and there is a ton of stuff that our government does extremely well.
Pretty good actually. My main gripe with the DMV is the time spent waiting in line. That's hard to scale. To make the line go faster you need to hire more people. Your driver's license is an important security touch point, so it's going to be hard to move away from getting it in person. An ISP is pretty different from that, right?
My first UK passport was applied for using a paper form submitted at a local post office -- this was pre-widespread Internet. The person in the post office could advise that my photo met the technical requirements (size etc), but couldn't verify my identity.
The most recent renewal was done with an online system which produced a single page PDF declaration -- the rest of the data was only electronic. I printed it, attached my photos, signed and posted it. The new passport was delivered two days later.
You can see the application process: https://www.gov.uk/apply-renew-passport
I think the same applies for a driving license, but my first still has some years before expiry.
The most recent renewal was done with an online system which produced a single page PDF declaration -- the rest of the data was only electronic. I printed it, attached my photos, signed and posted it. The new passport was delivered two days later.
You can see the application process: https://www.gov.uk/apply-renew-passport
I think the same applies for a driving license, but my first still has some years before expiry.
The California DMV has an appointment system that will let you avoid (mostly) waiting, just go at your appointed time and (in my experience) you'll be served within 10 minutes of that time, if not earlier.
They also have a online wait-time monitor for offices online, so you can look at neighboring cities for a shorter wait, it could be worth a 15 minutes drive to a more distance office to save 45 minutes of waiting.
They also have a online wait-time monitor for offices online, so you can look at neighboring cities for a shorter wait, it could be worth a 15 minutes drive to a more distance office to save 45 minutes of waiting.
As a resident, I can honestly say that Fort Collins' city government is exceptionally well run. That's one of the reasons why we voted in favor of this.
DMV is run by the state, not the city. Municipal level organizations are police and fire, which can be run very efficiently.
What's wrong with how DMV is run?
My state's DMV has essentially moved to a mostly online system where you pay online and get documents mailed to you. I think the only reason to ever show up at the DMV is to take or re-take your driving test.
All the renewals are done online. I haven't been to the DMV in almost a decade.
My state's DMV has essentially moved to a mostly online system where you pay online and get documents mailed to you. I think the only reason to ever show up at the DMV is to take or re-take your driving test.
All the renewals are done online. I haven't been to the DMV in almost a decade.
I lived in a community with municipal broadband (Brigham City, UT / UTOPIA fiber) and it was extremely well run. There were still private ISPs handling basically everything, it's just that they used city-owned fiber and offered very reasonable rates.
So this is essentially the taxpayer paying to build out infrastructure that private enterprise then runs and collects profits on right? This is a good thing? Wasn't that always the argument why pharmaceutical companies are so evil, because they appropriate public research for private profit?
The infrastructure collects fees to pay for itself, generally. It isn't provided to private enterprise for free.
Residents are generally happy with the other municipal utilities provided in Fort Collins.
Good idea at this stage - but it would also be very dangerous.
In Canada, in my youth - the entire telelphone network was socialized - it was a byzantine mess.
You had to buy your telephone from the government (i.e. Bell, state owned).
In Saskatchewan, it's still the same.
Imagine if the networks were run like the DMV.
Even worse - with massive, bloated government subsidies and 'guaranteed revenue stream' through taxation - they can make it impossible to compete.
Pay workers way above market wages (the 'change collectors' on the Toronto Subway often earn more than $100K a year, even though the jobs should not even exist anymore).
So it's probably a good idea right now maybe to force some innovation in the sector ...
But is there any evidence that American wireless carriers are operating in an oligarchic manner?
Here in Canada - we pay through the roof for wireless service due to very powerfully entrenched entities - we envy the US rates, which are relatively competitive.
Anyhow - it's maybe a good move but it needs to be watched both for successful opportunities (if it works well it could be a shake up), but also for creeping and bloated bureaucracy.
In Canada, in my youth - the entire telelphone network was socialized - it was a byzantine mess.
You had to buy your telephone from the government (i.e. Bell, state owned).
In Saskatchewan, it's still the same.
Imagine if the networks were run like the DMV.
