Tacoma Goes All In To Support Municipal Fiber

Peterus7 writes: The Tacoma city council just voted unanimously to invest and upgrade their Click! fiber network as a municipal ISP, which likely means gigabit speeds. This decision was made in light of a proposal from Wave Broadband, which wanted to lease the municipal fiber backbone for 40 years initially, then 5. This vote came after the Tacoma Public Utility board passed both resolutions, to lease and go all in as a city run ISP. Now that the proposal has gone through to allow the city to sell service as an ISP, Tacoma will be added to the growing number of cities with municipal fiber.

Comments

Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I wish more cities would do this. It never made sense to me why we would allow private companies own the telecommunications infrastructure. Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes), but then the customers are stuck dealing with a for-profit monopoly. It just seems like a giveaway to a a private sector entity whose interests don't totally align with the those of the public.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Peterus7]

This is sort of a weird scenario. We already had the fiber in the ground (It was supposed to support smart meters, internet was an afterthought), so it was a struggle to figure out what to do with it. Most other cities would have to install it fresh, which would cost hundreds of millions. We got lucky.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[EzInKy]

Free markets are all about competition, and the very definition of compete is "to strive to outdo another". Aligning the interests of competitors (such as providers and consumers) is anti-competitive.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets are all about competition, and the very definition of compete is "to strive to outdo another". Aligning the interests of competitors (such as providers and consumers) is anti-competitive.

I think the alignment he's talking about refers to companies interest in keeping the competition away from their turf.

The municipal networks are going to most likely dominate the market and drive away the competition. There are certainly risks associated with it, like political fighting, budget cuts or just lack of maintenance that are sometimes associated with public infrastructure especially in the US. Realistically what I think will happen is that after X years, someone will have the great idea of privatizing the ISP, and suddenly you have a local hydraulic empire again and the prices get raised.

The best option to me really is for the public to own the physical network infrastructure and lease it for a reasonable fee to any ISP that wants to sell internet connections. It has the possibility of maintaining a system where the political infighting won't actually affect the network infrastructure due to private investments in the ISPs -- Assuming atleast more than one ISP survives in the network.

It rather seems to me like noone in the US really wants the free market, they want the market to be completely monopolized by their company.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me? People put fiber into the ground for a couple of bytes from smart meters, but debate whether rotting copper lines and coax may be a more economic option than fiber for internet access? Seriously, what is in the fucking water?

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Kjella]

I'm old enough to remember our state monopolist here in Norway, Televerket (1855-1995, now privatized as Telenor AS). They were the expensive, pay-per-minute giant who was slow as molasses to innovate because there was very little choice, cable always had a very limited roll-out here. We paid them tons of money for 64 kbps ISDN, which was after all faster than dial-up but when I finally got ADSL I got 16x the speed (1024 kbps vs 64 kbps) for 1/3rd the monthly cost and flat rate. As late as 2008 I was stuck with a <2 Mbit ADSL within the city limits of our >500k capital. The largest fiber network provider actually grew out of the power sector (Lyse, later becoming the Altibox franchise), not telecom.

Public services are great if what you want is very well defined and stable, like water and sewage pipes. If the water pressure is okay and the water is clean, great. If I flush the toilet and it goes away, great. If the garbage is collected on time, great. Telecoms has definitively not been in that category, neither fixed nor mobile solutions. I'm now on a 100/100 Mbit connection not from our ex-monopolist and quite happy with that. Maybe there will come a time in the not so distant future where fiber is "basic service" as 28% of the country already have it, but right now I'd say intense competition to be the first and corner the market is the driving force of the roll-out.

You might say why not manage the monopolist better and have it serve the needs of their customers. The problem is that you don't really have that power, if they're full of bloat and cruft and I give them less money they'll do less and still be full of bloat and cruft. The really hard cuts and true introspection doesn't come until a competitor is taking your business and it's either become more efficient or have your jobs go away. Even in the public utilities many of the actual tasks are done by competing contractors, if the city needs a new sewage pipe they get bids and pick one. Gone are the days where you more or less had a job for life, unless you were incompetent enough to get fired even though the boss has no market to lose.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[luvirini]

And yet there is also the Swedish example where in many/most cities the municipality has a fiber network, but that network is then usable by any ISP on equal terms. Most people then buy their connection from the ISPs that in turn use the last mile and backbone services of the municipal network.

Now granted much of the reason why they built those networks was in response to Telias behavior of not wanting to play nice. (Their previous monopoly)

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets are only about competition if the participants can't avoid it. The natural tendency is to avoid competition, and businesses do almost anything to eliminate it. This isn't just an instinct either. MBAs are taught how.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

copper is expensive, fibre is cheap. Admittedly compared to what you would expect them to cost, but there's very little diffference between them costwise now, and most of the cost is putting the buggers in. Ask about Dark Fibre. And glass doesn't degrade like copper. Vitreous substances are more resistant to water damage and other chemical action than metals are, which is why you get glass test tubes, not copper ones.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[EzInKy]

The natural tendency is to avoid competition, and businesses do almost anything to eliminate it.

And thus monopolies, and the laws supporting them, are created.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[argStyopa]

Of course, that answer could be applied to so many things: gasoline, clothing, cars, computers, food....

