[HN Gopher] Ohio GOP ends attempt to ban municipal broadband aft...
___________________________________________________________________
Ohio GOP ends attempt to ban municipal broadband after protest from
residents
Author : pseudolus
Score : 221 points
Date : 2021-06-29 19:24 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| threatofrain wrote:
| > As we wrote earlier this month, the Ohio Senate approved a
| version of the budget containing an amendment that would have
| forced existing municipal broadband services to shut down and
| prevented the formation of new public networks. The proposed law
| was reportedly "inserted without prior public discussion," and no
| state senator publicly sponsored the amendment.
|
| > It was approved in a party-line vote as Democrats opposed the
| restrictions in municipal broadband.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| How can an amendment get proposed without a legislator publicly
| sponsoring it? That is insanity.
| [deleted]
| dvtrn wrote:
| Ballot initiatives are one way it happens in some states. A
| means for the population to ask their legislators to enact a
| law or statute absent the legislature making such a proposal
| on their own.
| kissickas wrote:
| This is an amendment to a bill.
| dvtrn wrote:
| I'm aware of that. I was answering the question that was
| asked, not intimating this was the way it happened in
| Ohio.
| ummonk wrote:
| The question was "How can an amendment get proposed
| without a legislator publicly sponsoring it?". You did
| not answer that question.
| [deleted]
| cat199 wrote:
| seems like a clear case where version controlling & signing
| changes to draft legislation would be useful
| luke2m wrote:
| Thank goodness. My town has muni, but I'm still waiting to get it
| out to my area.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| I think everyone is missing the point here. The point of
| municipal broadband is not to Run efficiently, but to keep the
| ATTs of the world HONEST! -- IF ATT and the rest did, there would
| be zero need for it. Europe shows that somebody needs to keep the
| "Capitalists" honest. If this is how its done. so be it. the ATTs
| of this industry, spend more time lobbying for laws to make
| enable them to charge people more for less. Its laughable, and
| bad for the US.
| slownews45 wrote:
| The US (and its companies) will COMPLETELY dominate Europe in
| IT under the US's capitalist model. It's not going to be close
| I'm afraid.
|
| The EU is busy making rules about super complex cookie banners
| (largely pointless - just block / expire / delete cookies
| browser side).
|
| Meanwhile, I expect US (and likely chinese companies long term
| - see Tiktok / Zoom etc) to absolute dominate global market.
|
| What are the big EU websites being used globally? I can think
| of a ton of apps and more with global usage from US and China.
|
| Things like WhatsApp are being used for GOVT services
| internationally (!).
|
| We will see how the EU's efforts plays out globally. I'm
| skeptical personally.
| simion314 wrote:
| Probably OP was thinking at services like ISP, cable and
| mobile providers. I do not see US ISP or mobile companies
| have a chance to compete in EU markets.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| OP is talking about ISPs not "US Tech". In the UK (and
| talking to F&F across Europe) we have significantly better
| access to broadband than the US. I have at least 6 companies
| I can purchase broadband from (thats off the top of my head,
| it's probably more if I did some research) - I currently pay
| PS32 per month (so like $45) for 200Mb up and 20Mb that is
| bullet proof stable.
| freedomben wrote:
| Can someone explain (preferably steel man) the GOP argument here?
| barney54 wrote:
| * There is a limited role for government. For example,
| government should provide public goods, but should not be in
| the business of competing with private businesses.
|
| * There is no need to have government involved in the provision
| of broadband (or phone service or cable TV).
| winstonewert wrote:
| I think I can articulate the argument:
|
| In order to ensure the best outcome for consumers, we want
| customers to have a variety of competing options for broadband
| service. That way they can select the option which gives them
| the best cost/value proposition. No individual provider can
| abuse or take advantage of customers, because they can just
| switch to another provider.
|
| Municipal broadband, by its nature, is incompatible with this
| competition. Such service is at least partially taxpayer funded
| which means that everyone pays for it whether they use it or
| not. Further, the city controls access to the corridors needed
| for providing internet service. The consequence is that the
| city ISP would have a great advantage over other ISPs,
| preventing any real competition.
|
| The case then is that we need to ban city-run ISPs so as to
| promote competition amongst ISPs in order to ensure the best
| service.
|
| However:
|
| I'm not sure of a good defense of forbidding it at the state
| level, instead of allowing individual municipalities to make
| their own decisions. Furthermore, I'm not sure of a good
| defense ensuring competition by forbidding public isps but not
| also requiring cities to make it easy for new isps to enter
| markets by giving access to corridors.
| philjohn wrote:
| That's all well and good, but 88.3m americans are only served
| by a single ISP. The market has resoundingly failed to work.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Private broadband contributes / donates to Republican
| politicians. Private broadband does not want municipal
| broadband.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp...
| gameswithgo wrote:
| It is a perfectly normal GOP position to be against a
| government service that isn't police or military. What is kind
| of weird is when the GOP bans at say, a state level, something
| some cities might want to do. This does run counter to some of
| the other GOP political ideas, that local governments should be
| free to make their own decisions and not hampered by state or
| federal government.
|
| Perhaps they are worried that municipal broadband will be
| popular and thus spread, if cities are allowed to do it, which
| then would threaten some of their donations, and some of their
| fundamental ideas.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| The public argument or the private argument?
|
| The private argument is that it lowers profits for the
| corporations who give them campaign contributions.
| lvspiff wrote:
| Nineteen states currently have laws limiting and in some cases
| effectively prohibiting municipalities from offering commercial
| services on broadband networks. Most of them did so under the
| guise of constructing and operating community broadband
| networks requires taking on public debt via bond offerings,
| tying up money that could otherwise have been used for public
| safety, public pensions, roads and other infrastructure.