Even worse - with massive, bloated government subsidies and 'guaranteed revenue stream' through taxation - they can make it impossible to compete.
Pay workers way above market wages (the 'change collectors' on the Toronto Subway often earn more than $100K a year, even though the jobs should not even exist anymore).
So it's probably a good idea right now maybe to force some innovation in the sector ...
But is there any evidence that American wireless carriers are operating in an oligarchic manner?
Here in Canada - we pay through the roof for wireless service due to very powerfully entrenched entities - we envy the US rates, which are relatively competitive.
Anyhow - it's maybe a good move but it needs to be watched both for successful opportunities (if it works well it could be a shake up), but also for creeping and bloated bureaucracy.
I've always been annoyed at this "imagine if X was like the DMV" libertarian argument. Anecdotally, I've never really had this mythical terrible experience at DMVs in the states I've lived in, and (further anecdotally) the experience has always been better in states with higher taxes.
The free market is one way of efficiently incorporating user preferences. Responsive democratic government is another. It might be slower to adapt, but it compensates by having less perverse incentives.
The free market is one way of efficiently incorporating user preferences. Responsive democratic government is another. It might be slower to adapt, but it compensates by having less perverse incentives.
It's not a mythical argument, and it's not libertarian, it's just a reality.
It's also rather obvious how byzantine most operational aspects of government are:
Ex: The DMV is the entity that would not send me an email or SMS to inform me about specific events at least when I lived in Cali. Even though every other company on planet earth can do that.
Ex: The Government of Ontario issues three different kinds of ID. The 'Health Care' ID cannot be used as valid ID anywhere else, only within health. There are huge bureaucracies dedicated to each form of ID. Why not issue one ID, and all of the agencies can use that? Answer: unions and job protectionism. I personally know the former CEO of 'Services Ontario' - he has no interest in increasing quality of service - there is absolutely zero incentive for him. Moreover - the Unions would make it quite impossible. Why would he even consider automating tasks when it reduces headcount? The union will put up a stink and it could get him fired. Moreover, he loses budget and power. So the incentives are completely upside down for most government agencies.
Ex: The TTC (Toronto Public Transit) pays many of it's staff quite a lot. Toronto really needs Subway extensions, which are massively expensive to the point we can't afford them = yet we are still paying people to collect change - as I mentioned above, some of them earn over $100K.
Ex: try visiting stats Canada right now:
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start
try making sense of that mess - there's tons and tons of data, most of it poorly organized, de-facto unsearchable. Very poorly presented when it is. Moreover - it's 2017 and up until a month ago NONE of the data was available via API (!!!). Just one month ago, they made some of it available. Of course, most of the data is not useful, they're not collecting some of the most relevant information that we need - specifically demographic information by postal code etc..
Can you imagine if Google quality engineers were responsible for the search and presentation of that data?
Ex: the Ontario Police (OPP) made a deal with the government such that they had to be the 'highest paid police' in the Province. So a local village, called 'Shelburne' Ontario, with 2 cops, for some reason of local dispute, decide to pay their 2 guys massively over the regular wage for a cop. Guess what: OPP unions take the government to task for insanely high wages. Meanwhile, there are budget cuts everywhere.
Ex: The Toronto Community housing rakes in $200-400 million dollars a year from city taxpayers - and almost 50% of that is spent on overhead and administration! So $100-100M just on staffing and other things. You do realize if this were a charity, it would be considered 'corrupt'? Moreover, the idea that governments should be building homes? Why are they doing that? If we are interested in having low income people live in specific area (one might ask the question why?) - then why wouldn't we just literally subsidize housing for them? Let them live where they please in that area and they will pay landlords/developer just as any other person. Government managers who so inefficiently spend 50% of their charitable budgets on overhead are somehow going to be able to hire contracts and manage building more efficiently than the private sector? No.
Ex: Parole officers in corrections Canada us FAX MACHINES when individuals need to request their various forms of leave. Why? 'Paper Trail'. So they say (And its not due to signatures). But they can't grasp using email, or some kind of portal for this. Because why should they?
What reason do these agencies have to change? Regular voters cannot really vote on these specific things - mostly we don't know they are happening.