What I think a more comprehensive understanding of economics would offer is that without the incentive of competition to reduce pricing (and particularly to innovate as a way to reduce costs), state monopolies on anything (even if genuinely well-intentioned) quickly become bloated, inefficient monstrosities.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[silas_moeckel]

Proper municipal fiber can give you more competition. Unlike copper you can nearly trivially have multiple ISP's on a single strand via cheap CWDM. So Muni fiber can be primarily be a last mile network with ISP's only needing to connect at the CO. Since this drastically lowers the cost to enter a market a single fiber plant can support a nearly unlimited number of ISP's. If the Muni also puts in a L2 network it can get even cheaper to get entry. IPv6 routing makes it very easy to support multiple ISP's maybe a town one without internet access that gets people to the school's library town hall etc. Layer VoIP on top of this and you quickly can move local calls to the muni network and build a 911 system on top. Suddenly you have a working video calling system.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are no laws creating it and a law doing so is needed,the free market will insist that they are made. If there are no laws against it, the free market will make the monopoly without law.

It's cheaper and more profitable to segment markets and agree not to poach than to enter into a bidding war with another competitor and have to drop the prices, unless you are in a small enough market that you only have to remove a few competitors before you are the only supplier and you can recoup the loss and more by overcharging consumers without an alternative.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[dywolf]

just wait a few minutes and some of our /. libertarian pseudointellectuals will be by to tell how you this is the worst thing, government cant be trust to do it right, the market is better, etc etc, all while ignoring the growing number of cities that have done it already (successfully), let alone that the reason this happens in the first place is due to cities compensating for market failures.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes), but then the customers are stuck dealing with a for-profit monopoly.

What "monopoly"? Most cities already have multiple for-profit wired broadband providers, and even more wireless providers. Tacoma has at least five broadband providers according to the National Broadband Map (http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers). That's in addition to wireless.

It just seems like a giveaway to a a private sector entity whose interests don't totally align with the those of the public.

When government hands out monopolies, that is indeed not in the interest of the public, which is why government shouldn't do that.

But the idea that municipal broadband totally aligns with the interests of the public is also false. Municipal broadband forces everybody to subsidize a product that only some people want to have. In practice, municipal broadband generally has not delivered cheaper Internet access. Depending on how it's set up, municipal broadband may incur long-term financial liabilities that don't show up until decades later. And municipal broadband discourages commercial providers from providing service in an area.

The one thing municipal broadband seems to be better at than commercial services at is delivering very high speeds. That's why geeks and intellectuals like it. But, in effect, the lower costs for high speeds are subsidized by higher costs for basic Internet access, which means that those less well off are effectively subsidizing the well off who could afford to pay a premium for high speed access. Simply put, 20 Mbps for $30/month is a much better deal for most people than 1 Gbps for $70/month.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Eunuchswear]

Whereas a "free" market naturally devolves into a cartel, without vigorous state intervention.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

-- Adam Smith.

Re: Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smith in that chapter was speaking of "incorporated trades" given monopoly power by government. Sorry, Adam Smith believed in the free market.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Locke2005]

Also, copper is valuable enough that it's worth digging up and stealing, while used fiber is basically worthless. That problem is only going to get worse, especially in developing countries.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Locke2005]

Or the phone network in India, where you couldn't get service without bribing the technicians, and they periodically disconnected you in order to extort another bribe out of you for service. Apparently it provided a pretty nice supplement to their income. Yes, there is something to be said for economic competition as a factor driving better customer service.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[KingMotley]

Simply put, 20 Mbps for $30/month is a much better deal for most people than 1 Gbps for $70/month.

Then they can get DSL, Cable (maybe), Satellite, MiFi, Cellular, or whatever they call internet over power lines. 1Gbps would be fiber only.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a right-wing populist, not a libertarian. I abandoned most libertarian economic ideas because they were too unwieldy in the real world (particularly their open border plans to flood the U.S. with immigrants which is surely depressing wages for everyone and destroy democracy as we know it). Their individual liberty concepts are still okay, though.

I don't mind corporations earning money as long as the country gets something out of it. Hire Americans and all that jazz.

Unfortunately, when it comes to telecomms, we aren't getting enough out of it. It really is only efficient to have one provider who is forced to perform upgrades from time to time. The trouble in much of the U.S. is we now have two providers: the telephone companies and the cable companies. Problem is, the cable companies didn't start as telecomms. They had to run their own wires to provide TV service. When packet-switched networks arrived, suddenly telecomms and cable companies were in the same business, but cable companies were less regulated. Telecomms were reluctantly to build new infrastructure, especially if they had to compete. And companies like Verizon wanted its FiOS unit to be regulated as a cable company. On top of that, some localities wanted to keep their copper telephones because they work better during disasters (hurricanes, power outages, etc.).

Added to this is the fact that cable companies are media companies that depend on selling television packages. Their bandwidth caps are really just ploys to block competition from Netflix and other providers.

Local governments could own the fiber and lease access to ISPs. This would be similar to a locality using competitive bidding for garbage and such. But that would involve adding a possible third competitor to a market (and not everyone buys broadband, I moved into a house in a tech hub which didn't have it before me). Due to all the above, I came to the conclusion that regulation would be the best solution.

The regulation has to be fair since we're dealing with a market that may have two or more competitors. The government already provides subsidies, so I'd argue only subsidy certain speeds and technologies (perhaps only fiber), as well as companies that implement Net Neutrality and don't have bandwidth caps. Third-parties could resell the service similar to MVNOs.

Ideally, these companies would be split into infrastructure companies and media provider companies (to avoid the problems of bandwidth caps, Net Neutrality, etc.). Enough regulation could counterbalance these companies even if they don't split up.

On the cell phone market front, I think all cell towers should be merged and frequencies shared. This should allow maximum bandwidth to be usable in dense populations. The big cell companies become infrastructure companies and their share of revenue depends on how much money the put in the tower. In fact, anyone with money could build a tower. MVNOs sell access.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[Jawnn]

Free markets are all about competition, and the very definition of compete is "to strive to outdo another". Aligning the interests of competitors (such as providers and consumers) is anti-competitive.

