[gigatexal]

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.

[JoshTriplett]

> 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.

[lisper]

> 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?

[JoshTriplett]

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).

[vidarh]

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.

[rayiner]

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.

[vidarh]

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.

[remir]

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.

[JoshTriplett]

Agreed completely; I'd love to see this.

[deusofnull]

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.

[krisdol]

You can't simultaneously advocate for superior free-market solutions and then complain when the government outcompetes the private sector.

[JoshTriplett]

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.

[pgeorgi]

> 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.

[icebraining]

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.

[moosey]

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.

[JoshTriplett]

And I would argue against those too, consistently.

[moosey]

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.

[muninet]

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.

[icebraining]

Arguing about what those services should be is part of the process. Nobody said it's not their "right".

[SaltyBackendGuy]

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>

[doggydogs94]

Sounds like a good business opportunity for you, setting up your own ISP. Go for it.

[asabjorn]

> 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.

[JoshTriplett]

> 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.

[bjelkeman-again]

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.

[asabjorn]

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.

[jamaicahest]

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.

[icebraining]

I assume they'd provide the connectivity to the outside world.

[subroutine]

> 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.

[rayiner]

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.

[subroutine]

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.

[lovich]

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

[kevin_thibedeau]

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.

[Florin_Andrei]

It's almost as if money in politics is the death of ethics. Almost.

[StreamBright]

You mean country. This sort of out of control capitalism does not happen everywhere.

[jdavis703]

> 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."

[averagewall]

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.

[gigatexal]

To that end they didn’t sue Netflix out of existence they created HULU.