https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/gop-plan-for-bro...
Remember that Republicans tried to ban municipal broadband federally only two months ago! Just an absurdly, transparently corrupt move.
Remember that Republicans tried to ban municipal broadband federally only two months ago! Just an absurdly, transparently corrupt move.
We'd be better served by providing the names of the ones who introduced it instead of a blanket statement making it sound like all Republicans supported this, especially when at the local level where it really matters they did not support it, they did the exact opposite.
Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.)
The general idea that there should be competition is good, just not going about it by blocking attempts to create municipal broadband. I'd like to still have the choice to choose private companies if I feel the public option isn't meeting my needs.
(This somehow leads to the conclusion that government services are bad.)
The “unfairness” is simple. You regulate the entity who runs your muni fiber operation, and if they don’t meet your metrics you’re measuring success by, you replace them (whether that’s internal folks or an org contracted to provide services).
TLDR Ramp muni fiber deployments with rigorous operational oversight as a requirement.
What you can't do is pretend that private broadband companies would be competing with municipal broadband on equal footing.
What is a requirement is acknowledging the unequal footing.
I had assumed we all felt comfortable using “public/private” as a shortcut for all of these differences, but am learning that is not necessarily shared. In terms of moving the discussion forward, what were you hoping to achieve by pointing out some of these facts?
No they won’t. Public projects can be setup to require that they are revenue neutral or positive.
The municipality provides the fiber network. All ISPs rent dark fiber, local loops, wavelengths or bitstream access on equal open access terms.
All on equal footing and equal terms.
Given how many people actually have multiple options in the last mile, it’s not a natural monopoly.
So in reality I have a choice of two wired providers. Imagine how great our food would be if the only restaurants available were either Burger King or McDonalds. What a competitive marketplace!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
It might not be limited to just one for all markets, but two choices isn't very competitive due to the massive infrastructural costs and other barriers of entry (e.g., rights of way). Also, my current residence is an example where there actually is competition. As pointed out above, just because the FCC says there's 2+ broadband providers they're including two satellite providers. So a lot of those 3 provider places are really single wireline providers.
Once again, is a market where all restaurants are either McDonalds or Burger King an example good competition?
I have a neighbor that refuses to use running water. Should the infrastructure be routed around their property?
Should they be forced to use running water?
They have the money to do it, but prefer refilling the 5 gallon jugs.
If a city provides any service: water, sewer, broadband, from property taxes, its going to be really really hard for any company to compete with that.
So you can make the case for municipal broadband, but don't pretend that private ISPs are going to compete with it.
In fact, the Republican perspective is the opposite; that government-provided options will be invariably be worse value for money - this is why Republicans favor privatization.
I think the Republican objection is to general revenues being used to operated a subsidized Internet service.
If that is what you mean by "government-supported", then there is a reasonable argument to be had about whether forcing everyone to pay for the municipal option through taxes really results in a fair competitive landscape for private providers.
It’s easy to champion crap when everyone else is paying for it :p
Republicans argue that government run programs are filled with waste, excess, and decreased output b/c they don't have a profit motive. That was the case with Soviet manufacturing operations, Chinese farming, and the US Veterans Affairs Hospitals. The Soviets could never get the right products when they were needed b/c manufacturing decisions where made from a centralized location, not by the people that needed certain goods. China used to control farming, until one day they had the bright idea to let the farmers control farm output. Chinese farming production has increased by multiples of it's government mandate levels. The VA Hospital system is the worst healthcare system in US, in terms of quality of car and lead time for an appointment. And the US Government doesn't cover military connected injuries at non-VA Hospitals.
The problem Republicans (in general) have with government-run businesses is not that they operate at a lower cost and so thwart competition, but that they seem to operate at a lower cost because they run on tax dollars rather than on paying customers. Combine that with the fact that the government is not incentivized to make the business profitable and you have a lot of wasted resources used to provide a service that isn't any good but is so cheap to the end user (not to the taxpayer) that it's impossible to compete.
