[theothermkn]

> Because city governments are really great at investing appropriately in infrastructure!

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis

This sketch of a sketch of an argument that you have laid out it a total non sequitur. It seems to me that you're pointing to the Flint water crisis as proof either that all municipal infrastructure efforts are disastrous, or that enough of them are that the public utility alternative is essentially dead. If that is the "argument," then the easiest way to defeat this is just to say, "Flint was news because it represented a rare and egregious failure."

That's it. That's all we need to say to rebut that in its entirety.

If we stop there, however, we miss the opportunity to point out the converse: It's not news when customers get gouged for sub-par service, because corrupt and monopolistic practices are rampant within capitalist institutions, especially around lock-in. Cable companies. Phone companies. Privatized utilities. Airlines after deregulation. Military suppliers. It's just not news.

We'd also miss the opportunity to point out that the tactic of pointing to one criminal failure of a civic organization as proof positive that private industry is universally better is a favorite tactic of a certain obnoxious kind of 20-something free-market fanboy set.

HN is better off when that set either stays home or ups its game.

[rayiner]

Our public infrastructure spending is trillions of dollars behind: https://next.ft.com/content/6aa759f8-16c0-11e6-b197-a4af20d5....

Flint is an extreme example, but almost all municipal water systems are a disaster. In Atlanta, the sewer system dumps raw sewage in the Chattahoochee when it rains. In Chicago, old lead pipes are poisoning kids. It happens because rates are set by elected boards, not by markets, and because municipalities are not forced to bear the external costs of poor infrastructure.

[selectodude]

Most large cities in the world use combined sewer systems, so that's definitely not a US infrastructure thing.

In Chicago, old lead pipes are actually becoming an issue due to the city replacing the pipes themselves. Can't win 'em all.

[snowwrestler]

U.S. broadband speed and cost lag other industrialized nations too. The only general lesson here is that the U.S. is big and infrastructure is expensive.

[rayiner]

Does speed lag? Akamai says otherwise.

[snowwrestler]

Your comment made me go look it up. Q1 2016 Akamai report ranks the U.S. 16th for average download speed. ZDnet currently ranks the U.S. 41st for average speed on their broadband speed test though. Both are obviously non-random samples, but Akamai probably has a less skewed distribution.

I thought it was interesting that for the % of homes with at least 4mbps service, Akamai ranked the U.S. 44th globally at 88%. That's another way to look at infrastructure: how many folks have broadband at all?

Whether these numbers count as "lagging" is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. We're not top ten in any category.

[rayiner]

See my post to the other reply. We're ahead of Canada, Australia, and the other big, economically diverse European countries. I don't think that counts as lagging.

[TeMPOraL]

Doesn't it? I thought it's common knowledge the US has the worst Internet infrastructure out of all first world countries. The prices I see mentioned here for residential connections seem to confirm that. It also seems that download caps for residential connections are a thing there, which is a practice I personally consider barbaric.

[rayiner]

Akamai's State of the Internet always shows average connection speeds in the US being faster than the UK, France, Spain, and Germany. The dense northeastern states are as fast as the Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. 5 US states have more than half of connections above 15 Mbps, while only one European country does ( Norway ). It is more expensive, though.

DSL is still the primary broadband technology in the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, while cable is in the US: http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/fast-fiber-optic-broadband-sprea...

[harryh]

Flint is an extreme example, but underinvestment in infrastructure is not rare. It's endemic. Governments across the country are underinvesting in infrastructure at all levels. It's not just me who's saying this. It's been a major talking point of the democratic party for years.

And that's for infrastructure like roads and water delivery where technology is largely static. The problem would likely only be worse for more dynamic infrastructure like broadband.

[dredmorbius]

In large part because the wealthy, and corporations, have entirely shirked their taxpaying obligations. That is: paying for the services which enabled them to become wealthy in the first place.