| DudeInBasement wrote:
| Great steel man run down. It's hard to compete against tax
| cows.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| not involved, not a lawyer here - there is a theory in local US
| law about "regulated monopoly of municipal services" .. related
| to the way relatively expensive infrastructure is built, who
| pays for that, and who has rights to revenue and who has rights
| to do business on the infrastructure.
|
| It has been ruled in most places that I know of, that certain
| utilities like water are in this category, but also sometimes
| things like garbage collection. The reason is that it does cost
| capital to build acceptable infrastructure, and also the
| services are less expensive to the consumer when a single
| business can recoup their costs over a longer period of time.
|
| naturally, corruption and cronyism also thrive in this
| environment, seeking long-term returns as vendor lock-in. The
| amounts of money over years, plus the security of income, can
| be very attractive to certain parties.
|
| I suspect that this background affects the debate and policy,
| but generally, political talking points do not rely on
| precedent and fact, more the emotions and loyalties.. no idea
| on that
| legerdemain wrote:
| - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially
| lowers prices.
|
| - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an
| extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if
| they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot
| reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps
| money into.
| newacct583 wrote:
| All of which are decent arguments in the abstract.
| Unfortunately the practical situation is that US broadband
| solutions outside of major urban cores are _really_ bad (and
| even in the cities, we 're essentially just barely at parity
| with the rest of the industrialized world).
|
| The free market, objectively, has failed us. That's why these
| initiative exist to begin with.
|
| Protecting the abstract market is a worthless philosophy when
| the effect is to impede progress.
| notyourwork wrote:
| Why is internet connectivity NOT viewed similarly to road
| connectivity? We expect to be able to travel across the city
| to do stuff. We similarly expect to be able to use the
| internet.
|
| The world is becoming ever increasingly connected online and
| people should expect to have fast consistent access to online
| services. ESPECIALLY when government's are using internet for
| interfacing to do things citizens have to do.
|
| edit: minor typo corrected.
| deeg wrote:
| For myself, it's because it's physically prohibitive to
| have competing roads but it is possible in most cases to
| have competing internet providers.
|
| In general I am of the opinion that fostering competition
| results in the best internet. That said I disagree with the
| GOP here; for some rural areas it's hard to get companies
| to run cable without some guarantees. Outright banning them
| hurts rural communities.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > In general I am of the opinion that fostering
| competition results in the best internet.
|
| How do you square this with that the US trails all the
| more heavily regulated internet infrastructures in the
| rest of the world?
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >In general I am of the opinion that fostering
| competition results in the best internet.
|
| I wholeheartedly agree.
|
| That said, I posit that municipal broadband, implemented
| as wired infrastructure to the premise, fosters
| competition rather than limits it.
|
| IIUC, most planned/completed municipal broadband networks
| only provide last-mile connectivity, while internet
| connectivity is (or will be) provided by private ISPs.
|
| This definitely fosters competition because a broader set
| of ISPs can service these customers since they don't
| actually have to run wires to each premise, rather they
| just need internet uplinks from the municipal broadband
| interchanges.
|
| What's more, we can even have private or quasi-public[0]
| businesses/entities using ISP connection fees to manage
| and maintain the last-mile infrastructure. Quite possibly
| with a surplus for upgrades/support for other municipal
| programs.
|
| That leads to _more_ competition and not less.
|
| I suppose it's possible that my analysis is flawed, but
| I'm not seeing how. If I missed/glossed over some stuff,
| I'd appreciate being corrected.
|
| [0] Such as the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTA_Bridges_and_Tunnels )
|
| Edit: Added cited reference.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > for some rural areas
|
| Not just rural. I live in a medium density suburban metro
| and we can't get more than one provider to compete.
| They've divvied it up amongst themselves so they maintain
| a monopoly in their area.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Exactly. I am in silicon valley (FFS) and have exactly
| two choices: AT&T and Comcast.
|
| Curiously they cost the same and run about the same
| speeds. Both of them continue to increase their rates.
|
| I'm all for competition, but I'm not seeing it. Worse, I
| see the U.S. heading in precisely the opposite direction
| with acquisitions, mergers, buyouts.....
| wonderwonder wrote:
| "competing internet providers" I wish this was the case.
| I have lived in 6+ homes in the last 15 years and I cant
| remember a single time I had a choice of internet
| provider. They seem to have an agreement amongst
| themselves to not compete.
| bduerst wrote:
| Competing internet providers still need to invest in last
| mile costs, which are prohibitively expensive (just like
| roads).
|
| Why is competition the goal? Because it ultimately lowers
| prices for consumers? That is what municipal internet
| achieves.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| And innovation. Don't forget that.
|
| I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, as its not clear there
| has been that much innovation in this space for a while.
| Or if there is, I welcome hearing about it.
| bduerst wrote:
| I think any innovation we'll see is 5G wireless towers
| going up.
| trothamel wrote:
| Starlink doesn't.
|
| My feeling is municipal broadband is a good idea from a
| decade ago, but about to be made obsolete by fast
| wireless.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is starlink performance comparable to a symmetric fiber
| connection? I'm not aware of any wireless technologies
| that come close.
| philjohn wrote:
| That's all well and good - but when there are 88.3m
| Americans that have only a single ISP serving them, that
| model breaks down.
|
| In this case, the competition only seems to come from
| municipal broadband, so to your argument that fostering
| competition results in the best internet, the status quo
| currently in operation is in opposition to that.