To bad that utilities (water, power, telecom) have never, in the history of the world, seen a "free market". All that Randian bullshit might have made sense then.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[RobertM1968]

Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes)...

Actually, that is rarely the case. While individuals may end up paying less in taxes, they're still paying. Most of such installations are subsidized by tax breaks or use portions of already existing public infrastructure.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[whit3]

Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes), but then the customers are stuck dealing with a for-profit monopoly.

What "monopoly"? Most cities already have multiple for-profit wired broadband providers, and even more wireless providers. Tacoma has at least five broadband providers according to the National Broadband Map

Tacoma has history of licensing providers with contractual obligation to include internet service, and getting the full buildout of everything except the internet service. They know not to trust a commercial entity (and don't, generally, do so). The 'five broadband providers' aren't doing enough, I'd guess. Tacoma knows what they're doing.

The one thing municipal broadband seems to be better at than commercial services at is delivering very high speeds. That's why geeks and intellectuals like it. But, in effect, the lower costs for high speeds are subsidized by...

Yeah, that's the value-add of being in a well-run municipality. Your basic services (water, sewer. electricity, gas, garbage collection, telecom, roads, stormwater drainage) needn't be negotiated with an engineer toting up-front costs and measuring your wallet. You pay according to the same formula as your neighbors or competitors, and minor costs (getting water to the top of hills costs extra, as does pumping sewage from the lower regions) are averaged.

The water connection to my home is the same pipe size and capacity as it was half a century ago. Maybe gigabit speeds are sufficient for the foreseeable future, and it's time, right now, to install the last-mile infrastructure. Geeks and intellectuals like it, because they have a vision of the future. I'm with them.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Then they can get DSL, Cable (maybe), Satellite, MiFi, Cellular, or whatever they call internet over power lines. 1Gbps would be fiber only.

Exactly, they can, from existing commercial providers. So, what justification is there for municipal fiber? Municipal fiber is like government subsidizing the purchase of Porsche sports cars with tax dollars.

Re: Sounds awesome.

[KingMotley]

Well the point being that either you let Comcast/att/cable vision/etc have a monopoly in a city so they can recoup their capital expenses in laying fiber and then you are locked into them basically forever, or you let the city do it and then you get to choose which ISP you want.

Letting the city do it (in theory) will be much cheaper since they aren't looking for a 200% profit on the cost of laying fiber. The city will do it at cost. Then the ISPs need to be competitive because the cost to entry for serving the city in minimal.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I'd guess. Tacoma knows what they're doing. Geeks and intellectuals like it, because they have a vision of the future. I'm with them.

Of course, they know what they are doing: they are gentrifying Tacoma, making it more attractive for well-off upper middle class folks, and making it less attractive for blue collar and lower class folks. That's all good and well; the people of Tacoma can be as classist, racist, and discriminatory as they like for all I care.

What isn't OK is to pretend that their political choices are due to some failure of free markets or corporate greed. The group of people that is selfish and greedy is the politically connected upper middle class of Tacoma, and they are making these choices for their own benefits and don't care who they screw in the process. And that's why you like these choices too.

Re: Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Comcast is a publicly traded corporation; if they had a 200% profit margin, everybody would buy their stock. In fact, Comcast's profit margin is around 10%.

Your argument is also self-contradictory, because if a company can make a 200% profit margin with a monopoly, there is obviously no need to grant it a monopoly.

And the city can't do it much cheaper at all. In fact, municipal fiber in places like Chattanooga has a higher cost than commercial wired Internet access; the only reason the sticker price is lower is because it is heavily subsidized.

The reasoning that "price = cost + profit, therefore if you take the profit motive away, things get cheaper" is faulty. What happens when you take the profit motive away is that the costs rise to match the price, not that the price drops to match the cost. And if you subsidize something, usually the cost goes up by the amount of subsidy, while the price still stays roughly the same.

Re: Sounds awesome.

[KingMotley]

I didn't say Comcast had a 200% profit margin on everything. Their cable services only accounts for 16% of their revenue, and the physical cable laying accounts for a small portion of that.

The rest of what you say is just niave, backwards and assumptions you pull out of a backwards model of how things actually work.

Re: Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I didn't say Comcast had a 200% profit margin on everything. Their cable services only accounts for 16% of their revenue, and the physical cable laying accounts for a small portion of that.

I'm sorry, I tried to make the most sense out of your muddled statement of "a 200% profit on the cost of laying fiber", giving you the benefit of the doubt. What you literally said is simply wrong: the "profit on the cost of laying fiber" by itself is, of course, zero or negative, since "laying fiber" is not an activity that generates any revenue.

The rest of what you say is just niave, backwards and assumptions you pull out of a backwards model of how things actually work.

The price and subsidies for municipal broadband in places like Chattanooga aren't based on "assumptions", they are facts, and they contradict your naive assumptions about economics. I'm simply explaining to you why things work that way.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

None of those other things require massive amounts of eminent domain in order to produce. Which means it's possible for a free market and true competition.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I'm a libertarian...

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

When government hands out monopolies, that is indeed not in the interest of the public, which is why government shouldn't do that.

What do you call it when the government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary

How exactly is a competitor supposed to compete? The only real way is to be another huge company with the same amount of influence to buy the government's support.

Municipal broadband forces everybody to subsidize a product that only some people want to have.

