5 ms·

Don't get me wrong. I love cheap, fast internet as much as the next guy. But fair is fair... Why should the government be allowed to offer a service below its a

Don't get me wrong. I love cheap, fast internet as much as the next guy. But fair is fair... Why should the government be allowed to offer a service below its actual cost to market? No competitor can possibly hope to match, let alone beat their prices, at least without losing money. I am not a republican, but this is model is extremely unfair to the free market.

bpeebles 14y ago
Why shouldn't a government offer such a service? In fact, most large cities in America already do--parking! Most parking in America is priced well below the market value. (Slightly more arguable but still true: all non-toll (and some toll) public roadways.) Another example are the quasi-governmental agencies that run mass transit systems; none of them approach full revenue recovery in America that I know of. Perhaps an example closer to the "information" and "technology" bent of public broadband? Public libraries function at a loss, in that the direct fees they collect through fines and other revenue generating services come nowhere close to their cost to operate. There are very few (almost none) direct calls for state governments to ban local public libraries and nearly every decries attempts by book publishers in their attempts to crowd out libraries by restrictive, number of check out limited DRM on eBooks. We have long accepted in America, for many arenas, that if a government (whether local, state, or federal) chooses to provide a service at a below market price because they think it's a net benefit to their community. Most private companies don't even complain that much normally, since they can compete against the government at better service or quality, of course. People are willing to pay a premium for that. This is an especially odd place to defend the companies attempting to restrict governments from providing services to their residents, when Telecoms have received huge government subsidies and government sanctioned monopolies for years that allowed them to create a huge infrastructure and head start. If they're really doing so poorly that they feel threatened by much maligned (everybody remember DMV jokes?) local government, they've just been horrible companies and it is a proper place for governments to step in and provide better service.

bpeebles 14y ago

Why shouldn't a government offer such a service? In fact, most large cities in America already do--parking! Most parking in America is priced well below the market value. (Slightly more arguable but still true: all non-toll (and some toll) public roadways.) Another example are the quasi-governmental agencies that run mass transit systems; none of them approach full revenue recovery in America that I know of. Perhaps an example closer to the "information" and "technology" bent of public broadband? Public libraries function at a loss, in that the direct fees they collect through fines and other revenue generating services come nowhere close to their cost to operate. There are very few (almost none) direct calls for state governments to ban local public libraries and nearly every decries attempts by book publishers in their attempts to crowd out libraries by restrictive, number of check out limited DRM on eBooks. We have long accepted in America, for many arenas, that if a government (whether local, state, or federal) chooses to provide a service at a below market price because they think it's a net benefit to their community. Most private companies don't even complain that much normally, since they can compete against the government at better service or quality, of course. People are willing to pay a premium for that. This is an especially odd place to defend the companies attempting to restrict governments from providing services to their residents, when Telecoms have received huge government subsidies and government sanctioned monopolies for years that allowed them to create a huge infrastructure and head start. If they're really doing so poorly that they feel threatened by much maligned (everybody remember DMV jokes?) local government, they've just been horrible companies and it is a proper place for governments to step in and provide better service.