Whether this model of government-run systems is accurate is open to debate, but it's not helpful to set up straw men.
In light of this new budgetary crisis created entirely by private business one of their attempts to generate revenue was to sell merch. For a short time you could buy an Official USPS Outfit Dog Costume for example, and it was actually working. Republicans saw them doing that and passed regulation saying no you can’t sell merch or do anything outside delivering mail.
The post master general at the time said fine, if we can’t raise money other ways then we need to raise rates. Guess what republicans did. They told them to piss off. After kneecapping the usps they just pointed at them and used them as an example of bad government which they themselves caused. Classic “starving the beast”
The narrative republicans have around government inefficiency is either wrong or entirely self inflicted. The USPS is just my favorite example.
And if the republicans actually cared they’d propose alternatives and be active in the legislative process with an intent on servicing the “average” American. Trying to ban municipalities federally does nothing but obstruct and protect their corporate funders. That is unacceptable
Try arguing with what people actually say instead of making a strawman of some Facebook meme.
The Democrats could just let the post office be privatised then run their own, on the side, out of to the Democrat HQ. It'd give them an electoral edge delivering pamphlets too.
The reason they can't do this is because the post office, fundamentally and inescapably, doesn't generate enough revenue to justify running it the way they want to. The Democrat voters don't want to bear the cost of the service they want. And the Republicans have noticed this.
if it's self inflicted, then it's not wrong. the fact that they can hamstring important services/bills for purely political reasons and still get away with it at the polls is a great example of how perverse incentives in government lead to mismanagement. if you want to persuade me that X government service will be run efficiently, you need to first convince me that a certain mainstream party will not be able to sabotage it.
I grew up (and still live and work) in a forever-red conservative state. My dad was a glutton for conservative political news, so I grew up immersed in Fox News, Hot Air, Instapundit, Glenn Beck, Drudge Report, you name it. I'm still surrounded by conservative commentary, both educated and ignorant, at every social function I attend.
In all my years of exposure to conservative thought, I have not once read or heard someone say that their concern with the government doing a task is that they'll do it too well. Where do you hear it?
FFS that’s not why republicans have problems with the government services. The issue isn’t that government doesn’t have to make a profit, it’s that it doesn’t have to be sustainable at all (i.e. it doesn’t even have to bring in enough money to support itself unlike a non-profit).
Additionally, nobody is afraid the government is going to be “better quality”. That’s not the case in most markets where the government operates.
The concern is that the government can operate a service financially unsustainably and and offer a shitty service for so cheap that it destroys the market for better services.
A government-funded high-speed deployment of 20mbps to the house that goes out for an hour during the night and occasionally disconnects for a few seconds throughout the day that only costs $2.99/mo will destroy the competition, run a deficit, and people will have worse service because of it.
When you take someone's money by threat of violence under the premise that doing so is a net positive for society you have a much greater obligation to pursue that result and sustainability is one of many considerations when it comes to whether or not something is a net positive for society.
You're a hypocrite, picking and choosing your argument to suit your position.
The same thing will happen to you if you don't pay your taxes or don't pay back your credit card debt.
And the extremely unlikely end result, jail, is exactly the same for both public and civil debt.
And that's the trouble with these stupid arguments. Not only are they childish extremes, anyone using them are all just massive hypocrites who want to pillage the commons for their own gain and have the rules always work in their favour, conveniently different when it comes to reining in monopolies, or using their excessive wealth to force others out of business, it all depends on which side they stand to gain most money out.
Then they just flip their argument on its head to justify their privileged position, which is maintained by a threat of violence.
Setting aside that obvious gaff, you’re comparing individuals being prevented from stealing people’s property to the government being allowed to. It doesn’t really make any sense.
Because it’s not tax payer money being squandered. How is that so hard to grasp?
Rich people run out of money making stupid bets. The federal government does not.