Not necessarily. This would only be true if the municipal broadband was running at a loss. As long as it's possible for the municipal broadband to be profitable, then the city can either choose to make a profit or lowering prices to just break even.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

What do you call it when the government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary

Governments don't need "eminent domain" to put in cable; they already own the streets and usually already have conduit in the ground, so that cables simply need to be pulled.

What do you call it when the government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary

Even if your incorrect model of how cable gets into the ground were true, government didn't have to "cut deals", they could auction the right to put cable into the ground off. And, in fact, they could auction it off multiple times.

Not necessarily. This would only be true if the municipal broadband was running at a loss.

"At a loss" isn't a meaningful concept when governments and general funds are involved. What you need to look at is where the money comes from. In the case of Chattanooga, for example, $111 million came from federal tax payers and $160 million came from local electric customers, neither of which are automatically beneficiaries of the money.

As long as it's possible for the municipal broadband to be profitable, then the city can either choose to make a profit or lowering prices to just break even.

What seems to happen in practice is that municipal broadband has higher costs than commercial providers, and in order to remain competitive, they lower prices to match commercial operators but then subsidize from other sources.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Governments don't need "eminent domain" to put in cable; they already own the streets and usually already have conduit in the ground, so that cables simply need to be pulled.

I'm not saying every length of cable required eminent domain. But many did. And even in the cases where we only put the cables in already (previously eminent domained) public property, it's not as if everyone is allowed to dig up the street to put their cables in.

Even if your incorrect model of how cable gets into the ground were true, government didn't have to "cut deals", they could auction the right to put cable into the ground off. And, in fact, they could auction it off multiple times.

And what exactly are you auctioning? The right to dig up the street and put your cables in the ground permanently? Only temporary? What happens when there is a dispute? Do the cables need to be ripped out of the ground? At whose expense? For the same reason that it's impractical and inefficient for us to have all private roads, it is also impractical and inefficient to have all private telecom infrastructure.

"At a loss" isn't a meaningful concept when governments and general funds are involved.

Who says it has to be something that comes out of the general fund?

What you need to look at is where the money comes from. In the case of Chattanooga, for example, $111 million came from federal tax payers and $160 million came from local electric customers, neither of which are automatically beneficiaries of the money.

So if one government doesn't work right, it's impossible for government to work right?

I can no doubt find cases of improperly managed government roads, water distribution, sewer, etc. Should all this stuff be made private as well?

What seems to happen in practice is that municipal broadband has higher costs than commercial providers, and in order to remain competitive, they lower prices to match commercial operators but then subsidize from other sources.

The fact that something *can* be done wrong is not an argument to not try to do it right.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And what exactly are you auctioning? The right to dig up the street and put your cables in the ground permanently? Only temporary? What happens when there is a dispute? Do the cables need to be ripped out of the ground? At whose expense?

You tell me. You said that right now "government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary". Whether that's true or not, and whatever the conditions may be, replace "cutting deals" with "auctioning off". There is rarely any reason for government to "cut deals" instead of making those deals available through public auction.

For the same reason that it's impractical and inefficient for us to have all private roads, it is also impractical and inefficient to have all private telecom infrastructure.

Europe went from all public to mostly private telecom infrastructure, and telecom service improved tremendously. Roads, actually, would benefit tremendously from privatization.

So if one government doesn't work right, it's impossible for government to work right?

Not at all. I just gave you an example for illustration. If you want to know other examples or understand the reason why these kinds of government constructs usually don't deliver, you need to read the literature.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

You tell me. You said that right now "government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary". Whether that's true or not, and whatever the conditions may be, replace "cutting deals" with "auctioning off". There is rarely any reason for government to "cut deals" instead of making those deals available through public auction.

It's weird that on the one hand you don;t think the government can do anything right, but somehow you think the auctioning process would be free of mismanagement. Wouldn't the corrupt government just do a no bid contract to their cronies?

Europe went from all public to mostly private telecom infrastructure, and telecom service improved tremendously.

Infrastructure is infrastructure. The ownership of the infrastructure that makes it public or private. I don't doubt that newer infrastructure would be better than older infrastructure regardless of whether it's public/private status changed.

Roads, actually, would benefit tremendously from privatization.

Yeah, I'm sure it would really benefit certain people.

Not at all. I just gave you an example for illustration. If you want to know other examples or understand the reason why these kinds of government constructs usually don't deliver, you need to read the literature.

I am well aware of how hard it is for government to work properly. This is why I believe it is important to limit government's scope as much as possible to allow to focus on problems where it is best suited (like large scale infrastructure). I am all for private enterprise. I just don't support private ownership of infrastructure. I think it places too much power in the hands of people whose interests do not align with the people. We don't really have time to waste waiting for markets to correct themselves when it comes to keeping roads open, etc.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It's weird that on the one hand you don;t think the government can do anything right,

I think there are lots of things government can do quite well, like fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech. What it can't do right is run a business or run the economy or protect people from their own follies.

but somehow you think the auctioning process would be free of mismanagement. Wouldn't the corrupt government just do a no bid contract to their cronies?

An "auction" means an "auction", not a "no bid contract".

I think it places too much power in the hands of people whose interests do not align with the people.

And "the people" would be who exactly?

We don't really have time to waste waiting for markets to correct themselves when it comes to keeping roads open, etc.

Markets don't need to "correct themselves" to keep roads open.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think there are lots of things government can do quite well, like fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech. What it can't do right is run a business or run the economy or protect people from their own follies.

I'm not saying that the government is guaranteed to do an amazing job. I am saying that it's impossible for a private company to provide high speed internet without government collusion. So you're getting the government involved no matter what. Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.