If there is no reason for a system to change - or system incentives are set up to create more workers and less efficiency - well - that's what will happen.
It's all just bureaucracy absurdism.
Governments are needed for regulation, and they might need to operate specific things (i.e. roads, the power lines but not power plants, wireless spectrum, military) and of course Health is always a special case.
Teaching is one of those areas public schools can do well - because it's almost impossible to screw up: put a well educated, decent person in a room in front of a class with teaching plans and books and you have a school. It's not like the school can go 500% over budget. And there aren't really many ways to improve on it, as I don't believe that competitive bonuses actually improve teaching quality that much.
But otherwise, no. It's mostly just a massive form of distribution of surpluses.
It's also rather obvious how byzantine most operational aspects of government are:
Ex: The DMV is the entity that would not send me an email or SMS to inform me about specific events at least when I lived in Cali. Even though every other company on planet earth can do that.
Ex: The Government of Ontario issues three different kinds of ID. The 'Health Care' ID cannot be used as valid ID anywhere else, only within health. There are huge bureaucracies dedicated to each form of ID. Why not issue one ID, and all of the agencies can use that? Answer: unions and job protectionism. I personally know the former CEO of 'Services Ontario' - he has no interest in increasing quality of service - there is absolutely zero incentive for him. Moreover - the Unions would make it quite impossible. Why would he even consider automating tasks when it reduces headcount? The union will put up a stink and it could get him fired. Moreover, he loses budget and power. So the incentives are completely upside down for most government agencies.
Ex: The TTC (Toronto Public Transit) pays many of it's staff quite a lot. Toronto really needs Subway extensions, which are massively expensive to the point we can't afford them = yet we are still paying people to collect change - as I mentioned above, some of them earn over $100K.
Ex: try visiting stats Canada right now:
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start
try making sense of that mess - there's tons and tons of data, most of it poorly organized, de-facto unsearchable. Very poorly presented when it is. Moreover - it's 2017 and up until a month ago NONE of the data was available via API (!!!). Just one month ago, they made some of it available. Of course, most of the data is not useful, they're not collecting some of the most relevant information that we need - specifically demographic information by postal code etc..
Can you imagine if Google quality engineers were responsible for the search and presentation of that data?
Ex: the Ontario Police (OPP) made a deal with the government such that they had to be the 'highest paid police' in the Province. So a local village, called 'Shelburne' Ontario, with 2 cops, for some reason of local dispute, decide to pay their 2 guys massively over the regular wage for a cop. Guess what: OPP unions take the government to task for insanely high wages. Meanwhile, there are budget cuts everywhere.
Ex: The Toronto Community housing rakes in $200-400 million dollars a year from city taxpayers - and almost 50% of that is spent on overhead and administration! So $100-100M just on staffing and other things. You do realize if this were a charity, it would be considered 'corrupt'? Moreover, the idea that governments should be building homes? Why are they doing that? If we are interested in having low income people live in specific area (one might ask the question why?) - then why wouldn't we just literally subsidize housing for them? Let them live where they please in that area and they will pay landlords/developer just as any other person. Government managers who so inefficiently spend 50% of their charitable budgets on overhead are somehow going to be able to hire contracts and manage building more efficiently than the private sector? No.
Ex: Parole officers in corrections Canada us FAX MACHINES when individuals need to request their various forms of leave. Why? 'Paper Trail'. So they say (And its not due to signatures). But they can't grasp using email, or some kind of portal for this. Because why should they?
What reason do these agencies have to change? Regular voters cannot really vote on these specific things - mostly we don't know they are happening.
If there is no reason for a system to change - or system incentives are set up to create more workers and less efficiency - well - that's what will happen.
It's all just bureaucracy absurdism.
Governments are needed for regulation, and they might need to operate specific things (i.e. roads, the power lines but not power plants, wireless spectrum, military) and of course Health is always a special case.
Teaching is one of those areas public schools can do well - because it's almost impossible to screw up: put a well educated, decent person in a room in front of a class with teaching plans and books and you have a school. It's not like the school can go 500% over budget. And there aren't really many ways to improve on it, as I don't believe that competitive bonuses actually improve teaching quality that much.
But otherwise, no. It's mostly just a massive form of distribution of surpluses.
