For one municipal broadband can be profitable without subsidies. It can be run by local governments but can also be spun off after the infrastructure is built etc.

They're not unreasonable at face value (obviously, that's how the game works) but they're entirely in bad faith as none stand up to any real scrutiny. US political discourse is about boiling a complex system down to feel good talking points that sound snazzy and evoke strong emotions.

"government handout" leading language, no substance

various "expands government" also leading, still no substance/data

"hostile to business" obviously, that's the point. Private enterprise has failed here and created a number the most customer hostile organizations in existence.

Well, how much time do you have?

To start, all arguments about price are nonsense. Cities offer broadband because it's cheaper per household. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. Right-wingers are threatened by this fact because it's yet another disproof of their claim that the free market can do everything better than government.

Arguments about business being unable to compete with government are irrelevant in the case of utilities needed by everyone, since free market principles break down in innumerable ways.

- Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices.

Artificially lowers price in what sense? Unless it's operating at a loss, it's just another market participant. In my experience with municipal broadband, this was the case. Their prices were below the other options, but they were operating at a profitable level (not a high profit, mind you). But with the general race to the bottom on prices, short of very high demand or collusion, their prices weren't really that much cheaper than what the local cable company would have dropped to if there'd been real competition (in fact, I had to go through the local cable company because I was in an apartment that had contracted them, and the cable company got to add a $5/month fee while doing nothing but billing).

- Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage.

This one is kind of true, however the billing (if you weren't like me) what through the same office that handled other municipal utilities (in that area, water and sewer were billed by the county). The labor itself was contracted out, both for the initial roll out and the maintenance. This potentially adds some oversight positions but we're not talking about hundreds of extra government jobs here. And actually, if what I was told was correct their contract went to their competitor, the local cable company who had opted not to roll out their own high-speed service in the area (which precipitated the local push for municipal broadband).

- Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access.

The program covered its own costs. Residents choosing not to participate were not charged. So it was only a tax on those residents who elected to participate in the program, but those residents were also getting better service for 50-75% lower prices compared to the old DSL and dial-up in the area (NB: This was in the late 00s, dial-up and low-speed DSL as the best options in a college town with several major businesses is insanely stupid.)

- Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.

The local cable company could have competed, again, if what I was told was correct. It was their own labor that put the fiber and last-mile connections in place.

For many goods and services, they are actually quite reasonable requirements. Internet access, however, is a form of public infrastructure, regardless of whether it is administered by a for-profit corporation or a government.

> - Municipal broadband expands the role of government. It's an extra program for the municipality to manage.

It requires physical infrastructure, and that physical infrastructure needs to reach people's houses. That, in turn requires the use of public resources (streets) and/or eminent domain. In short, government is already involved.

> - Municipal broadband is a government handout. It artificially lowers prices.

The level of infrastructure investment required makes it hard to justify new for-profit investment, especially if the area is already being served or isn't populated enough for the company to make a profit. As a result, internet access providers naturally tend towards being a monopoly, which in turn artificially increases prices.

> - Expanding government programs is a tax on residents, even if they don't benefit from broadband access.

I can see where this point is coming from, and it's not wrong. At this point, however, even those who don't directly benefit from internet access seem like they benefit indirectly. It's also worth noting that a lot of locales (mine included) already pump money into corporate broadband providers to entice them to build and maintain the infrastructure. In other words, the tax gets applied, regardless of whether it's a for-profit corporation reaping the benefits or not.

> - Municipal broadband is hostile to business. Companies cannot reasonably compete with a service that the government pumps money into.

Companies already can't compete with a service that requires enormous infrastructure investments and the use of government property.

Internet access (and most large-scale infrastructure) is different due to the heavy infrastructure investment required.

- It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out that sort of infrastructure in an area that isn't populated enough to allow the organization to make a profit.

- It's hard to convince a for-profit organization to build out a second set of infrastructure in an area that already has it, as increasing competition will lower prices and make it harder to make a profit on the investment.