| kemotep wrote:
| If you count all the people whose 2nd or 3rd ISP options
| are Hughesnet and Frontier dsl (or mobile broadband
| hotspots with abysmally low data caps) those options
| barely count.
|
| If only 1 option can provide me with greater than 25 Mbps
| bandwidth (what is the minimum requirements for a single
| 4k Netflix stream) with unlimited (or at least reasonably
| high) data caps, it is hard to see the alternatives as
| truly competitive options.
|
| If we count everyone who then falls under this definition
| that be double the number you provided.
| greydius wrote:
| - building and maintaing roads is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| - building and maintaing roads expands the role of
| government. It's an extra program for the municipality to
| manage.
|
| - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from building and maintaing roads.
|
| - building and maintaing roads is hostile to business.
| Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the
| government pumps money into.
| merpnderp wrote:
| You forgot the biggest one: breaking up monopolies and
| forcing more competition is better than government
| bureaucratic services.
| Taek wrote:
| Just wanted to say thanks. I disagree with these arguments
| but they helped me to understand how the other side feels.
| bduerst wrote:
| > Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| - This is a feature of muni broadband and other natural
| monopolies, like water, electricity, transportation, where
| economies-of-scale cost savings stimulate economic growth.
|
| > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an
| extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| - The State government stepping in to interfere with city
| government by blocking muni broadband is an expansion of the
| role of government.
|
| > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| - The same argument has been made against public roads, not
| everyone uses them directly but indirectly they still benefit
| regardless.
|
| > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government
| pumps money into.
|
| - Natural monopolies are hostile to business. The natural
| barrier to entry prevents competition and innovation, hence
| why the government needs to pump money into it.
| meristohm wrote:
| Even if I don't directly benefit from a service, if other
| people benefit is that a good thing? If I'm acting selfishly,
| perhaps I can console myself that some of those beneficiaries
| might spend more money on my for-profit service.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| > Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in the
| municipality. Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in
| the area gets the benefit of it. This is like roads. Most
| communities pay for roads out of taxes or bonds levied on the
| community. None of that is a handout, on top of that, most
| places will still require you to pay for internet.
|
| > Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an
| extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| This isn't necessarily bad, and requires voters be more
| involved in local politics to ensure that infrastructure in
| general is being kept up.
|
| > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| This repeats the first point, but, yes it's a tax, but to say
| that not everyone benefits? This past year showed how
| important it was for every student to have broadband access
| to attend remote learning. Seems hard to argue at this point
| that not everyone would benefit.
|
| > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government
| pumps money into.
|
| To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point,
| municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by ensuring
| that they have high-quality fast internet, that allows them
| to keep in better touch with their customers. This is pro-
| business, not anti.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| > Even if they offer it for "free", everyone in the area
| gets the benefit of it.
|
| To play devils advocate, not everyone wants or needs
| internet. My grandmother has buried fiber available
| straight to her rural home. I'm sure it cost tens of
| thousands of dollars to get that buried fiber run a mile
| down her dead-end road. She's never owned a computer and
| never will. Neither do any of the Amish families in the
| area.
|
| http://www.marquetteadams.com/about-us/
| asdff wrote:
| I generally don't need a fire department every day
| either. That doesn't make it a good idea to sever the
| connection to that utility.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| The Amish don't get the benefit of all the highways in
| their area, generally don't need paved roads, and don't
| send their children to public school. Additionally they
| are pacifists who don't believe in war.
|
| They still pay taxes that fund all of that.
|
| My grandmother became interested in computing and learned
| how to use the internet in her 80's before she passed
| away a decade later. The number of people who don't
| require or want internet access going into the future is
| going to be very few.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| And the Amish do opt out of some taxes and benefits that
| almost no other group does.
|
| So, there is clear precedent for not paying some common
| taxes and not using the benefits.
| tekromancr wrote:
| Other replies to you post make some good points, but
| there is also the fact that having a fiber line running
| to her property significantly increases the value of the
| property and attractiveness to future purchasers.
| lliamander wrote:
| > Government is funded by taxes from the people who live in
| the municipality. Even if they offer it for "free",
| everyone in the area gets the benefit of it.
|
| But if I wish to purchase internet from a different
| provider, I still have to subsidize other people's
| internet. I'm forced to pay for something whether I use it
| or not.
| asdff wrote:
| That's how taxes work. I don't have any children, but my
| taxes fund schools. My house isn't burning down, but my
| taxes fund fire departments. I don't commute with a car,
| but my taxes fund bridges and highways. There is a net
| economic benefit to pulling your fellow person out of the
| gutter when it comes to some things. We are all richer
| because we have an educated populace, cities that don't
| burn down, highways to move people and goods. To put it
| into HN friendly terms, all of these benefits increase
| the quality of our labor, which increases our valuation
| in the eyes of global investors and makes them want to
| invest in American companies and keep us paid and
| employed. And who knows, some day you might need help out
| of the gutter, too, or a fire put out.
| patrickthebold wrote:
| I realize this isn't your point, but one of my pet peeves
| is about 'your taxes paying for other people's kids'.
|
| Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes should
| be thought of as paying off your own education.
|
| It seems silly to me that someone goes through public
| schools, then doesn't have kids and starts complaining
| that schools don't benefit them and they shouldn't have
| to pay.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >Everyone gets to go to school for free, your taxes
| should be thought of as paying off your own education.
|
| Are you sure you want to make the argument that a public
| school education cost you many many times what a private
| school education would paid over a lifetime of taxes?