Wow they exchanged one monopoly for another monopoly that can use force. Genius voter population over there.
State-enforced law to prevent city fiber builds was exchanged for city-led coop. Said state-enforced law bought and paid for by Comcast, deceptive ad campaign bought and paid for by Comcast, and the city still won.
Sounds like a classic underdog win to me.
Sounds like a classic underdog win to me.
You'll have to point out where they exchanged monopolies, rather than simply set up a competitor to keep the existing monopoly in check.
>another monopoly
Comcast won't cease to exist. Other ISPs can form.
>that can use force
When was the last time your water/electric/gas company "used force" against public interest?
Comcast won't cease to exist. Other ISPs can form.
>that can use force
When was the last time your water/electric/gas company "used force" against public interest?
> When was the last time your water/electric/gas company "used force" against public interest?
Everyday.
Think of it this way, people that don't want to use the service can't opt out for the tax loss incurred by the state running it.
Everyday.
Think of it this way, people that don't want to use the service can't opt out for the tax loss incurred by the state running it.
I don't know about your local utilities, but mine are only government regulated, not subsidized.
Utilities have a considerable tax participation in municipal and state level governments. The infrastructure was definitely built with taxation, and there is a virtual monopoly of it.
Im not making an opinion about it being the best system or not, because i haven't looked at this topic at all, but its delusional to think there is no force in this application.
Just googling shows that for example, Florida has a mandate to be on the grid.
Im not making an opinion about it being the best system or not, because i haven't looked at this topic at all, but its delusional to think there is no force in this application.
Just googling shows that for example, Florida has a mandate to be on the grid.
I lived in a city with muni owned cable and broadband. It was amazing. Great service and reasonably priced. Even offering gig internet. I miss those days now where Spectrum is one of my only options.
See also:
Kushnick, B., $300 Billion Broadband Scandal [2009] http://www.teletruth.org/docs/broadbandscandalfree.pdf
Kushnick, B., $300 Billion Broadband Scandal [2009] http://www.teletruth.org/docs/broadbandscandalfree.pdf
I love to see cities exert their power. In some ways we’ve acquiesced to a powerful central government, whether it be federal or state, but its local governments that should be powerful. After all, they have the best handle on the needs and desires of their citizens.
I think the better way to state it is flipped around:
Citizens have a more direct effect on local governments than they do state or federal.
Citizens have a more direct effect on local governments than they do state or federal.
Tasboo(2)
So I'm all for this effort but there are a lot of opinions in this thread that are (IMHO) too simplistic and ignore history.
1. Building more than one version of given infrastructure is often called an "overbuild" and it tends to be bad. Like you don't have two different electric, gas or water companies running a whole set of wires, poles, pipes or whatever to your house. The capex cost of any such network is massive so paying that cost 2, 3 or 4 times for the same number of customers is clearly going to more costly for consumers overall.
2. Utilities, which aren't duplicated, are heavily regulated to avoid monopolistic behaviour as this is the only rational choice. I believe in the US this is Title II for telecommunications at least (which covers landline service). The FCC under the Obama administration did follow through with a promise to apply Title II to ISPs as well, something Comcat, TWC and the like were deadset against as it would obviously impact profits.
The real problem here is that Internet at this point is really the fourth utility and it should be legislated and regulated as such but Comcat et al don't just want to be "dumb pipes".
This factors into the whole net neutrality argument too. Imagine PG&E said that you could only use electricity for Whirlpool branded washers and dryers or if you used anything else the electricity would cost you more. Well, that kind of discrimination is what US ISPs want to be able to do (sadly) and we've already seen this with, say, Verizon throttling Netflix traffic.
3. ISPs have unfortunately been much better at framing these public debates than the other side. For example, in the aforementioned net neutrality debates, ISPs framed this as the likes of Netflix pushing data onto their network for free and they argued they should get paid for that.
The reality is of course that Netflix doesn't push anything. Consumers are pulling data from Netflix. ISPs are getting paid for this too... by the consumers. The ISPs are simply trying to double-dip and get paid at both ends. What's more, stiffling services like Netflix has nothing to do with any notion of fairness. It's just a backhanded way of cable companies propping up their declining TV businesses.