Let's say I want a hottub in my backyard. I can either pay for it outright and own it, or I can let this hottub company install the hottub for free in my backyard, but they can charge me and my guests to use it. They have would exclusive rights to the land and if I want some competition, I need to get a second hottub.

An "auction" means an "auction", not a "no bid contract".

Obviously... Why do you think the government can be trusted to hold fair auctions rather than just doing no bid contracts?

And "the people" would be who exactly?

The people who live in the city, and more specifically the people who use broadband.

Markets don't need to "correct themselves" to keep roads open.

So let's say I own a very high traffic road that a lot of people depend on for commuting everyday. Let's say I decide to jack up the toll to $100 per trip. Or let's say I decide I am going to close my road as a protest until the government cuts funding to planned parenthood. How does this situation get remedied in your ideal world of private roads?

Re:Sounds awesome.

[beastofburdon]

I like your line of thought here.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[silas_moeckel]

Lots of fiber in the ground tends to be useful, it's not a little bit of bandwidth it's a whole lot. What happens when school systems have a very fast interconnect that is also low latency and reliable? Maybe the consolidate things at the main office or the high school. Tech like VDI separates the display/input from the computing and storage. Bandwidth or more exactly the lack of/cost/reliability/latency keeps a lot of systems in house, lots of fiber gets rid of those issues now a business with a local footprint can step in and replace a school backend IT dept. Same goes for other businesses.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I am saying that it's impossible for a private company to provide high speed internet without government collusion.

That's obviously false: for many years, my Internet access went over wireless point-to-point, and for many more years entirely over private lines.

Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.

That's a non-sequitur.

The people who live in the city, and more specifically the people who use broadband.

Ah, so you are advocating handouts to a special interest group, you just refer to that group as "the people" to obscure that fact.

Giving free broadband aligns with the interests of "the people who use broadband". It just doesn't align with the interests of a lot of other people.

So let's say I own a very high traffic road that a lot of people depend on for commuting everyday. Let's say I decide to jack up the toll to $100 per trip. Or let's say I decide I am going to close my road as a protest until the government cuts funding to planned parenthood. How does this situation get remedied in your ideal world of private roads?

Private ownership of roads doesn't mean individual ownership. Most roads would be owned by associations similar to HOAs.

But, yes, private owners can do things that you disagree with. So can the government. The good thing is that with private owners, there are alternatives. When the government imposes its will, you have no choice but to comply.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

That's obviously false: for many years, my Internet access went over wireless point-to-point, and for many more years entirely over private lines.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the internet is a global network. It's not just the part in your house.

That's a non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur (something that doesn;t follow), because it is the actual claim I am making

Ah, so you are advocating handouts to a special interest group, you just refer to that group as "the people" to obscure that fact.

WTF are you talking about? I am specifically advocating *not* handing over our infrastructure to anyone.

Giving free broadband aligns with the interests of "the people who use broadband". It just doesn't align with the interests of a lot of other people.

Who the fuck said anything about it needing to be free? If you recall, I specifically talked about the having the revenue equal the cost to make it self sustaining.

Private ownership of roads doesn't mean individual ownership. Most roads would be owned by associations similar to HOAs.

1. I don't see how that makes it better. 2. Why are you opposed to individual ownership of roads?

But, yes, private owners can do things that you disagree with. So can the government. The good thing is that with private owners, there are alternatives. When the government imposes its will, you have no choice but to comply.

Which is why you only use the government where it's appropriate.

You said you think the government is good at " fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech". Why do you think that is? Is it just incidental, or is there some kind of common property that makes those things better suited to being run by the government?

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I am not sure if you are aware, but the internet is a global network. It's not just the part in your house.

Which is why I said "Internet access", because that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure you are aware of it, but words have meanings, and "Internet access" means something different from "Internet".

Ah, so you are advocating handouts to a special interest group, you just refer to that group as "the people" to obscure that fact.

WTF are you talking about? I am specifically advocating *not* handing over our infrastructure to anyone

Broadband users are a "special interest group". Whether you realize it or not, public ownership of broadband infrastructure intrinsically amounts to a handout to this group; if it didn't, public ownership would be unnecessary in the first place because private companies would already be providing the same service at the same or lower cost.

Giving free broadband aligns with the interests of "the people who use broadband". It just doesn't align with the interests of a lot of other people.

Who the fuck said anything about it needing to be free? If you recall, I specifically talked about the having the revenue equal the cost to make it self sustaining.

I was illustrating that the interests of broadband users and the interests of all persons that government represents are different. You argued that an act is good because it "aligns with the interests of the people". Well, the act of giving free broadband to broadband uses would be an example of something that "aligns with" the interests of broadband users, but it doesn't "align with" the interests of the entirety of all "the people" represented by government.

Private ownership of roads doesn't mean individual ownership. Most roads would be owned by associations similar to HOAs.

1. I don't see how that makes it better. 2. Why are you opposed to individual ownership of roads?

IT's "better" because it ensures that the people owning the road operate it according to a profit motive and according to self-contained revenu-vs-cost accounting, as opposed to operating it according to political motives and being funded through general funds. See, once you subsume something into "government", the idea that you have a "self-sustaining service" doesn't work (because you simply can't account for costs and benefits anymore).

And I'm not "opposed to" individual ownership, I'm simply pointing out that your examples of "Uncle McScrooge desiced to screw Planned Parenthood" doesn't work private ownership of infrastructure simply doesn't end up working that way.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.

That's a non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur (something that doesn;t follow), because it is the actual claim I am making

Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.

As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ...

