[jbombadil]

While I agree that people getting internet in this day and age is _basically_ a necessity (and thus the govt should interfere when needed to make that happen), doing it in this way is the worse possible implementation. Was it necessary in this case? I don't know.

First, foster competition. I don't know the NY landscape, but in the West Coast, it's not uncommon for a residency to have effectively a single option for ISP. Ensure consumers have options (incentivize creation of new ISPs? Stop allowing big corporations to buy small ones? break up big corporations and force them to compete?)

Second could the government offer public internet? (ie, be a player in the market).

Only as a last resort should these types of heavy hand price enforcements should be taken.

[donohoe]

There is not much competition in most neighborhoods in NYC, only in the nicer (more wealthier) neighborhoods. This is badly needed for this city.

>> First, foster competition.

The ISPs don't really compete. They lock in certain areas and then harvest it over the years.

>> it's not uncommon for a residency to have effectively a single option for ISP.

Same here. My building has options for Verizon FIOS and Charter/Spectrum and I count myself lucky. Thats usually not the case. In many places I've rented you're stuck with one provider.

>> Second could the government offer public internet?

A municipal ISPs proposal would be challenged in the courts by these ISPs. This scheme is less invasive to the marketplace than that, no?

>> Only as a last resort...

Yes - thats why its happening imho.

[theideaofcoffee]

> Only as a last resort should these types of heavy hand price enforcements should be taken.

Yep, because capital-intensive businesses like ISPs will so generously compete among themselves and the market will identify the one most willing to drive its own price down and get even below the level of the program's lowest-mandated price. All of that competition will surely help their subscribers!

I can feel that free market itching for the opportunity here, any day now.

[vel0city]

> First, foster competition.

What are you imagining, a dozen companies constantly tearing up the streets to lay down yet another run of fiber to everyone's homes?

Once you get to a certain density, things like 5G or Starlink or whatever aren't going to scale. It doesn't make capital sense to have a bunch of companies run practically identical lines to every home.

[toast0]

Line sharing / unbundling / open access, whatever you want to call it is the way for this to work. Ideally, separate companies for last mile access and IP transit.

Drop the customer traffic off somewhere in the region, and let 3rd party ISPs pick it up from there.

[vel0city]

Its almost like modern ISPs are telecommunications providers instead of information services.

Nah, that can't be right.