[rayiner]

This is a really good example of how lobbying works. On one hand, these telecom companies have a clear interest in not having to "compete" with cheap, publicly funded broadband. On the other hand, their position just happens to tie in with a broader political debate: states and municipalities are on the verge of bankruptcy, and municipal infrastructure projects are a disaster outside a few well-managed cities like NYC. The telcos aren't incorrect in saying that these sorts of projects often turn into boondoggles, or disproportionately benefit parts of the population,[1] or cost too much and end up underfunded and poorly maintained in the future.

With these lobbying measures, the telcos can tie something that benefits them to a position (municipal infrastructure projects), that many people oppose for entirely different reasons.

[1] It is worth noting that only 1/3 of adults 65+ subscribe to broadband at home, and that many poor people access the internet through libraries or cellular phones instead of home computers.

[jschwartzi]

Yeah, but what does that have to do with their right to build out these projects according to the FCC? The central issue is that the telecoms are lobbying the telecom regulator to prevent municipalities from directly competing because it would be bad for the telecoms.

I don't see the relevance of arguing that the FCC should prevent municipal broadband projects on the grounds that they are a financial boondoggle for the municipalities involved. Plenty of companies in regulated industries fail to generate enough cash flow to stay open yet a company's balance sheet remains unregulated. To suggest that the FCC has any responsibility for a municipality's balance sheet would be quite an expansion of regulatory jurisdiction, to say the least.

I certainly hope that someone at the FCC reads the fiscal arguments in the same way, or else we're really screwed.

[transfire]

By that logic we all better stop using tap water, roads, libraries, schools and parks before we get hit upside the head with that "boondoggle".

[nitrogen]

Honest question, does your repeated support of the cable companies' excuses have anything to do with your living in Philadelphia (per your profile) near Comcast HQ?

[rayiner]

I was in Philadelphia for a one year appointment to work for the federal court here. I have no personal affiliation with Comcast. As for my views favoring cable companies, it's because I'm a disgruntled urbanist. If you think Verizon or Comcast are bad, wait till your internet service becomes the subject of the absolute batshit insanity of American municipal politics.

[beedogs]

The people in Chattanooga don't seem to be complaining one little bit about "American municipal politics" with their 1 gigabit symmetric connections.

We've had to put up with this bullshit from Comcast and TWC for decades. I say let's try the alternative.

[Smudge]

> or disproportionately benefit parts of the population

Wouldn't more people be able to afford internet access under this municipal connection's pricing than under Comcast/Verizon/Time Warner/etc? I have trouble understanding how that would be a disproportionate benefit.

[rayiner]

It disproportionately benefits those who have and use home computers. Almost everyone has a cell phone, but many poor or older people don't have home computers.

[kalleboo]

But increasingly they have Wifi devices such as tablets and smartphones

[jessaustin]

Why do you oppose federalism so? If the rustic uneducated hicks of Chattanooga want to handle internet service differently than the brilliant elites of Philadelphia, in this system they're supposed to be free to do so. Perhaps eventually it will be more clear that Chattanooga has better ideas and policies than the geniuses in the telcos' pocket have. Even then, a federalist would not suggest laws enforcing the new consensus.

[unethical_ban]

>and municipal infrastructure projects are a disaster outside a few well-managed cities like NY

citation needed... I know government has a reputation for being wasteful and corrupt, but weird for you to defend NYC.

[rayiner]

The American Society of Civil Engineers says that U.S. infrastructure is underfunded to the tune of $3.6 trillion: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org. People like to compare municipal broadband to municipal water, but the ASCE gives our water and wastewater systems a grade of 'D'.

I defend NYC because as corrupt as it may be, over the last 20-30 years it has a pretty good record of getting municipal projects done. It has functioning subway, regional rail, etc. It has invested in protecting its water sources, etc.

Most American cities have not done as well as NYC in that regard. E.g. Atlanta's ancient sewer system dumps untreated waste into the city's main river after every heavy rain, and the city's water supply is entirely at the mercy of the water levels in Lake Lanier. After a drought a few years ago, the city came this close to running out of water.

This is not voodoo economics. In the absence of profit motive, you need social consensus and a forward-looking bureaucracy to ensure that public infrastructure receives adequate funding. Most American cities do not have either.

[techsupporter]

> you need social consensus and a forward-looking bureaucracy to ensure that public infrastructure receives adequate funding. Most American cities do not have either.

Absolutely, because it's trivially easy for a somewhat small minority to simply stand around and say "nope, nope, nope, not gonna do any of that" and then retort "why are all of our bridges falling down around our ears?" 10 years hasn't changed anybody's mind, so why not build some Internet connectivity to let people work from home?

[selimthegrim]

I thought Shirley Jackson spent most of her last term jawing about the sewers?

[anigbrowl]

Poorly-planned infrastructure can lead to a lot of red ink, but it seems to me that the leading cause of bleeding municipal balance sheets is underfunded pension obligations.