Can we interpret the argument as leadiig to the conclusion that, since the market
will underinvest, given externalities, government action will correct the misallocation
of resources by adding to the mileage of road construction? This will not work
either. On the one hand, the addition of govemment investment in mads may
decrease the amount of private investment,' so that the total amount of road building,
private plus public, may fall below the previously established market level and
thus worsen the so-called original underinvestment in roads. On the other hand,
government, unshackled by any market test of profitability, may so expand the
scope of road building that a resultant overinvestment may ensue. If so, a new
misallocation will emerge, with an overinvestment substituted for an underinvestment.
Further, even if government action results in the correct amount of total
road mileage, government management of its domain may be so inept as to erase
any allocation gains. If any of these eventualities obtains, and there is little reason
to think not, then the argument fails.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.

Obviously my claim is not merely that I prefer it, but that it would be better that way (which is why I'd prefer it). But thanks for bringing up this irrelevant technicality, and not answering any of the other points I brought up.

As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ... [mises.org]

I find it quite ironic that you are trying to direct me to mises.org when I am already a libertarian.

It is not that I think public goods come with no problems. It's that I think the privatizing those goods comes with even worse problems.

You said you think the government is good at fighting wars. I think I would disagree with that given our track record, however I think privatizing our military and foreign policy would be even worse.

So it is not enough to point out the failings of government management of X. You must also show that Y is a better alternative.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Which is why I said "Internet access", because that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure you are aware of it, but words have meanings, and "Internet access" means something different from "Internet".

Then sure I am all for private internet access (i.e. private citizens accessing the internet from their private residences).

Broadband users are a "special interest group". Whether you realize it or not, public ownership of broadband infrastructure intrinsically amounts to a handout to this group; if it didn't, public ownership would be unnecessary in the first place because private companies would already be providing the same service at the same or lower cost.

That would be the case if there were a functional free market and effective competition in broadband, which there isn't. If Time Warner wants to jack up their prices to $200/month, it's not like I can just switch to a better alternative.

I was illustrating that the interests of broadband users and the interests of all persons that government represents are different. You argued that an act is good because it "aligns with the interests of the people". Well, the act of giving free broadband to broadband uses would be an example of something that "aligns with" the interests of broadband users, but it doesn't "align with" the interests of the entirety of all "the people" represented by government.

I am not sure why you keep failing to realize that I am not advocating free municipal broadband. Just like I am not advocating free water, electricity and gas.

IT's "better" because it ensures that the people owning the road operate it according to a profit motive and according to self-contained revenu-vs-cost accounting, as opposed to operating it according to political motives and being funded through general funds.

I don;t doubt that privately owned roads would be operating based on profit motive. I just don't think this is a good thing when it comes to roads, or any other restricted market with no competition.

Once again, there is no reason it needs to be funded by the general fund.

See, once you subsume something into "government", the idea that you have a "self-sustaining service" doesn't work (because you simply can't account for costs and benefits anymore).

You absolutely can. Just don't give this service any public funding.

And I'm not "opposed to" individual ownership, I'm simply pointing out that your examples of "Uncle McScrooge desiced to screw Planned Parenthood" doesn't work private ownership of infrastructure simply doesn't end up working that way.

No it doesn't, because nearly every instance of "private" ownership of infrastructure comes with very strict government regulation to prevent this sort of thing, making it no longer ownership, in the sense that the owner cannot decide what to do with their own property.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Then sure I am all for private internet access (i.e. private citizens accessing the internet from their private residences).

I'm sorry you are so unfamiliar with the terminology; your "i.e." is the wrong definition.

I am not sure why you keep failing to realize that I am not advocating free municipal broadband. Just like I am not advocating free water, electricity and gas.

I do realize that. I'm pointing out that I consider your premise that something should be done because it "aligns with the interests of the people" (where "the people" in your terminology refers to special interest groups like "broadband users") wrong.

See, once you subsume something into "government", the idea that you have a "self-sustaining service" doesn't work (because you simply can't account for costs and benefits anymore).

You absolutely can. Just don't give this service any public funding.

Not giving it "public funding" is insufficient; you also need to not regulate it differently from commercial competitors, not share resources, force it to pay for government services and pay taxes at the same rate as public providers, raise its own capital, and let it go out of business if it fails to make a profit.

I don;t doubt that privately owned roads would be operating based on profit motive. I just don't think this is a good thing when it comes to roads, or any other restricted market with no competition.

Of course it's not a good thing to have for-profit companies when there is no competition. But the reason there is no competition in the first place is government restriction on competition. The solution to that is not to create municipal services, it is to remove the regulations that prevent competition.

Re:Sounds awesome.

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Obviously my claim is not merely that I prefer it, but that it would be better that way (which is why I'd prefer it). But thanks for bringing up this irrelevant technicality, and not answering any of the other points I brought up.

I was merely being sarcastic. You write a whole bunch of vague bullshit, and when people take you literally, you complain that they are hung up on technicalities, and when they try to respond to what you probably mean, you complain that they are changing your words.

I find it quite ironic that you are trying to direct me to mises.org when I am already a libertarian.

I didn't point you to mises.org because it's a libertarian site, I point you to it because they happen to have an article that makes an economic point. You need to read and actually understand what that point is.

And, no, you are not actually a libertarian.

It is not that I think public goods come with no problems. It's that I think the privatizing those goods comes with even worse problems.

The only thing that statement tells me is that you don't understand what a "public good" is.

You said you think the government is good at fighting wars. I think I would disagree with that given our track record,

I didn't say that it "is good at", I said "it can do quite well". That is, it doesn't always do them well, but it has the potential to do them well. However, I think the US government has an excellent track record at fighting wars: we can mobilize resources and bomb people far better than anybody else. That doesn't mean that that power is used productively or for good purposes. Let me put it more bluntly: government is quite good at killing people.

however I think privatizing our military and foreign policy would be even worse.

