[vkou]

Why would I, as a citizen, give two figs about fair competition?

All I want is good service, on the cheap.

If the government can provide good service, and have zero-profit margin, that's fantastic. That's actually the best possible outcome. If the government service sucks, then their zero-profit margin should not be a significant enough competitive advantage to drive out competitors.

In addition to all that, all the criticisms of the zero-profit margin model fall apart in a world where VCs and conglomerates frequently operate local services at a loss, in an effort to capture market share (So that they can later raise prices).

[icebraining]

> If the government service sucks, then their zero-profit margin should not be a significant enough competitive advantage to drive out competitors.

Except it's not just a zero-profit margin; it's the money that you pay in taxes for that municipal ISP, which you cannot decide to allocate instead to another ISP. If you want to use an alternative ISP, you have to pay both.

If the public ISP doesn't actually receive tax money, then why would the government need to start it? Anyone can start a non-profit ISP.

(Note: I'm not saying I'm against the idea, just arguing a specific point)

[michaelt]

Depends on the extent to which internet access is a fungible commodity, as opposed to different ISPs having different products.

If you had a choice of 10+ ISPs you could choose between a low-low-prices ISP that sells your browsing data to marketers, has a contention ratio of 50:1, and tries to shake down Netflix for peering money; a premium ISP with a great contention ratio and good speeds for netflix and youtube; an uncensored, privacy-loving ISP; a family-friendly ISP with powerful porn-blocking options; and so on.

[mperham]

Indeed, this is also the argument for universal healthcare.