|
| Of course not. There is nothing wrong with the argument
| you are paying for other people's kids. You are. It's a
| net good for society. Deal with it, don't make weird
| excuses and pretend scenarios.
| r00fus wrote:
| Arguably, your purchased internet will be of better
| quality and have better support because of competition
| than if they remained a local monopoly (which is the case
| is a vast majority of regions).
|
| Especially if the service eventually becomes revenue
| positive and pays for itself, possibly providing non-tax
| revenue into the municipal general fund and _lowering_
| your tax load.
| fabbari wrote:
| You can get you own armed guards - but you will still
| subsidize other people's police force.
|
| You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the
| community, you can then take advantage of it or not -
| that's your prerogative.
|
| I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I
| get my money back?
| Spivak wrote:
| This line of reasoning could be used to justify
| government expansion into literally any market. Given
| that most people don't want government providing services
| in _every_ market there has to be some other factor that
| limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives.
|
| Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and
| funding their construction -- probably good to everyone.
|
| Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher
| sell.
| nickff wrote:
| I understand you're trying to use examples that seem
| clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you
| answer:
|
| _> " You can get you own armed guards - but you will
| still subsidize other people's police force."_
|
| Why? This is an especially open question in areas with
| large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of
| police abuse of power.
|
| _> "You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of
| the community, you can then take advantage of it or not -
| that's your prerogative."_
|
| Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'?
| Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive
| externalities, or things that help the poor?
|
| _> "I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids -
| should I get my money back?"_
|
| Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political
| authority and ethics.
|
| Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical
| framework, and highlight what it means with respect to
| municipal fiber.
| FactolSarin wrote:
| Public Schools aren't just benefiting people with kids.
| It benefits society (a society you and OP are members
| of). Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the
| military. Maybe you feel like you don't personally
| benefit from it and you want your taxes back, but that's
| not how it works.
|
| Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the
| people not individual persons.
| nickff wrote:
| _> "Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the
| military."_
|
| I see national defense and public schools as very
| different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-
| called 'public good'. Primary and secondary education are
| not public goods, though they may be long-term
| investments (which defense is not).
|
| I am not saying that I 'like' or 'dislike' either, but
| they're very different.
|
| _> "An ideal government functions to help the people not
| individual persons."_
|
| I've never heard this argument before, could you please
| elaborate, or point to a good source for your "ideal
| government" ethical framework?
| dominotw wrote:
| > To ISPs possibly, but not all businesses. Counter point,
| municipal broadband will benefit many businesses by
| ensuring that they have high-quality fast internet
|
| > Municipal broadband is hostile to business.
|
| I think 'business' in second sentence means business its
| competing with( ISP) not business in general.
|
| But in general it discourages any business by signaling
| that govt might swoop in and kill your business that you
| build over decades by starting it own that isnt' bound by
| the same pressures of market.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I seriously doubt there are very many (any?)
| entrepreneurs worried about that.
|
| Government is going to swoop in and provide free nail
| care.
|
| Government is going to swoop in and provide free Mexican
| food.
|
| Government is going to swoop in and paint homes for free.
|
| Etc.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| Doesn't have to be true. With enough launch day subscriber
| you can build the infrastructure without any additional
| taxes.
|
| > Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government
| pumps money into.
|
| That's the reason FedEx and American Airline went bankrupt;
| they simply couldn't compete against the US Postal Service
| and Amtrak!
| psychometry wrote:
| Well done. Not one of those is even a little bit reasonable,
| but I could totally imagine your standard Repub attempting to
| argue those points.
| fooker wrote:
| Why are none of these reasonable?
| Retric wrote:
| For one municipal broadband can be profitable without
| subsidies. It can be run by local governments but can
| also be spun off after the infrastructure is built etc.
| bduerst wrote:
| Also the state government stepping in to block city
| governments in the name of "stopping government
| expansion" is actually government expansion.
|
| Let the municipal governments dictate how they govern
| themselves with their own infrastructure.
| edrxty wrote:
| They're not unreasonable at face value (obviously, that's
| how the game works) but they're entirely in bad faith as
| none stand up to any real scrutiny. US political
| discourse is about boiling a complex system down to feel
| good talking points that sound snazzy and evoke strong
| emotions.
|
| "government handout" leading language, no substance
|
| various "expands government" also leading, still no
| substance/data
|
| "hostile to business" obviously, that's the point.
| Private enterprise has failed here and created a number
| the most customer hostile organizations in existence.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they 're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any
| real scrutiny_
|
| The expansion of the role of government bit is not
| nothing. Yes, there is a cozy relationship between the
| federal government, many state governments and ISPs. But
| municipal broadband makes it _much_ easier for _e.g._ the
| Louisville police department to influence how much of
| what type of information is collected on whom, and under
| what circumstances it may be shared.
|
| I support municipal broadband. Any competition is good
| competition. But it's disingenuous to write off the
| concerns so quickly.
| edrxty wrote:
| Sure, but we've been fighting this exact battle against
| the entrenched ISPs for decades now (think MPAA, RIAA etc
| DMCA notices). If the ISP is actually "owned" by the
| people it serves, through the process of government these
| issues can be addressed directly instead of through a 3rd
| party corporation that has no incentive to fix anything.
| psychometry wrote:
| Well, how much time do you have?
|
| To start, all arguments about price are nonsense. Cities
| offer broadband because it's cheaper per household. This
| has been repeatedly demonstrated. Right-wingers are
| threatened by this fact because it's yet another disproof
| of their claim that the free market can do everything
| better than government.
