Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> By allowing individual municipalities to manage their own Internet infrastructure, we can help keep the Internet from becoming effectively owned by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon

I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership. Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police. These referenda expand their power without rebalancing any checks or balances. We just happen to have something breathlessly more broken in the monopoly ISPs.

Going forward, it would be nice to see cities re-open their networks to private management. The city would continue to own the infrastructure. But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.

View on HN

> I'm nervous about how thoughtlessly we're embracing public ISP ownership.

Don't worry-- states like North Carolina have actually outlawed municipal broadband.

> Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police.

There was municipal wireless in my town after the FCC overruled these state broadband bans, and before the the court ruled against the FCC. Symmetric speeds. Prices prorated according to what the actual speed was instead of the advertised speed. Pretty decent support.

I witnessed these symmetric speeds directly. I also talked directly to the town manager about the program as it was being implemented. The plan was public and presented at a town board meeting. If there was notorious corruption going on it still hasn't affect speed, pricing, or support response for their service.

Very curious to read your references about notorious corruption of local governments.

> But subpoenas, et cetera would be served to the private operator.

Which is exactly what my town has done to be in compliance with the court ruling allowing state-wide municipal broadban bans.

Same speeds. Same prices. Same support. Possibly even some of the same people, but I'd have to look it up to make sure.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Edit: Keep in mind I wrote "pretty decent support" against a baseline of what I think support ought to be in a first world country. If I measured against Comcast I'd call it "support so amazing it may make you cry."

They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government.

> They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government

My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.

OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?

> you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?

Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.

That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.

That's entirely the point and I wouldn't be surprised if this person were a Comcast lobbyist. The goal is to have the public enthusiastically absorb the cost of infrastructure, then introduce inefficiencies designed to sour the public's opinion of municipally-owned internet. The lessees would be able to throttle their own service and blame the infrastructure while raising prices and blaming the cost of leasing. This plants the seed for the public to consider divestment of infrastructure to "lower costs" and "improve efficiency". Then your telco du jour swoops in and offers to buy it all at a fraction of what it would have cost them to invest in the community themselves. In the end the telco ends up with a steal and the residents end up holding the bag.

To me it seems like the best of both worlds. Local government has more limited control with their technical incompetence while private industry doesn't have the ownership leverage to run you around. I want the people I vote for to have control, but I sure as hell don't want them managing, staffing the people for, and maintaining the infrastructure. You can call it "skimming profits", but I just call it IT outsourcing and any reasonable local government should lest they all write their own software and have their own large IT departments. You didn't "already pay for" future maintenance with your past taxes.

I don't see how the local police would have any more access than they would if Comcast were in charge. They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

> They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

Even better, anything they found without a warrant would be thrown out, unlike if Comcast volunteers to give up data about you.

In my ideal world we would be talking about the public utility of having network cables (of some baseline quality) running to every building in a municipality that any number of ISPs can provide the actual service for.

> we would be talking about the public utility of having network cables (of some baseline quality) running to every building in a municipality that any number of ISPs can provide the actual service for

Me too. And I think municipal broadband is the right first step--I'm lobbying for it in New York. But as it scales, we'll move from competent municipalities to incompetent one to evil ones. I'd prefer we figure out the balance of power before Ferguson, Missouri rolls out municipal broadband. (Or before they turn into new Port Authorities and BARTs.)

I'm kind of shocked that you'd openly admit to this kind of behavior. You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities, then intentionally introducing inefficiencies by leasing usage out to said private entities. I'm guessing after customers pay more taxes and still have the same internet bill, you'll then lobby that public internet is a failure and advocate for divestment for some massive discount that will be happily picked up by whatever local monopoly is extorting citizens. Truly disgusting.

> You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities

By this token this describes basically all public infrastructure then. It's not like roads were built with the idea that only public employees would use them.

> then intentionally introducing inefficiencies

Compared to the inefficiency of having ISPs have to build multiple separate physical networks? This service can be provided to ISPs at zero cost if it really worries you.

> I'm guessing after customers pay more taxes and still have the same internet bill.

Well duh, internet is priced based on how much people value it, not how much it costs to provide. Even in a world where the infrastructure is publicly owned no ISP would dare kill the golden calf by significantly cutting prices. ISPs typically compete in the other direction by providing better service at a given price.

> public internet is a failure

This wouldn't be 'public internet' by any reasonable definition, this would be local loop unbundling. It provides the means for an ISP to enter the market without significant construction costs. Any promise that this will reduce prices or lead to better service is purely speculative.

> By this token...

This would be like NYC building a road exclusively for Uber and Lyft, who can then charge you whatever for access via their transport. NYC loses because it then becomes dependent on ride sharing companies to justify its investment, so these companies can negotiate leases toward zero with the constant threat of pulling out.

> ...internet is priced based on how much people value it...

Yes, and it should absolutely not be. It's literally a series of ~~tubes~~ low-voltage power lines.

> Any promise that this will reduce prices...