- Building out multiple redundant infrastructures can also be a hassle for normal citizens. More closures due to maintenance/construction work, more use of eminent domain, more unsightly telephone poles, etc...

In short, Internet access tends towards being a monopoly. With that in mind...

- Artificially lowering prices is a good thing if it counters the natural tendency of a monopoly to push prices up. - Expanding the role of government is a bit of a non-argument, since

Competing internet providers still need to invest in last mile costs, which are prohibitively expensive (just like roads).

Why is competition the goal? Because it ultimately lowers prices for consumers? That is what municipal internet achieves.

> In general I am of the opinion that fostering competition results in the best internet.

How do you square this with that the US trails all the more heavily regulated internet infrastructures in the rest of the world?

> for some rural areas

Not just rural. I live in a medium density suburban metro and we can't get more than one provider to compete. They've divvied it up amongst themselves so they maintain a monopoly in their area.

"competing internet providers" I wish this was the case. I have lived in 6+ homes in the last 15 years and I cant remember a single time I had a choice of internet provider. They seem to have an agreement amongst themselves to not compete.

That's all well and good - but when there are 88.3m Americans that have only a single ISP serving them, that model breaks down.

In this case, the competition only seems to come from municipal broadband, so to your argument that fostering competition results in the best internet, the status quo currently in operation is in opposition to that.

>In general I am of the opinion that fostering competition results in the best internet.

I wholeheartedly agree.

That said, I posit that municipal broadband, implemented as wired infrastructure to the premise, fosters competition rather than limits it.

IIUC, most planned/completed municipal broadband networks only provide last-mile connectivity, while internet connectivity is (or will be) provided by private ISPs.

This definitely fosters competition because a broader set of ISPs can service these customers since they don't actually have to run wires to each premise, rather they just need internet uplinks from the municipal broadband interchanges.

What's more, we can even have private or quasi-public[0] businesses/entities using ISP connection fees to manage and maintain the last-mile infrastructure. Quite possibly with a surplus for upgrades/support for other municipal programs.

That leads to more competition and not less.

I suppose it's possible that my analysis is flawed, but I'm not seeing how. If I missed/glossed over some stuff, I'd appreciate being corrected.

[0] Such as the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTA_Bridges_and_Tunnels )

Edit: Added cited reference.

Isn’t it physically inefficient and wasteful to have multiple companies running fiber through a neighborhood? Why not run one set of fiber and let companies compete for the customers on those lines?

The Amish don't get the benefit of all the highways in their area, generally don't need paved roads, and don't send their children to public school. Additionally they are pacifists who don't believe in war.

They still pay taxes that fund all of that.

My grandmother became interested in computing and learned how to use the internet in her 80's before she passed away a decade later. The number of people who don't require or want internet access going into the future is going to be very few.

I generally don't need a fire department every day either. That doesn't make it a good idea to sever the connection to that utility.

Other replies to you post make some good points, but there is also the fact that having a fiber line running to her property significantly increases the value of the property and attractiveness to future purchasers.

You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force.

You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative.

I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?

That's how taxes work. I don't have any children, but my taxes fund schools. My house isn't burning down, but my taxes fund fire departments. I don't commute with a car, but my taxes fund bridges and highways. There is a net economic benefit to pulling your fellow person out of the gutter when it comes to some things. We are all richer because we have an educated populace, cities that don't burn down, highways to move people and goods. To put it into HN friendly terms, all of these benefits increase the quality of our labor, which increases our valuation in the eyes of global investors and makes them want to invest in American companies and keep us paid and employed. And who knows, some day you might need help out of the gutter, too, or a fire put out.

Arguably, your purchased internet will be of better quality and have better support because of competition than if they remained a local monopoly (which is the case is a vast majority of regions).

Especially if the service eventually becomes revenue positive and pays for itself, possibly providing non-tax revenue into the municipal general fund and lowering your tax load.

And if by subsidizing other people's internet they have better access to higher quality connections then it will be a net benefit for your community, which will in turn improve your life while interacting with and in that community.