|
| Arguments about business being unable to compete with
| government are irrelevant in the case of utilities needed
| by everyone, since free market principles break down in
| innumerable ways.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| Artificially lowers price in what sense? Unless it's
| operating at a loss, it's just another market
| participant. In my experience with municipal broadband,
| this was the case. Their prices were below the other
| options, but they were operating at a profitable level
| (not a high profit, mind you). But with the general race
| to the bottom on prices, short of very high demand or
| collusion, their prices weren't really that much cheaper
| than what the local cable company would have dropped to
| if there'd been real competition (in fact, I had to go
| through the local cable company because I was in an
| apartment that had contracted them, and the cable company
| got to add a $5/month fee while doing nothing but
| billing).
|
| - Municipal broadband expands the role of government.
| It's an extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| This one is kind of true, however the billing (if you
| weren't like me) what through the same office that
| handled other municipal utilities (in that area, water
| and sewer were billed by the county). The labor itself
| was contracted out, both for the initial roll out and the
| maintenance. This potentially adds some oversight
| positions but we're not talking about hundreds of extra
| government jobs here. And actually, if what I was told
| was correct their contract went to their competitor, the
| local cable company who had opted not to roll out their
| own high-speed service in the area (which precipitated
| the local push for municipal broadband).
|
| - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents,
| even if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| The program covered its own costs. Residents choosing not
| to participate were not charged. So it was only a tax on
| those residents who elected to participate in the
| program, but those residents were also getting better
| service for 50-75% lower prices compared to the old DSL
| and dial-up in the area (NB: This was in the late 00s,
| dial-up and low-speed DSL as the best options in a
| college town with several major businesses is insanely
| stupid.)
|
| - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the
| government pumps money into.
|
| The local cable company could have competed, again, if
| what I was told was correct. It was their own labor that
| put the fiber and last-mile connections in place.
| okennedy wrote:
| For many goods and services, they are actually quite
| reasonable requirements. Internet access, however, is a
| form of public infrastructure, regardless of whether it
| is administered by a for-profit corporation or a
| government.
|
| > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government.
| It's an extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| It requires physical infrastructure, and that physical
| infrastructure needs to reach people's houses. That, in
| turn requires the use of public resources (streets)
| and/or eminent domain. In short, government is already
| involved.
|
| > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| The level of infrastructure investment required makes it
| hard to justify new for-profit investment, especially if
| the area is already being served or isn't populated
| enough for the company to make a profit. As a result,
| internet access providers naturally tend towards being a
| monopoly, which in turn artificially increases prices.
|
| > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents,
| even if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| I can see where this point is coming from, and it's not
| wrong. At this point, however, even those who don't
| directly benefit from internet access seem like they
| benefit indirectly. It's also worth noting that a lot of
| locales (mine included) already pump money into corporate
| broadband providers to entice them to build and maintain
| the infrastructure. In other words, the tax gets applied,
| regardless of whether it's a for-profit corporation
| reaping the benefits or not.
|
| > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the
| government pumps money into.
|
| Companies already can't compete with a service that
| requires enormous infrastructure investments and the use
| of government property.
|
| Internet access (and most large-scale infrastructure) is
| different due to the heavy infrastructure investment
| required.
|
| - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to
| build out that sort of infrastructure in an area that
| isn't populated enough to allow the organization to make
| a profit.
|
| - It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to
| build out a second set of infrastructure in an area that
| already has it, as increasing competition will lower
| prices and make it harder to make a profit on the
| investment.
|
| - Building out multiple redundant infrastructures can
| also be a hassle for normal citizens. More closures due
| to maintenance/construction work, more use of eminent
| domain, more unsightly telephone poles, etc...
|
| In short, Internet access tends towards being a monopoly.
| With that in mind...
|
| - Artificially lowering prices is a good thing if it
| counters the natural tendency of a monopoly to push
| prices up. - Expanding the role of government is a bit of
| a non-argument, since
| valec wrote:
| > Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| prices are artificially high due to pseudo or actual
| monopolies in part due to existing regulation and prohibitive
| costs. internet is effectively a utility anyways so cheaper
| is better.
|
| - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an
| extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| not necessarily a bad thing
|
| - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| a large majority of residents use internet in most of the
| USA. either way, removing the right for a community to choose
| seems heavy handed and anti-libertarian to me
|
| - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government
| pumps money into.
|
| does everything have to be exploitable for profit??
| barkerja wrote:
| I live in a small village in central NY and we are months
| away from rolling out municipal broadband.
|
| For years, Spectrum has had a stronghold on this region with
| prices they set without any competition. The citizens of this
| region have pleaded with numerous carriers to bring better
| internet, but all balk at the prospect.
|
| We finally said enough is enough and decided to rollout FTTH
| for every resident, without a single penny spent of tax
| dollar money. We've been fortunate to get enough grant money
| from both state and federal to get this off the ground. The
| service will be fully subscriber-funded and end up making the
| town money in several years.
|
| There is absolutely nothing about this service that is:
|
| 1. A handout from government. You must pay for the service.
|
| 2. Expanding the role of government.
|
| 3. Increasing taxes
|
| 4. Hostile. The only hostility until now has been Spectrum
| bullying the competition.
| mimikatz wrote:
| "without a single penny spent of tax dollar money. We've
| been fortunate to get enough grant money from both state
| and federal to get this off the ground."
|
| How are state and federal grants not made up of tax
| dollars?
| jancsika wrote:
| They are, but you are either being ungenerous in your
| question or missing vital context that anyone familiar
| with a city council meeting would already know.
|
| OP is bragging that the municipality is paying for a
| service without increasing local taxes to pay for it.