4. Various other models have been tried around the world to solve the overbuild problem. In Australia, for example, the government has tried a strategy where a single entity would own the wires and ISPs could rent those lines to provide services to consumers. To make this work, the entity owning the wires has to charge the same price to everyone, no matter how big or small.
Unfortunately, for a bunch of complicated reasons to NBN (so-called "next generation" broadband network) is going to end up only guaranteeing 12Mbps to each household... in 2017 for probably A$60-70B for a country of ~24M.
5. Building any sort of netowrk like this is what I like to call a national hyperlocal business and the entrenched players are very good at it. To give some examples:
- Getting access to poles varies from city to city and can be hugely complicated;
- Digging trenches can be just as complicated and you might have to deal with a bunch of different stuff in the ground (eg one area has a ton of limestone in the soil).
- Existing buildings once had single-vendor agreements that prohibited new players from providing service there. At one point these were ruled illegal. They've since been replaced by exclusive marketing agreements where, say, a condo building will only ever tell you about one provider.
- Once you've built past a lot of houses it still requires a lot of efforts to connect a new house (we're talking hours). There is a huge manpower component in this. To be already connected to an existing provider is a huge advantage to that existing provider.
6. No discussion of cable companies in the US is complete without touching on the issue of franchise agreements. A franchise agreement is where a cable company agreed to build in a given city and to alleviate the expense they were offered a number of benefits. These could be exclusive rights, ownership of the poles and so on. But to provide TV service, the company usually ended up paying the town. These sums could be significant to the budgets of the towns or counties in which they applied. These fees also discouraged the municipality from being friendly to any newcomer as any such newcomer may mean a budget hit.
Disclaimer: I used to work on Google Fiber.
1. Building more than one version of given infrastructure is often called an "overbuild" and it tends to be bad. Like you don't have two different electric, gas or water companies running a whole set of wires, poles, pipes or whatever to your house. The capex cost of any such network is massive so paying that cost 2, 3 or 4 times for the same number of customers is clearly going to more costly for consumers overall.
2. Utilities, which aren't duplicated, are heavily regulated to avoid monopolistic behaviour as this is the only rational choice. I believe in the US this is Title II for telecommunications at least (which covers landline service). The FCC under the Obama administration did follow through with a promise to apply Title II to ISPs as well, something Comcat, TWC and the like were deadset against as it would obviously impact profits.
The real problem here is that Internet at this point is really the fourth utility and it should be legislated and regulated as such but Comcat et al don't just want to be "dumb pipes".
This factors into the whole net neutrality argument too. Imagine PG&E said that you could only use electricity for Whirlpool branded washers and dryers or if you used anything else the electricity would cost you more. Well, that kind of discrimination is what US ISPs want to be able to do (sadly) and we've already seen this with, say, Verizon throttling Netflix traffic.
3. ISPs have unfortunately been much better at framing these public debates than the other side. For example, in the aforementioned net neutrality debates, ISPs framed this as the likes of Netflix pushing data onto their network for free and they argued they should get paid for that.
The reality is of course that Netflix doesn't push anything. Consumers are pulling data from Netflix. ISPs are getting paid for this too... by the consumers. The ISPs are simply trying to double-dip and get paid at both ends. What's more, stiffling services like Netflix has nothing to do with any notion of fairness. It's just a backhanded way of cable companies propping up their declining TV businesses.
4. Various other models have been tried around the world to solve the overbuild problem. In Australia, for example, the government has tried a strategy where a single entity would own the wires and ISPs could rent those lines to provide services to consumers. To make this work, the entity owning the wires has to charge the same price to everyone, no matter how big or small.
Unfortunately, for a bunch of complicated reasons to NBN (so-called "next generation" broadband network) is going to end up only guaranteeing 12Mbps to each household... in 2017 for probably A$60-70B for a country of ~24M.
5. Building any sort of netowrk like this is what I like to call a national hyperlocal business and the entrenched players are very good at it. To give some examples:
- Getting access to poles varies from city to city and can be hugely complicated;
- Digging trenches can be just as complicated and you might have to deal with a bunch of different stuff in the ground (eg one area has a ton of limestone in the soil).
