[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.

[JoshTriplett]

> 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.