| Increasing local taxes is the obvious way that
| municipalities typically pay for something like this. But
| increasing local taxes also generates predictable and
| often persuasive complaints from old cranks who never
| want to increase local taxes. OP's muni is thus
| circumventing those complaints by using grant money for
| the rollout.
|
| While it's true that state and fed grants _use_ tax
| dollars, it 's irrelevant to the OP's brag. E.g.,
|
| Old crank at meeting says, "I don't want to pay more
| money for a service I don't need." Applause break.
|
| Old crank at meeting says, "I don't think it's right to
| take a grant created with state and federal taxes which I
| don't believe in paying." Awkward silence.
|
| Edit: clarification
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How are state and federal grants not made up of tax
| dollars?
|
| State is different because the funding situation of state
| and federal governments are not equivalent, but marginal
| federal spending is not tied to marginal increases in tax
| revenue even in principal, so quite literally changes in
| federal spending do not come from tax dollars.
|
| If you assume that (1) the lifespan of the federal
| government is finite, and (2) the federal government will
| have no unpaid, transferred, forgiven, or externally
| covered debt from now until and including the eventual
| final shut-down, then it follows that any spending must
| _eventually_ be covered by taxes, but while (1) is a
| reasonable assumption, (2) is...less clearly justified.
| starik36 wrote:
| I am still confused how this isn't tax payer funded. If
| it comes from the government, it's tax payer funded.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Well, any Federal funds are categorically not tax payer
| funds. The Federal government spends money into existence
| as it is a currency issuer (through the Federal Reserve).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I am still confused how this isn't tax payer funded
|
| Because federal government spending doesn't depend
| marginally on taxes.
|
| > If it comes from the government, it's tax payer funded.
|
| This would be true if changes in government spending were
| tied to changes in taxes, but it isn't because they
| aren't.
|
| For state government operational spending its closer to
| being a general truth.
| ghiculescu wrote:
| That's ridiculous. Why have taxes at all if spending is
| not dependent on them?
| cproctor wrote:
| This is inspiring to hear. I'm a recent transplant to a
| small city in Western NY (20k residents). Are there any
| studies or documents available from your village's
| deployment? I'm interested in getting involved in this
| issue in my own city. Thanks!
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >There is absolutely nothing about this service that is...
|
| Your implementation may be good.
|
| Living in NY it should not stretch your imagination to
| think up what an implementation that meets all those
| criteria would look like.
|
| Municipal broadband is the hip new thing right now so
| nobody half-asses it. I expect in time (like over the next
| 80yr) it will follow the model of other government services
| and everywhere that can afford the graft, boondoggles and
| BS will have the graft, boondoggles and BS and the Detroits
| and BFEs who simply can't afford to do it wrong it will be
| the only ones left with municipal broadband done right.
|
| That said, if a town or city wants to do their own
| broadband they should be able to do so without state
| interference. Local government is best government. Allowing
| the towns to have a "well we could DIY it and not buy your
| services at all" option as a backstop when negotiating with
| ISPs furthers competition in a market that is otherwise
| mostly devoid of it IMO.
| cat199 wrote:
| > I expect in time (like over the next 80yr) it will
| follow the model of other government services and
| everywhere that can afford the graft, boondoggles and BS
| will have the graft, boondoggles and BS and the Detroits
| and BFEs who simply can't afford to do it wrong it will
| be the only ones left with municipal broadband done
| right.
|
| so, basically what we have now for non-muni net in most
| places with telco+cableco duopoly?
| woah wrote:
| Municipal fiber is a far easier service to provide than
| almost anything else a municipality does. One tiny
| plastic cable into the house. It can be run on telephone
| poles. Plumbing, sewer, and roads are many orders of
| magnitude more complex and expensive to build and
| maintain.
| dominotw wrote:
| > Spectrum has had a stronghold on this region with prices
| they set without any competition.
|
| > Spectrum bullying the competition.
|
| Curious how did Spectrum bully out the competition.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Outside of major urban areas, there is often no bullying
| required. It was not economical 20+ years ago for there
| to be more than one physical cable or telephone provider
| in an area. Moving away from dial-up and DSL (which sit
| on top of phone lines which anyone can buy access to)
| toward cable (and fiber in the past decade) has put the
| power on the cable companies who physically own and
| maintain the lines. Since, in contrast to phones, cable
| has not typically sold access other than direct-to-
| customer, they maintain that same model. They don't sell
| access for someone who buys a fast fiber connection to
| then connect to the cable network and then their cable
| customers "dial into" that person's box. Instead, you
| only get service through the cable company itself.
|
| Because cable requires a massive financial outlay, we end
| up with regional monopolies unless cable companies are
| forced to open up their physical platform to others.
| Which is rare.
| ikiris wrote:
| I heard it costs a lot of money to do these builds, for
| low return. You might even call it a natural monopoly, if
| you believe in such things like basic economics.
| dominotw wrote:
| how does that contrast that with what GP said
|
| > The service will be fully subscriber-funded and end up
| making the town money in several years.
|
| seems like an a business lots of private operators would
| be interested in building.
| viro wrote:
| The GOP argument is kind of highlighted here. Your city
| didn't have to spend any of its own money. while a business
| would have had to spend millions to build then to maintain.
| A business must have ROI and profit to survive(due to
| inflation). Your city doesn't need to any of that.
| harikb wrote:
| > profit to survive
|
| If only they stopped their greed at ... enough profit to
| survive
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Welfare city.
|
| You are welcome.
| nwiswell wrote:
| And you're welcome for your welfare roads.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Welfare fire department, welfare police.....
