[dchuk]

I’m failing to think of a single reason why it would ever be legally acceptable for a government to ban municipal broadband. I understand the whole corporate shill stuff, I’m speaking literally from the arguments FOR the ban...how is it justified at all?

[intopieces]

Preface: Whether these fears are reasonable I am not saying either way. I am answering your question about how a ban on municipal broadband could be justified.

Another way to describe municipal broadband: state-run media pipeline. Allowing the government to control the last mile of the Internet. Port all those fears you have about Comcast violating net neutrality, stifling competition, spying on users.. Now, increase the power from "firm that can put other firms out of business" to "group of people who can put other people in jail."

[s73ver_]

I think those fears are extremely far-fetched because:

1). Don't most places that do this set up a company? As in, it's a company that happens to have one of it's owners as the city.

2). Does anyone honestly think that if such a thing were to happen, that private ISPs like Comcast would somehow, magically be exempt? That the government official would be like a Scooby Doo villan, saying, "Curses! I'd have gotten away with the censorship and spying if it wasn't for you meddling private ISPs!"

[leepowers]

> state-run media pipeline

I have similar concerns but I think municipal would win out:

1) The First Amendment protects us against government interference with free speech. It does not apply to private companies like Comcast - they face no such constraints. This is especially true with the current FCC, where they're considering excluding internet utilities from common carrier rules. It's far more likely that Comcast would be granted monopoly or duopoly status by a local government, and then use that privileged position to control or censor speech or net traffic it unilaterally deems unacceptable, with no recourse or restraint that the First Amendment provides.

2) With municipal broadband citizens can always go to the ballot box and elect new leadership to increase transparency, accountability, and service level. What rights does the citizenry have to monitor and audit Comcast's decision making process? Zero. It's a private company beholden to shareholders - a situation that's often orthogonal to free speech and individual rights.

3) The public utility models works extraordinarily well for gas, electricity, water, sewage, garbage, streets, and other essentials for our modern life. Internet access can also thrive under this model, as like other utilities it is a natural monopoly.

[menacingly]

I felt the same way about prison guard unions lobbying against legal recreational weed. Like, what even is a good thing you could pretend this is about?

[jedberg]

Protecting children from harmful drugs. I'm not saying it does that, I'm saying that's the argument to be made.

[yalph]

But it is not harmful.

[jedberg]

I'm a big supporter of legal weed, but even I know better than that. It's less harmful than alcohol, and about on par with caffeine.

There are definitely effects from long term use. Both science and my personal anecdata of long time smoking friends tell me that.

[jon_richards]

It is harmful, it's just almost certainly less harmful than alcohol.

[jdavis703]

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but if you believe in a strong free-market with a minimal state then you could argue that the government should not be providing a service that private individuals could provide. Now I think most people are more pragmatic and say "whatever get's the job done," but that's the reason why some people are against many municipal services, including broadband.

[kevindqc]

As someone else pointed out in the comments, then why not have the city put the fiber in the ground, but let private ISPs run the network devices and ISP stuff (ie: a bit similar to TekSavvy in Canada which uses other ISP's infrastructure - I assume they use more than just the fiber though)

[sliverstorm]

The real free market maniacs, don't want the government involved at all, in anything, in any way whatsoever. Private streets, private pipes, private prisons, private judiciary system, private police...

While I think pipes owned by the people and leased to private ISPs is a very interesting solution, I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crowd.

[Barrin92]

>I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crow

what I don't understand about these people is that they must recognise that comcast essentially functions the same way the dreaded government does. They are just as large, they are just as organised and powerful. But in contrast to the government there is not even a democratic check and balance, and an explicit profit motive.

I would assume someone who likes the 'market' part in 'free market' recognises that a single giant corporate entity is not very market like at all

[sliverstorm]

They basically believe the single-giant-corporate-entity exists only because of government. If government disappeared, all markets would become competitive, single-giants would vanish completely, there would always be choice.

[conanbatt]

You have a glimpse of a chance of an alternative option if its private. If its done by the government and its bad, you are going to have it for the rest of your life.

[tsbertalan]

Astroturfing.

[borvo]

Where exactly is the "strong free-market" here?

[conanbatt]

I dont think the state would be better running broadband, but i dont quite see the point of making a law that bans the state from doing it.

There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.

[tsbertalan]

If it's cheaper and better-quality (which are certainly not given), then I don't think you could really call it "unfair". At least, in the moral sense, that it would be better for society. If the overriding governmental policy goal is indeed to maximize the public good, not to maximize shareholder value.

[conanbatt]

It rarely is cheaper and better quality. What if its more expensive, and worse quality, do you get to skip paying the taxes that went into it?

In the moral sense, you've been ripped off if that happens and you have no recourse, and the only thing that was maximized was the good of the public servant, not of the public.

Lets not forget that the monopoly cable and internet companies have has a huge collaboration from the State itself.

[carry_bit]

For example, why does it have to be government run instead of being a consumer co-op?

[donatj]

Believer in strong free-markets here, and I'm fine with private industry competing with the government as long as the government entity itself isn't propped up by taxpayers cough post office cough amtrak cough.

[rayiner]

Preface: I think we should have municipal options in places with adequate service (as a backstop, because I also think we should eliminate build-out obligations that require private companies to serve insuffiently profitable subscribers.)

That said, municipal governments are not sovereign entities, they derive all their authority from the state. States get to decide, as a general matter, what to make a public service and what to leave to the private market. Moreover, municipal governments do lots of stupid short sighted things. Remember, they’re the ones who are responsible for giving companies monopolies in the first place, which Congress had to step in an fix in the Cable Act of 1994.

There is also another matter of politics to consider. Municipal services are heavily unionized. Telecom services are also pretty heavily unionized, but less so. By shifting telecom from a private service into a public one, you’re giving more power to public unions. That’s not a good reason to oppose municipal broadband, but its undoubtedly a major consideration.

[noobermin]

The last argument there seems one that would appeal to people on the right only who would be against this because it's considered "big government" anyway.

[tptacek]

I'm on the left, am extremely pro-union (I think tech needs to organize ASAP), and I'm troubled by public sector unions. Private sector unions have different incentives than public sector unions, and there's a pretty obvious track record of abuses among public sector unions.

[rayiner]

The AFSCME (lobbying organization for public employees) is in the top 5 for campaign contributors since 1990 and supports Democrats almost exclusively. Lots of republicans who aren't hardline ideologues oppose expending the influence of public employees' unions.

[s73ver_]

Given that the GOP constantly disparages and insults them and their members, I can completely see why they wouldn't want to support GOP candidates.