The military and foreign policy shouldn't be privatized, they simply shouldn't exit.

So it is not enough to point out the failings of government management of X. You must also show that Y is a better alternative.

As a classical liberal (aka libertarian), the only notion of "better" that matters to me is the notion of "more freedom from coercion".

You obviously have a different notion of "better", which means you are not a libertarian. But even if government were the "better" alternative in the management of X according to your criteria of "better", libertarians would still reject it: it is incompatible with freedom to use government coercion to achieve "better" outcomes because government coercion is itself wrong. Luckily, reducing government coercion also tends to increase economic and social outcomes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not sure how long this will last

[rsilvergun]

if the Republican's take the Whitehouse. AFAIK all of the candidates oppose Municipal Broadband. Certainly all the serious contenders do. Whatever other complaints I have against Hilary (and there are many) that's not one of them...

Re:Not sure how long this will last

[fnj]

if the Republican's take the Whitehouse.

What the hell does the US Presidency have to say about the issue? It is certain states which have legislated against cities and towns exercising their natural right to provide broadband as a municipal service.

Re:Not sure how long this will last

[Anonymous Coward]

Tacoma isn't a state. So a win by republicans may bring in a state senator who is republican and will make tacoma's plans illegal.

It appears that states rights are only a demanded requirement when the state wants to disagree with some "liberal" federal policy, not when the state wants to MAKE a "liberal" policy (see weed legalisation and how much states rights activists fight to get that right protected).

A president of just such a calibre would get laws in place to find a way to ensure that such "evil" plans as making muni broadband or legalising pot would be made impossible. And be protected by their voters to ensure just such an outcome.

Two reasons why.

Re:Not sure how long this will last

[dywolf]

majority in both houses + presidency = pass any damn fool law they want

Re:Go All the Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts! It hurts so bad!!

Wow

[darkain]

Wow, I just think it is awesome to see my local news here on /. for a change! I've been a Click customer since pretty much when they started in the '90s, have had plenty of ups and downs with them over the years, but glad that they've at least put pressure into competition in our local market that otherwise would just be Comcast. Yes, we have Centurylink too, but they honestly will only serve my location with 4mbps service, which in this day in age is just utter bullshit. So thank you Click for being the second pillar against Comcast here in Tacoma!

Re:Wow

[darkain]

The only downside right now, unless the proposal has changed, is that it isn't symmetrical gigabit. It isn't even fiber to the home. They want to implement 1000/100mbps DOCSIS. For those of us that want to push as much content as we pull, this is still something I hope they improve upon in their proposal before implementation.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

> 1000/100mbps DOCSIS.

That's much faster than the average locally, so it's still a big win. I have ISDN at home in Seattle. I live about 30 miles from the edge of Tacoma. As far as I know, none of my friends have faster than 1.5 Mbps DSL at home. At work, we have nearly twenty developers that share a single T1. Here in Seattle, we'd kill for 1 Gbps down.

Re:Wow

[Vokkyt]

I was only in Tacoma for the last 4 years or so, but I want to concur that Click had fantastic service from the sign up to the discontinuation. The only problem I ever had was what appeared to be occasional DNS hiccups, but their customer support line was quick to get general messages up when such a thing was happening. When I moved closer to my work where Click didn't provide service, I was really disappointed.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I'm in West Seattle and have Comcast service of 105 Mbps (actual speed closer to 115 Mbps) for $53/month, no caps. CenturyLink gigabit service is also available.

Re:Woooo

[fnj]

So far it had only been small towns like Wilson NC or Chattanooga TN

50,000 and 170,000 are not "small towns". Wilson was a town in 1849 - 50,000 might be a large town today - except it is an incorporated city. Chattanooga is a city by any measure - being an incorporated city makes it a slam dunk.

The place I live - 2,000 - is a smallish town.

Re:Woooo

[darkain]

We've had this municipal fiber network here in Tacoma since the 90's though. The major issue at hand was that the city had proposed to lease it out to another company, and now it looks as though they won't be doing it. http://www.usmayors.org/bestpr...

Re:Go All the Way!

[Anonymous Coward]

"He was crying.
Tears were streaming down his face.
He was in agony.
It was a heart-wrenching sight."

Customer service...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the customer service will be outstanding. :)

Re:Customer service...

[Jawnn]

I'm sure the customer service will be outstanding. :)

Compared to what, Comcast? I'll take that bet.

It's not the states

[rsilvergun]

that's at issue, it's the possibility that laws will be passed banning municipal broadband. Ted Cruz has already said he favors such laws, though to be fair he's a fringe candidate. The Republican lead House/Senate have toyed with such laws but right now it would almost certainly see a Presidential Veto. It's very likely that a Republican President wouldn't veto a law. That's why the Prez election matters. There's a whole lot of nasty stuff that's been held back by gridlock these last 8 years. A Republican win means the end of that gridlock.

Re:It's not the states

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubio has been advocating a municipal broadband band just this week.

Re:It's not the states

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it has to do with the military, interstate commerce, or foreign relations the Federal government has no jurisdiction. It's the same reason why gay marriage isn't universal. It need to be done on the state level.

If the Federal government decides to ban municipal broadband, it's a worthless law.

Re:It's not the states

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it has to do with the military, interstate commerce, or foreign relations the Federal government has no jurisdiction. It's the same reason why gay marriage isn't universal. It need to be done on the state level.

If the Federal government decides to ban municipal broadband, it's a worthless law.

Marriage is interstate commerce, What would it be like if you could only be declared married in a single state? Would you have to be remarried in every state you visit?