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| That's hardly a fair comparison they are calling it
| welfare as the town in question didn't pay a cent to get
| it's own broadband.
| thebradbain wrote:
| And most small municipalities don't/didn't pay a cent
| toward the highway construction, either
| thebradbain wrote:
| What's wrong with welfare, "the health, happiness, and
| fortunes of a person or group" ?
|
| [1] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definit
| ion/eng...
| the_only_law wrote:
| This the same state that wanted to make Google a public
| utility?
| Vaslo wrote:
| Are you the same person who wants Google to remain public?
| Arguments like this work both ways.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Not sure exactly what's that's supposed to means, but the
| difference ofc, is I hold no power and my opinions are
| mostly not worth anything.
| imtringued wrote:
| I read a republican article on CO2 taxes and it had exactly
| the same talking points with the exception that CO2 taxes
| artificially increase prices.
|
| I don't know why but the lack of nuance and inability to
| admit that some things can be a good idea given the right
| situation is really getting old. When you are following
| absolutes (with nothing forcing them to be true) you are
| bound to get it wrong eventually.
| ineedasername wrote:
| All of these assume municipal broadband is subsidized by
| taxes.
|
| That might or might not be true, and could vary from example
| to example, but is something you need data to support, and it
| should be possible to determine if such operations are
| revenue positive or negative.
|
| It is also difficult to swallow that it's hostile to
| competition in those cases where the alternative is a private
| monopoly by an ISP. The theory of competition in a free
| market is that it is also beneficial to consumers.
|
| If there is already no potential for private competition,
| then the market has failed and consumers may be harmed. If
| the municipality steps in to offer an alternative-- as long
| as it is not subsidizing it & artificially lowering prices--
| then it is enhancing the competitive landscape.
| takinola wrote:
| Seems like the simple solution is to require that all
| infrastructure be open. Anyone can lease, for a reasonable
| cost (margins set by regulation), the wires that any other
| entity has laid. This way, there is still incentive to lay
| and upgrade infrastructure but you don't get to gouge
| consumers by being the only game in town
| mfer wrote:
| In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a pole
| to run cables to homes to provide cable based broadband.
| Utilities, cable TV companies, telephone companies, and
| municipalities. This is why people want municipal broadband.
| You can't just start an ISP and get on the pole with your
| cable.
|
| > - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It
| artificially lowers prices.
|
| There are many places where municipal broadband is at cost
| rather than subsidized or a hand out. With little to no
| competition the higher prices vs at cost can look funny.
|
| > - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's
| an extra program for the municipality to manage.
|
| Totally. If ISPs could get on poles to run lines to peoples
| homes I expect there would be a lot less of a call for them
| as there would be more capability for competition.
|
| > - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even
| if they don't benefit from broadband access.
|
| I'm not sure about this. If it's at cost or close to it than
| I'd be curious to see the case.
|
| > - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies
| cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government
| pumps money into.
|
| Who can do broadband is constrained by law which is hostile
| to business. You can't just start and ISP and run lines to
| homes. That's against the law most places.
|
| Municipal broadband is often a work around to the other
| hostile laws that benefit telephone companies and cable tv
| companies which have staked out local monopolies most places.
| hardtke wrote:
| Your first point is important. Governments have protected
| citizen's quality of life by restricting the number of
| wires going around on poles and/or digging up of the
| streets. This is why local governments created regulated
| telephone and cable monopolies in the first place.
| Unfortunately the regulated telephone and cable
| infrastructure later become much more valuable due to the
| emergence of broadband internet. The companies that owned
| this infra then loaded up on debt based on the skyrocketing
| value of this infrastructure and we are forced to pay for
| this debt.
| viraptor wrote:
| > In the US there are usually limits on who can get on a
| pole to run cables to homes to provide cable based
| broadband. Utilities, cable TV companies, ...
|
| I wonder if we'll ever see anyone trying to technically
| sidestep this requirement. "We're a TV company, you can go
| to this url to see our 'clear sky 24/7' channel. Also we
| provide internet access."
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| If individual voters have contact with a portion of the
| government that performs well and offers good value, it
| undermines the Republican effort to vilify all publicly
| provided services.
|
| There are other talking points, but making municipal actions
| illegal also stands against GOP talking points around local
| government and control.
|
| It's just an attempt to make sure people don't like their
| government; because liking government is a gateway drug to
| voting against Republicans.
| antattack wrote:
| Government employees tend to vote Democrat.
| fuzzylightbulb wrote:
| citation needed
| antattack wrote:
| Poll: Biden Leads Trump Among Federal Workforce by 28%
|
| https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/09/poll-biden-
| leads-t...
|
| Democrats Lead Ranks of Both Union and State Workers
|
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/146786/democrats-lead-ranks-
| uni...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I suspect that Trump's policies working against the
| federal workforce may have skewed those results.
|
| For an example, see this:
|
| https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/02/white-house-
| rev...
|
| Not sure about state and local government employees.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| Despite all the discussion here, the real answer seems to be
| that there is no such argument. As the article notes, they
| won't even admit they're in favor of it:
|
| > The proposed law was reportedly "inserted without prior
| public discussion," and no state senator publicly sponsored the
| amendment.
|
| It's purely a favor to industry slipped in by some senator.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _The proposed law was reportedly "inserted without prior public
| discussion," and no state senator publicly sponsored the
| amendment._
|
| They aren't even trying to make an argument, since they aren't
| owning up to it. Maybe they were either just hoping it would
| sneak by with no one noticing, or they just let the ISP lobby
| write it and didn't bother to read it themselves.