The UK does not have any low cost healthcare providers because you can’t compete with a tax payer funded organisation.
Now, do government services tend to be better? That’s another question.
It doesn't make sense to run multiple companies' fiber to each home.
But yes, in most areas there isn’t enough demand for internet to deploy fiber multiple times.
That is not "blatantly corrupt". In fact, closing a market to the public companies and forcing everyone to use a city-run broadband is a lot more concerning.
The source of corruption is through PACs that support candidates without the candidates consent or guidance (either ostensibly or actually).
You can either give a candidate a few thousand dollars directly or you can spend an unlimited amount of money telling people how great you think the candidate is. Only the former is lobbying.
Money in Politics, especially when it's perfectly legal, is a massive, massive problem. It's literally impossible to get fair and impartial leaders who will make decisions in the interest of the common person when corporations are spending millions and millions.
Right now a judge sitting on the highest court in the entire country is hearing a case involving a company who openly and directly paid to have her elected into that position. I don't care if that person is from the right or left (or middle), there is no universe where that is a good thing, or should be allowed.
Having a Supreme Court Justice you paid preside over your court case sounds like a very perverted form of Justice under Democracy to me.
That's illegal.
The advertising is given no strings attached. The only incentive that you (the politician) have to vote for things that favor the company is that, if you don't, they may not advertise for you next time.
The "fun" part of this whole thing is that the money those companies spend isn't really the issue, it's the fact that the money is helpful to influence people. Comparatively, if a person of non-political celebrity tweets that they like a candidate, they might muster much more influence than say, Exxon could for the same candidate. Now that candidate is just as beholden to the interests of that celebrity as one might be to a corporation.
In effect, the PAC money really is just taking money away from influential individuals and commoditizing it.
I, personally, don't really see a difference. It's not like pre-Citizens United America was some sort of paradise. Most people perceive it as worse but I just see it as different. I, personally, still have a similar amount of political power and influence.
And also that if you do, you may be able to go and work for them for good compensation when your political career is over.
When an oil company buys advertising to a candidate, both parties know it's going to be in exchange for votes that favor the oil company. To claim anything else is bad faith. I THINK we're in agreement here?
If so, I don't think it's correct to call it "no strings attached". The politician might not be contractually bound to votes in favor of oil, but if they want to still have a job at the end of their term, they're somewhat forced to.
Which shouldn’t be surprising as politics covers such a wide range of issues it would be strange for most of them to have strong views on every issue. Frankly it’s people who don’t care one way or the other are who you try and influence.
Politicians care about getting re-elected. That's the power fulcrum or pressure point.
Lobbying includes all attempts to influence legislators.
PACs are just a legal fiction to circumvent a law, the effect is the same: support those who's policies you prefer.
The article you posted said something else, that the bill was to ban government-run broadband in an area that has private competition.
From your link:
The bill "would promote competition by limiting government-run broadband networks throughout the country"
and
States or municipalities that already offer Internet service may continue to do so if "there is no more
than one other commercial provider of broadband Internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area."Not quite. It bans new government-run broadband everywhere regardless of whether or not there would be private competition in the area. In areas that already have government-run broadband, it allows that to continue as long as that area does not have more than one private provider.
It says in 2(a):
> Except as provided in subsections 3(b)(1) and (c), a State or political subdivision thereof may not provide or offer for sale to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a commercial provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service.
Subsection 3(b) starts thusly:
> Any State or political 9subdivision thereof providing or offering for sale, either to the public, a telecommunications provider, or to a provider of broadband internet access service, retail or wholesale broadband internet access service, before the date of the enactment of this section
and continues in 3(b)(1) (the first exception mentioned earlier):
> notwithstanding subsection (a), may continue to provide or offer for sale such service if the Commission finds there is no more than one other commercial provider of broadband internet access that provides competition for that service in a particular area
and on 3(c) contains the second exception:
> Notwithstanding subsection (a), this section does not apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority