[jjawssd]

> 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.

[hexane360]

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?

[cderwin]

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.