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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
My original comment very specifically said "If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband". I'm well aware that we don't, and because we don't, I don't consider it anti-competitive to provide infrastructure that the private sector has failed to.
> 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.
If they can do so without charging people who don't use the service, then by all means, they should. For instance, start a broadband co-op.
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.