Which is why it's a terrible idea. Residents should not be footing the bill for infrastructure that exists to create an artificial marketplace of identical (or worse, artificially differentiated) services. Being an ISP is not mysticism and is easily achievable by local government precisely because the majority of being an ISP is owning the wires. It also gives residents the ability to democratically determine what their own priorities are and adjust local QoS based on their own needs.

No its not. That's a huge distinction - these services are held in the public's interest. Not for the profit motive of small group of shareholders. And things like demand having any control or the idea that you can really switch to the "competition" don't actually exist.

Where were you when all of these private companies built-in backdoors for law enforcement anyways.

Seems to me law enforcement having access to our internet activity (presumably moderated by the courts) is better than private companies just selling that data to the highest bidder

The police aren't running the municipal ISP? There's no sense in lumping all "government" into one bucket.

You can vote with your wallet, too.

Many people can't with regards to ISPs. I only have one provider that goes to my address.

Comcast is the sole cable internet provider in my area, and in many areas. I realize that it would be the same scenario for this community (in terms of options), but voting with your wallet is impossible in some communities.

I'm not nervous at all (disclaimer: I support public ownership of infrastructure over private/commercial ownership, stakeholders > shareholders). Local governments are governed by local citizens. I have no impact on Comcast or Time Warner's governance, as either a shareholder or customer. If I don't hold my local government accountable, that's my fault.

My local community owning my roads, sidewalks, water, sewer (storm AND human waste), fire hydrant infrastructure, as well as fire and police services has worked out a-ok. And while I take issue with Florida politics, EVERYTHING is open records. If my local police are corrupt and obtaining data illegally from my muni ISP, I can involve my state's attorney or other legal oversight bodies.

So! The overreaching issue isn't "this is about local internet infra", it's about local governance and self-reliance, which I find it difficult to argue against. Concentrated power corrupts, distributed power empowers.

Obligatory Muni/Startup ISP links: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap | https://startyourownisp.com/

I think OP’s fear is that the quality of local governments varies enormously. Your local government might be awesome. If so, congratulations! Not everyone lives in places with great oversight or has access to the legal means to keep their local government in check. A local government one state over might decide to ban search terms about contraceptives or keep a list of customers visiting LGBT sites for various persecution/blackmail purposes. I grew up in a backwards small town and I could totally see Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends. I’m always skeptical when politicians call for local control of something.

As evil as Comcast is, their scale and need to operate in markets across all political/cultural spectrum makes me more confident that they won’t be messing with my browsing for petty reasons—they just want my wallet.

While I can appreciate your concerns over data firewalls as it relates to local government (privacy advocate, annual EFF donation, yada yada), I would like to see a real world example of it occurring in the US before I'd consider changing my stance on locally owned internet infra vs Comcast, Time Warner, et el (I will even put my money where my mouth is, and come after such a municipality personally with an attorney, that's the sort of thing I find fun).

If Billy Bob the municipal broadband administrator is “sharing his list of fags” with his hillbilly friends, you can FOIA logs, emails, records, and come after the city for their transgression. You can vote local government representatives out of office. If Comcast does this, you have no recourse (and they would even be within their right to sell this data to the highest bidder).

Sometimes reading comments on HN I feel like I stumbled into opposite-land.

Private operators are far more "notoriously corrupt" than local government. At large scale, government representation starts to break down and the will of the majority can become distorted. But at a local level, this is absolutely the better alternative to private ownership of what should be considered a fundamental human right.

Privatization has been a disaster for US broadband. I'd love to know which local governments you're talking about, especially considering that all cases of corruption I've heard center around bribes from private capital to influence public policy. If anything, public internet infrastructure would reduce corruption given the number of local governments that grant statuatory monopolies to telcos.

>"Local governments are notoriously corrupt, in both politics and police."

And yet on the whole they are probably still far less corrupt and corrosive than monopolistic ISPs such Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner(or whatever their calling themselves these days.)

I would argue they are more accessible and accountable as well.

Local governments are the ones that granted these companies the monopolies.

This comment is disingenuous at best. It also displays an ignorance of the history of Telecom in the US.

Cable companies were originally granted charters or franchise agreements in the 1970s and 1980s in the US. At that time cable companies were very much local and regional[1]. Also at that time television was delivered over the air and the monopoly was Ma Bell. Twenty years of consolidation happened at the national level. The victims of this hyper-consolidation were local.

Furthermore these municipal franchise agreements given to cable companies/ISPs are generally non-exclusive which is why there are some areas that actually have a duopoly instead of just a monopoly.

Municipalities will generally grant right away access to other interested parties which is why some places have both Verizon and Comcast or Comcast and Uverse etc. In fact the franchise fees collected by municipalities are a great source of revenue. I don't think there's a city in the US that isn't interested in collecting more money.

NYC recently sued Verizon for failing to fulfill its obligations of providing full coverage(and an alternative to the incumbent) to residents of the city[2]. So no local governments are not to blame for the corrosive and corrupt culture of these ISPs. Certainly not in any appreciable manner.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/14/chart-of-the...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/new-york-city-verizon-internet/

At least if the corruption is local, there's more likelihood for the money to stay in the local economy. A big corporation siphons the money out of zillions of towns and concentrates it in one place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com