Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdavis703 | Hacker News Reader

I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but if you believe in a strong free-market with a minimal state then you could argue that the government should not be providing a service that private individuals could provide. Now I think most people are more pragmatic and say "whatever get's the job done," but that's the reason why some people are against many municipal services, including broadband.

View on HN

As someone else pointed out in the comments, then why not have the city put the fiber in the ground, but let private ISPs run the network devices and ISP stuff (ie: a bit similar to TekSavvy in Canada which uses other ISP's infrastructure - I assume they use more than just the fiber though)

The real free market maniacs, don't want the government involved at all, in anything, in any way whatsoever. Private streets, private pipes, private prisons, private judiciary system, private police...

While I think pipes owned by the people and leased to private ISPs is a very interesting solution, I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crowd.

>I don't think it would fly with the zero-government crow

what I don't understand about these people is that they must recognise that comcast essentially functions the same way the dreaded government does. They are just as large, they are just as organised and powerful. But in contrast to the government there is not even a democratic check and balance, and an explicit profit motive.

I would assume someone who likes the 'market' part in 'free market' recognises that a single giant corporate entity is not very market like at all

They basically believe the single-giant-corporate-entity exists only because of government. If government disappeared, all markets would become competitive, single-giants would vanish completely, there would always be choice.

You have a glimpse of a chance of an alternative option if its private. If its done by the government and its bad, you are going to have it for the rest of your life.

Astroturfing.

Where exactly is the "strong free-market" here?

I dont think the state would be better running broadband, but i dont quite see the point of making a law that bans the state from doing it.

There is a matter of unfair competition, as the state can run any service at a loss forever.

If it's cheaper and better-quality (which are certainly not given), then I don't think you could really call it "unfair". At least, in the moral sense, that it would be better for society. If the overriding governmental policy goal is indeed to maximize the public good, not to maximize shareholder value.

It rarely is cheaper and better quality. What if its more expensive, and worse quality, do you get to skip paying the taxes that went into it?

In the moral sense, you've been ripped off if that happens and you have no recourse, and the only thing that was maximized was the good of the public servant, not of the public.

Lets not forget that the monopoly cable and internet companies have has a huge collaboration from the State itself.

For example, why does it have to be government run instead of being a consumer co-op?

Believer in strong free-markets here, and I'm fine with private industry competing with the government as long as the government entity itself isn't propped up by taxpayers cough post office cough amtrak cough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com