> I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service.
Why? If the Free Market Fundamentalists are correct, the for-profit company should have it all over the tax-funded service, because the company would be interested in efficiency and technological advances and so on, as opposed to just being a... welfare... thing... like the US Post Office and everything else which, per dogma, Does Not Work.
> You can prevent rent-seeking by repealing any "sponsored" laws that protect their monopoly.
Like the property laws which prevent others from using the wires they pay to put in, or do you think three cable companies should mean three completely separate sets of coaxial cables running everywhere in town?
The vast majority of local municipalities have to balance their budget. And their options for credit are vastly more constrained. And they have essential services that can not go unfunded.
A private company that thinks it can be profitable can go to a bank. A city will probably have to have a bond on the ballot. And a city can't really get out of things like road repair, law enforcement, etc (they can subcontract, but they still have to provide service) whereas a private company can sell of or shut down any unprofitable aspect of it's business.
So on the surface, comcast or whomever has a lot more leeway then a city.
The issue is, a service like last mile broadband is not incredibly profitable, for a telecom. But if a city can do it, or have a local company do it and it doesn't cost too much (they can waive fees for running cable, or whatever) then it may pay for itself, at least in part, because not only do they benefit from whatever they collect in fees, but broadband can increase local tax revenue (a house with 1000mb/s internet is worth more then a house with 2mb internet).
I think the parent is asking/claiming that public options are almost universally less desirable than the product of self-interest in the presence of competition, so their main effect is just to ensure that the private would-be monopolies need to actually provide a good service.
In domains like Internet infrastructure and health insurance which are empirically pretty terrible when there's no public option, I think there's a lot to be said for that argument.
Is it "fair" for a monopoly to have to compete against an organization that has nearly infinite resources but terribly inefficient operating ability? I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe no. Is it fair to huge ISPs to impose net neutrality on them? Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's no less fair for them than not having net neutrality would be for companies who want to use that infrastructure. It's certainly no less fair than life would be for a child who can't afford access to health care in a black market-like total laissez-faire economic system. I'd prefer to live in an imperfect implementation of capitalism that tries to regulate out negative externalities when possible (despite often failing) and provide as much fairness for as many people as possible, to one that provides so much "fairness" to certain corporations that they can make the game unfair for everyone else, people and companies alike.
> I think the parent is asking/claiming that public options are almost universally less desirable than the product of self-interest in the presence of competition, so their main effect is just to ensure that the private would-be monopolies need to actually provide a good service.
Well, actually, I'm claiming that a Free Market alternative should be able to win even if the Free Market includes the government.
Nobody is guaranteed to win, and I don't think a public option would necessarily be odious, but if someone's so gung-ho about competition, they shouldn't be scared of competing with a government.
Edit: OK, yes, I was mocking the Free Market Fundamentalists in my post. Fair's fair, they mock the government and the moderates, often using japes invented by Ronald Reagan (peace be upon him).
Right. Free market alternative should be able to beat government, so in cases where the free market isn't producing acceptable results, rather than forcing them to change through legislation, government can just compete with them until they beat the government.
> Because unlike companies, governments¹ can function long-term even if they don't balance budgets.
Except that shouldn't matter if the private company can compete on technology and service.
If your opponent has unlimited funds but the customer service policies of the DMV and the technological acumen of, uh, some very-non-technical government office of your choice, shouldn't you win?
The local government has plenty of other advantages. For one, they have a vested interest in not imposing costly requirements on themselves, while they continue to do so to private ISPs. In other words, they set the rules that everyone has to play by (ie you must cover this entire area, event the parts where no one can afford your service) while preferentially setting better rules for themselves. In the same way, I wouldn't be surprised if they can get permits and other government imposed roadblocks out of the way faster.
ISPs can vote just like everyone else. Even more so, in fact, because they can influence others to vote their way by buying ads. Governments are constrained by those votes. ISPs therefore have leverage over the way in which governments have leverage over them; they just need to convince their potential customers to vote their way, much like they need to convince their potential customers to become actual customers.
I've had recent experience with the DMV, Charter, and my doctor: of the three, I was treated most professionally and with least wasted time, at the DMV.
The hidden assumption is that by favoring, or at least not opposing, municipal broadband, you are supporting the total ban of competing networks, subsidizing network infrastructure with property taxes, five-year plans, gulags, etc etc.
Why? If the Free Market Fundamentalists are correct, the for-profit company should have it all over the tax-funded service, because the company would be interested in efficiency and technological advances and so on, as opposed to just being a... welfare... thing... like the US Post Office and everything else which, per dogma, Does Not Work.
> You can prevent rent-seeking by repealing any "sponsored" laws that protect their monopoly.
Like the property laws which prevent others from using the wires they pay to put in, or do you think three cable companies should mean three completely separate sets of coaxial cables running everywhere in town?