Is that a change from the status quo? I'm pretty sure I'm paying to subsidize your private internet already

"taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927)

Not if the municipality builds an open access network. Then any ISP can use the network and you pay the ISP of your choice.

I seriously doubt there are very many (any?) entrepreneurs worried about that.

Government is going to swoop in and provide free nail care.

Government is going to swoop in and provide free Mexican food.

Government is going to swoop in and paint homes for free.

Etc.

> How are state and federal grants not made up of tax dollars?

State is different because the funding situation of state and federal governments are not equivalent, but marginal federal spending is not tied to marginal increases in tax revenue even in principal, so quite literally changes in federal spending do not come from tax dollars.

If you assume that (1) the lifespan of the federal government is finite, and (2) the federal government will have no unpaid, transferred, forgiven, or externally covered debt from now until and including the eventual final shut-down, then it follows that any spending must eventually be covered by taxes, but while (1) is a reasonable assumption, (2) is...less clearly justified.

They are, but you are either being ungenerous in your question or missing vital context that anyone familiar with a city council meeting would already know.

OP is bragging that the municipality is paying for a service without increasing local taxes to pay for it. Increasing local taxes is the obvious way that municipalities typically pay for something like this. But increasing local taxes also generates predictable and often persuasive complaints from old cranks who never want to increase local taxes. OP's muni is thus circumventing those complaints by using grant money for the rollout.

While it's true that state and fed grants use tax dollars, it's irrelevant to the OP's brag. E.g.,

Old crank at meeting says, "I don't want to pay more money for a service I don't need." Applause break.

Old crank at meeting says, "I don't think it's right to take a grant created with state and federal taxes which I don't believe in paying." Awkward silence.

Edit: clarification

Looking at it a different way, it’s entirely possible that those grants are the same ones that the companies would have applied for to roll out broadband to rural areas. In that sense, it doesn’t spend tax dollars in excess of what would have been spent anyway if they got the cable company to do it for them.

The post office has been around for a very long time, and is an example of the government providing a service which people pay for by using the service.

There are numerous examples of this. Your water supply might be one of them.

Municipal broadband is also usually pay-for-use, and you could fund it with bonds, which is also common.

You could argue against how a municipality decides to implement their own broadband service. But saying that no municipality should be able to provide any service - or even particular services - seems a bit odd. Since that's the majority of what local governments do...

The police, education, water, roads, parks, etc...

Outside of major urban areas, there is often no bullying required. It was not economical 20+ years ago for there to be more than one physical cable or telephone provider in an area. Moving away from dial-up and DSL (which sit on top of phone lines which anyone can buy access to) toward cable (and fiber in the past decade) has put the power on the cable companies who physically own and maintain the lines. Since, in contrast to phones, cable has not typically sold access other than direct-to-customer, they maintain that same model. They don't sell access for someone who buys a fast fiber connection to then connect to the cable network and then their cable customers "dial into" that person's box. Instead, you only get service through the cable company itself.

Because cable requires a massive financial outlay, we end up with regional monopolies unless cable companies are forced to open up their physical platform to others. Which is rare.

I heard it costs a lot of money to do these builds, for low return. You might even call it a natural monopoly, if you believe in such things like basic economics.

Acquisitions mostly. They've gotten into trouble with the state over their acquisition of TWC when they failed to uphold the conditions of the merger which required them to improve and expand service.

> profit to survive

If only they stopped their greed at ... enough profit to survive

That's not true though. The gov pays the providers as well.

And you're welcome for your welfare roads.

What's wrong with welfare, "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group" ?

[1] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...

I am with you, my issue is that 740 billion dollar a year drain on the the taxpayer known as the Department of Defense. We could just privatise it... Defense as a Service, think of the possibilities! /s

Municipal fiber is a far easier service to provide than almost anything else a municipality does. One tiny plastic cable into the house. It can be run on telephone poles. Plumbing, sewer, and roads are many orders of magnitude more complex and expensive to build and maintain.

