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:
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.
> 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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
> 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."
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 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...
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 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.
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.
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/