[admax88q]

> But that notwithstanding, why is it "unfair" if a community-oriented entity decides to compete with a commercial organisation?

> Public bodies are, after all, funded by tax payers. Who in this case would be the recipients of the service.

Not all tax payers are recipients of the service. The government run entity can collect revenue from all taxpayers regardless of which ones are their direct customers.

That's what makes it "unfair." The private entity has to turn a profit or break even on their sales alone. The government run entity can subsidize their operation by taking funds from general tax revenue.

If one entity is allowed to take always take a loss on their operations how could another entity that needs to pay their employees ever be able to compete?

[vkou]

> If one entity is allowed to take always take a loss on their operations how could another entity that needs to pay their employees ever be able to compete?

So, you're saying that regional loss-leading, and the typical VC business model should not be allowed to exist?

A city's constituents have democratic control over their budget. If they want to use that budget to buy broadband for everyone from a local supplier, that's their prerogative.

Who is the private sector to dictate how I, as a constituent, choose to spend my tax dollars? If I want them spent on a vanity sports stadium project, they'll be spent on a vanity sports stadium project. [1] If I want them spent on providing better broadband to the city, they'll be spent on providing better broadband to the city.

[1] For some reason, nobody ever complains that cities subsidizing the construction of sports arenas is bad anti-competitive behavior that destroys the business model of private sports-arena owners...

[throwaway201103]

> nobody ever complains that cities subsidizing the construction of sports arenas

They certainly do. Many people object to this sort of thing, and say "if it's such a good idea, a private business should be willing to do it." Strangely they tend to not make this argument about things like public transport, even though it's exactly the same thing.

The arguement is that these arenas, convention centers, transit systems, etc. enable more economic activity and generate more tax revenue than they cost. I don't know if that's always (or ever) the case but that's the rationale and it's not insane.