> I expect in time (like over the next 80yr) it will follow the model of other government services and everywhere that can afford the graft, boondoggles and BS will have the graft, boondoggles and BS and the Detroits and BFEs who simply can't afford to do it wrong it will be the only ones left with municipal broadband done right.

so, basically what we have now for non-muni net in most places with telco+cableco duopoly?

I have no problem with public broadband as long as commercial broadband is allowed as well. Let the best format win.

similar to sports arenas ? If you are looking for red-hot local government corruption, there are long lists available .. be warned they look reasonable on the surface, and will self-report positives.. thats the nature of the beast there

Not sure exactly what’s that’s supposed to means, but the difference ofc, is I hold no power and my opinions are mostly not worth anything.

To GP's point, the poles are privately owned. The Cable TV company put them there, or the telephone, or other utility. If you want to use space on their poles, you have to rent it, or install your own poles. Both happen. On the road I live on, there are power lines on one side of the road which also carry telephone lines. Cable TV (Comcast) has poles on the other side of the road.

It's more complicated than that.

- Many poles are owned by power companies, or telephone companies. You can absolutely get a JPA (joint pole attach) agreement with most of these companies in theory.

- In practice, your first problem is that most poles are horribly maintained. And if you are a new attachee, you will often find yourself having to share in the cost to make an already non-compliant pole compliant and with enough room for you to attach.

- If you are dealing with, say, Verizon poles and are trying to attach for a competing cell service, your make ready costs are oddly inflated, and they may go as far as expect you to split the cost 50/50 for a pole that is already out of spec.

- In many municipalities, the kickbacks of 'franchise agreements' cause a lot of inertia. This is mostly the case with CATV, the industry of 'how can we be minmax our monopoly'. Essentially, the cable provider pays the city X dollars per subscriber, gives them a couple public access channels, and in return gets exclusivity.

I used to do HFC design for Xfinity Fraudband, as well as fiber design/permitting for other CATV providers and cell carriers. Its a corrupt and abusive industry, the entire contractor/subcontractor system is made to shield the companies both from overall liability as well as prevent unionization.

Also, any of the SV folks speaking up about social injustice would have a heart attack in a week or two. Being in that climate for so long made me numb to a lot of injustice, and it took years to recover.

> I doubt a scenario where taxpayers benefit by funding a municipal competitor will actually work out.

Umm, I hear your concerns and I agree if muni-broadband reduces competition, that is not ideal. That said, this is an odd statement to make. There is data to show muni-broadband can be successful and is many times successful.

> The cost to taxpayers of the muni-broadband are less then the decreased prices to consumers brought about by this competition.

Again, I hear you. The municipality has to be competent and use funds appropriately. Ideally, no net-new taxes should be used. Ideally, muni-broadband is a net-positive venture funding other municipality endeavors.

There are a lot of cases where both versions of this story are true, the same way a lot of companies succeed and a lot of companies fail. It is not intrinsic to muni-broadband but rather intrinsic to the people running it.

Meanwhile, I was just responding to "do all of the taxpayers in the municipality benefit from the muni-broadband?"

And specifically to that one question, yes if there are 0 or 1 broadband providers serving a municipality, then every tax payer benefits from muni-broadband.

Either:

1. The price of the muni-broadband is too-low, i.e. everyone in the municipality move over to it.

2. The price of the muni-broadband is competitive, i.e. everyone in the municipality has reduced prices through competition.

3. The price of the muni-broadband is too-high, i.e. everyone in the municipality learns that their elected officials need to be changed. And/or some policy changes need to be made by learning from other municipalities.

It's the taxpayers who want it and vote for this experiment.

If they're doing it right it shouldn't be an expense, the tax payers should be making a profit off of it. How much money does comcast make?

I suspect that Trump's policies working against the federal workforce may have skewed those results.

For an example, see this:

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2020/02/white-house-rev...

Not sure about state and local government employees.