Re:It's not the states

[argumentsockpuppet]

It's the same reason why gay marriage isn't universal

It's universal in the US since the Supreme Court said so in June... have you been asleep for the last six months?

What would it be like if you could only be declared married in a single state

It was that way until very, very recently. What it meant was that benefits only allowed spouses were available in some states and not others. That's how state laws work.

It's really not that hard to manage actually. States can have different laws and you're subject to the laws of the state you're in. The states (like the one I'm in) can legislatively ban municipal broadband.

The reasoning is heavily discussed in depth for banning municipal broadband so there are better places to learn of it than here. However, to save you research time, here's a short summary of the reasoning: There is something some people want, but it is unfair to make everyone pay for something only some people want, so the ones who want it can pay the companies that are willing to offer it. Additionally, if the government competes against private enterprise, private enterprise is unable to compete fairly since government has the right to confiscate property, put people in jail or even kill them.

The FCC has decided that it has the authority to tell states their laws banning municipal broadband are invalid. (Just a few months ago.) The FCC has that authority? That's not an easy argument to win, but so far the Supreme Court seems to think Congress has given the FCC that right. Bear in mind though, what Congress has given, it can also take away.

Re:It's not the states

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify here, the Supreme Court already struck down a case to overturn Missouri's broadband restrictions in Nixon v Missouri. Admittedly, the new case snaking its way through the courts is different than Nixon because the older case used a legal theory based on 253, which authorizes preemption of state and local laws and regulations “that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity” to provide telecommunications services. Even then, the Supreme Court said that entity only applied to regulated entities and not political subdivisions. The new case is based on 706 which doesn't have preemption powers, so it will be much more difficult legally.

Is it a secret?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Is it a secret? Or is it just too fucking hard to add what state this particular city of Tacoma is in?

Re:Is it a secret?

[murphtall]

its Washington State.

Re:Is it a secret?

[EmeraldBot]

Is it a secret? Or is it just too fucking hard to add what state this particular city of Tacoma is in?

While accommodations for those not familiar with the United States is something I certainly agree with, Tacoma is definitely one of the better known cities among the crowd here, and it took you longer to write that than to look up the state info. For anyone interested, it's located in the Northwestern region, Washington (State, not DC). Can't say I've lived there, but Seattle was a beautiful city, cool with lots of rain. I'd expect Tacoma to share at least some of those features, although I've certainly open to correction on that point, given that that's only an educated guess :)

Re: Is it a secret?

[cyber-vandal]

The Internet would run faster if Slashdot editors put a little more effort into finding information out for us.

Re:Is it a secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are taking their cue from the Steve Miller Band - I went from Phoenix, Arizona all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A.

Re:Is it a secret?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

While accommodations for those not familiar with the United States is something I certainly agree with, Tacoma is definitely one of the better known cities among the crowd here,

Bullshit. I live 30 miles north of Tacoma and I couldn't tell if it was in WA state or not. Even the article itself doesn't have the name "Washington" in it.

There are at least 5 or 6 cities named Tacoma in the US, it wouldn't have been that hard to insert the letters "WA" after the first reference. But perhaps I expect too much from the slashdot editors.

Re:Is it a secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are at least 5 or 6 cities named Tacoma in the US

He speaks the truth - first result from a Google search says there are 7, each in a different state. (There are 9 listings as Tacoma WA is listed from three different sources.)

Re:Is it a secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

San Antonio, Texas, of course!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufacturing_Texas

Re:You don't need fiber to download this haiku.

[This_is_just_a_Guess]

Geez man, Really....Star Wars is coming out and you need this to deal with the fact that the ticket lines are too long?

Girlfriend in Tacoma, I know, I know... it's serio

[rsborg]

Very cool news indeed. Let the momentum build... Comcast and Verizon can fight all they want but some places will thwart their dark grip on consumer broadband. Take that Brian Roberts, and shove those javascript insertions and torrent blocks up your seat.

To be contrarian

[Bruce66423]

The argument against this approach is that it disadvantages those in rural areas. If cities are allowed to cherry pick their residents in an easily reachable area for broadband, those 20 miles away from a telephone exchange will have to pay more than if the costs are averaged across them. Whilst there is a case for making subsidies to such deprived communities explicit - as the UK is doing - it IS more elegant to hide it.

Which is not to say I think the municipal ISP is a bad thing - but I do think we need to consider this issue.

Re:To be contrarian

[jabuzz]

Except the worlds fastest rural broadband which is basically a brand new FTTH build out located in the UK never got any of that public subsidy and is run as a community benefit society

http://b4rn.org.uk/

Re:To be contrarian

[Anonymous Coward]

These country bumpkins seem to have their act together.

Their primary work is to install ducts.
  (16mm trunks and 7mm drops)
  Then they blow fiber into the duct and light it up.

Much more future proof than direct buried cables.
http://b4rn.org.uk/about-us/our-network/

Perhaps the professionals have an incentive to make it complicated.
These guys just want reliable, cheap service.

Re:To be contrarian

[Coren22]

If cities are allowed to cherry pick their residents in an easily reachable area for broadband, those 20 miles away from a telephone exchange will have to pay more than if the costs are averaged across them.

Funny, that is exactly what the commercial ISPs do. If their complaint is that a municipal fiber network can do that, what exactly is their complaint?

Re:Woooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Chattanooga is a city by any measure - being an incorporated city makes it a slam dunk.

Chattanooga's EPB is actually even larger, the electric utility is city-owned, but with a reach beyond the city borders, though its fiber footprint isn't as big as its electric.