- Existing buildings once had single-vendor agreements that prohibited new players from providing service there. At one point these were ruled illegal. They've since been replaced by exclusive marketing agreements where, say, a condo building will only ever tell you about one provider.
- Once you've built past a lot of houses it still requires a lot of efforts to connect a new house (we're talking hours). There is a huge manpower component in this. To be already connected to an existing provider is a huge advantage to that existing provider.
6. No discussion of cable companies in the US is complete without touching on the issue of franchise agreements. A franchise agreement is where a cable company agreed to build in a given city and to alleviate the expense they were offered a number of benefits. These could be exclusive rights, ownership of the poles and so on. But to provide TV service, the company usually ended up paying the town. These sums could be significant to the budgets of the towns or counties in which they applied. These fees also discouraged the municipality from being friendly to any newcomer as any such newcomer may mean a budget hit.
Disclaimer: I used to work on Google Fiber.
Thanks for this. I needed some sanity.
Cannot heap enough scorn on Comcast. It just seems SO WRONG that they have so much influence and continue to kill any competition.
Has any city / company tried to build such a network since docsis 3.1 became available? Google seems to have basically given up. This will likely be a disaster for any city that tries, Comcast will just undercut them with higher speeds than any consumer will notice a difference. And taxpayers will be left with a huge bill.
DOCSIS 3.1 is impressive, but it's really the HFC infrastructure that even remotely threatens a FTTx build.
The comments far and wide (except as Ajit sees fit to hide) show a new carrier could not even be competitive at DOCSIS 3.1 levels, and still win.
Comcast has found such impressive execration that the "speed wars" only matter a little bit. It's just that Comcast has neglected their networks for so long that even at the most basic level, i.e. speeds, they regularly fail the previous administration's metric for "high speed internet" at peak times -- you know, the times when people actually use their internet.
The comments far and wide (except as Ajit sees fit to hide) show a new carrier could not even be competitive at DOCSIS 3.1 levels, and still win.
Comcast has found such impressive execration that the "speed wars" only matter a little bit. It's just that Comcast has neglected their networks for so long that even at the most basic level, i.e. speeds, they regularly fail the previous administration's metric for "high speed internet" at peak times -- you know, the times when people actually use their internet.
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?
I'm not sure governments are actually worse than businesses at that on average. I've had excellent service at libraries, for example. Polls suggest most people have a positive view of libraries. [0]
I don't see how a local municipality having access is worse than a large corporation. At least municipalities aren't incentivized to extract more revenue by selling data. It seems like regulations and technology are better solutions to privacy issues than keeping ISPs private.
[0] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/
I don't see how a local municipality having access is worse than a large corporation. At least municipalities aren't incentivized to extract more revenue by selling data. It seems like regulations and technology are better solutions to privacy issues than keeping ISPs private.
[0] http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/09/09/libraries-2016/
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 access without a warrant now.
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 access without a warrant now.
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.
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.
> There are great commercial ISPs too.
Sure, if you're lucky enough to live in an area with "actual" competition, which is the crux of the entire issue.
The vast, vast majority of us are stuck with 1 or 2 (if we're lucky) options, both relatively shitty, with one being markedly inferior, and both absurdly overpriced for the connection you get.
Sure, if you're lucky enough to live in an area with "actual" competition, which is the crux of the entire issue.
The vast, vast majority of us are stuck with 1 or 2 (if we're lucky) options, both relatively shitty, with one being markedly inferior, and both absurdly overpriced for the connection you get.
What's more important is competition
Right, and that's a key ingredient that is missing in Fort Collins. Two main providers, who have been operating in typical duopoly fashion. I.e. you get one or the other, not both, and even if you can get both, the other is no better.
Right, and that's a key ingredient that is missing in Fort Collins. Two main providers, who have been operating in typical duopoly fashion. I.e. you get one or the other, not both, and even if you can get both, the other is no better.
>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.
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.
You're gonna have to prove that claim, that this makes it easier for governments to spy on people.
"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.
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.
[deleted]
Lest we forget iProvo:
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56288307&itype=CMSI...
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56288307&itype=CMSI...
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.