Not knowing if I was remembering correctly, I read through the state constitution, and holy hell, they dedicate like seven pages of the constitution to casino gambling for four gambling facilities. For reference, most other sections are a few paragraphs, at most.
In The Netherlands, both running a lottery and running a physical casinos are reserved for two state-owned companies. By law, half of the profit goes to charity. The rest goes to the government.
In Sweden, the government-owned liquor chain Systembolaget is the only one allowed to sell stuff containing more than 3.5% alcohol. Norway has basically the same thing going on.
The idea is that things like gambling and alcohol consumption have an overall negative impact on society, but completely banning them will cause even more harm. Having a state monopoly makes it easier to promote safe and moderate consumption, as no profit is required and criminal figures are kept out - at least in theory.
Most states would put something along the lines of, "A state gaming commission will be created, with the duties and structure granted to them by the Congress of <state>." Then pass a subsequent law outlining the nitty-gritty details.
IANAL, but I suppose this is the result of some fuckery by the casino owners. It's probably easier to modify the constitution than it is to get actual laws past.
https://stonerdays.com/will-ohio-legalize-a-marijuana-monopo...
It was/is a sensible strategic move to frame cannabis legalization as "regulate it like alcohol"; but looking at the bizarre patchwork of regulations for each state regarding alcohol (a historical side effect of the gradual elimination of Prohibition), a lot of that baggage is now getting carried over to cannabis ("from grain to bottle" compliance -> "from seed to sale").
I personally consider states and investors getting a steep cut or artificial monopoly to be a lesser evil than tolerating the grave injustice of the War on Drugs, but as legalization becomes more normalized, it's worth paying attention to these details and policy trade-offs on new state initiatives.
Source: Coloradan who formerly worked in alcohol compliance.
https://malegislature.gov/laws/constitution#chapterVSectionI
https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/ohio-satellite-in...
> Viasat's plans start at around $50/month and with it you get an unlimited data at speeds up to 50Mbps
Starlink exists:
https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/administra...
wikipedia: > Starlink beta testers have been reporting speeds over 150 megabits per second
Starlink availability is limited for now.
Everywhere else, Republicans are trying to shut muni broadband out. They are colluding with the legacy ISP monopolies to keep speeds low and costs high.
I find this surprising because they don't seem to consider the long term economic damage this will do to their states. Who is going to want to move there to work remotely if the internet is expensive and slow?
Perhaps the incentives just aren’t there to think long term, for either business leaders or politicians.
It's wrong. But then, politics, in its current incarnation, is business.
No matter how you cut it at the end of the day the tax dollars are being squandered on lining pockets they shouldn't be.
Call me a cynic but I guess my thought is that if incremental decreases in qol and poor planning were enough to drive people away from the republican party it would have happened long ago.
Republican state and national leaders, on the other hand, are generally more concerned about their political narrative. They're not the ones impacted by the crap broadband in the cities.
You convince them that governments are intrinsically ineffective, that the private sector will systematically perform better. This is presented almost as a law of nature, if you disagree you simply don't understand economics.
The existence of a clear and prominent counterexample (a government-run competitor outperforming privately owned businesses) is pure poison to this story, so they cannot allow it to exist.
They -- knowingly, deliberately -- choose to hurt the people they represent and the economy of their state to save their political platform.
That's what Republican 'free enterprise' looks like.
Except reality[0] doesn't comport with your statement. That's not to say that the bills proposed are perfect, but they are from one party (and not the one trying to block municipal broadband in OH).
Just some food for thought.
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-a...
Did you even read the article you linked? There's clear Republican involvement...
"“Big Tech companies are stifling American innovation with their monopolistic behavior,” said Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Tex.), who co-sponsored two of the bills.""
"Bipartisan movement
It’s unclear whether any of these bills will pass. The last one, the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act, appears most likely at this point since it’s a relatively incremental piece of legislation that already has bipartisan support in both chambers. But the fact that the other bills, which garnered bipartisan support in the otherwise highly partisan House, suggests that a major overhaul of antitrust law may be imminent, even if these specific bills don’t survive."
>Except reality[0] doesn't comport with your statement.
Let me know when they pass....
Also, this just reinforces the argument for projects like Starlink -- which could change the game in rural broadband. Conservatives have a lot of motivation to oppose government programs and that does not necessarily make them corrupt.
What America needs is more intellectual + centrist + pragmatic conservatism to counter Trumpist BS, not necessarily more government programs....
Not everything is about the individual cost/benefit, and individuals can benefit from society wide benefits.
I don't think this is about Trump, GOP governments have failed to reduce government programs for 5 decades now, and almost always resulted in more deficits: https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*pqIXolEpzpTNktAgIclA-A.png
From the outside (I'm not from the US) it looks like the small government talking point has been empty rhetorics since inception.
The free market in the United States for broadband Internet has failed. Time for plan B.
There's plenty of options
Why isn't the market providing that competition? Why can't you run fiber through your sewer for example? who owns the sewer?
Demand is not that simple. There could be tons of latent demand and the internet seems to be one of those things that seems to show induced demand as well. People are incredibly adaptive and may be working around the problem of crappy internet one way or another.
If there was just straight up "demand", these near-monopoly ISPs form a market of "you can't vote for whoever you want as long as I get to choose the candidate" type systems. That does not a healthy market make and supply/demand do not work out like it does in econ 101 textbooks in unhealthy markets.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/04/04/13684/how-the-in...
"the drop in religious upbringing, the increase in college-level education and the increase in Internet use—that together explain about 50 percent of the drop in religious affiliation."