| justinzollars wrote:
| This GOP argument is the capitalist argument. It also often
| overlaps with centrist Democrats like the Clinton/neoliberal
| view.
|
| The government is not productive. The Government can't create
| broadband because the government doesn't actually create
| anything. But the government can implement a mandate, for
| something like "broadband for all". It sounds great, but it
| will fall short. The Government will inefficiently allocates
| resources leading to downtime and shortages. The free market
| allocates resources properly and will provide better and less
| expensive broadband internet, at no cost to the tax payer.
| azinman2 wrote:
| > The free market allocates resources properly and will
| provide better and less expensive broadband internet, at no
| cost to the tax payer
|
| I think the problem is that the opposite has actually
| happened, which is what motivates municipal broadband.
| jliptzin wrote:
| So then why institute a ban? If opponents are so confident
| that the private sector will do such a good job, let the
| municipality compete with private providers and offer
| residents the choice, see who wins.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Largely because you're running that experiment at the
| expense of tax payers.
| akomtu wrote:
| It's the taxpayers who want it and vote for this
| experiment.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Clearly not all of them or we wouldn't be in this thread
| discussing it under this particular OP. I don't care
| either way though I was just working through what the GOP
| logic likely is. Not representing my own opinion.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| It is rare, in the US at least, for any representative or
| direct democratic situation to ask for _unanimous_
| consent. Someone will almost certainly disagree once you
| get past 1 voter (or one representative), and possibly
| they 'll disagree with themselves.
|
| What's interesting about this case is that the
| municipalities have made moves towards this with their
| own money and efforts. And it is the state which is
| attempting to squash it, that is those around them. It
| would be as if you said to your neighbors, "I'm going to
| try and do something which will have zero impact on you,
| like eating more vegetables that I grow at home." Then
| they all gang up on you and deny you the right to grow
| and consume your own vegetables. If the action were
| harmful to you and your neighbors, like say you decided
| to make meth in your home, then it could be a reasonable
| response.
|
| What about municipal broadband causes harm to those
| outside the community which wants it such that their
| representatives in the state legislature have any
| reasonable standing to try and bar it?
| dr-detroit wrote:
| The infrastructure is/was built with our tax dollars. But GOP
| are freeloader culture they dont want to pay me back just
| take take take and then blame it on the blue place.
| [deleted]
| akomtu wrote:
| Another argument I've seen on redstate (a GOP news agency):
| "and the left keep shifting goalposts of what speed is
| considered broadband, they say you need 1 Gbps, while a typical
| video stream fits in 3 Mbps, and reality is that 25 down / 5 up
| is a great speed!" I guess the big ISPs don't forget to donate
| to GOP.
| nijave wrote:
| Someone aptly mentioned in the Ars thread, Ohio runs an ISP--
| OARnet and it's pretty successful
| draw_down wrote:
| This was such madness for them to do. Love that freedom.
| pyrophane wrote:
| I worry that when things like this happen, the real lesson
| legislators take away is to be be more sneaky about it next time.
| handrous wrote:
| In my state there was a ballot measure passed by a large margin
| (by voting standards, anyway). The legislature _hated_ it (it
| had to do with making gerrymandering harder, among other
| things), so they introduced another ballot measure ASAP that
| read like did a couple very minor things that _seem_ like good
| ideas, provided you don 't think about them too much, and that
| was what the ballot measure highlighted--but also entirely
| undid the most important parts of the prior measure.
|
| It passed by like 1%. They lied and got what they wanted. 0%
| chance a version of that with honest language would have
| passed.
| ianlevesque wrote:
| You are right to worry. Remember net neutrality? Those were the
| days.
| pram wrote:
| Would the broadband situation today be better or worse had the
| Bell System been left in place as a monopoly, with the "universal
| service" mandate?
| gumby wrote:
| The current broadband monopolies/duopolies are strangling the
| US broadband markets (which lag the rest of the OECD), but I
| think a bell world would have been even worse (and I'm a Bell
| system fan!).
|
| One good thing would be that the bell system really pursued
| universal service, and did its best to raise the service
| quality floor (e.g. they did install, or take over party lines,
| but also did the work to eliminate such service for individual
| lines). The QoS requirements in city center (how many times
| they are allowed to have someone pick up a phone and have no
| dial tone; how much capacity they needed to provision (the
| famous Erlang unit) and so on) were the same for almost every
| subscriber.
|
| And even "disconnected" phone lines would still make a 911
| call.
|
| BUT
|
| The flip side of what I said was true too: they didn't deploy a
| service unless they could tariff it and had to. They had a
| circuit-switched mentality and could't deal with packet-
| switched architectures that didn't have a tollbooth. They
| deployed ISDN and considered that an adequate data service.
|
| Their regulation and tariffing also lead to mistakes. For
| example the price to make a call was typically fixed and
| regulated by state regulators. Thus calls to mobile phones were
| the same as non-mobile phones with the person walking around
| paying for the radio charge (there was less capacity) because
| _they_ were the ones benefiting for the convenience. This is
| why mobile phone numbers look the same as fixed ones in the
| USA.
|
| In Europe they went the opposite way: reciving a call on a
| mobile device was free (just like receiving one on a landline)
| while calling a mobile number cost extra. Thus mobile numbers
| had different area codes so the caller could tell. This lead to
| a huge uptake of mobile phones in the GSM territory while the
| US mobile providers were stuck in their old bell mentality,
| causing the US to be 10-15 years behind in mobile calling and
| SMS.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| Take my access to voting I don't care just keep your hands off my
| facebook dopamine drip and high speed pornography.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-29 23:00 UTC)