[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.