In a free market competition drives the market price down to cost. The fact that there is such a difference between what Time Warner is charging and what this city is charging just shows how little competition there is in that market. Just because none of the other cable companies that all enjoy their own monopoly or duopoly status in whatever markets they operate in don't charge these prices, that doesn't mean they aren't the true market price of the services.
Time Warner is trying to protect the _lack_ of competition they enjoy by trying to bribe the state government to ban this local government run utility that forces competition. They want their monopoly status and the ability to set their own price point back, and bribing for a law is well worth the money if it works.
Now if the issue was that Time Warner wanted to lease some of that fiber and start competing in that market (had they not already been established there) and were denied then the situation would be different. In that case one could certainly argue that the local government is being socialistic while blocking any sort of capitalistic competition from entering the market.
One could still argue that the local government is being socialistic, but that is beside the point. Introducing a competitor in a monopolistic market is exactly the type of things we _want_ our government to be doing. Granting one or two companies sole ownership of a market and then saying that "competition will work everything out" is a ridiculous argument to use in favor of _not_ adding competition.
Slashdot Mirror
In a free market competition drives the market price down to cost. The fact that there is such a difference between what Time Warner is charging and what this city is charging just shows how little competition there is in that market. Just because none of the other cable companies that all enjoy their own monopoly or duopoly status in whatever markets they operate in don't charge these prices, that doesn't mean they aren't the true market price of the services.
Time Warner is trying to protect the _lack_ of competition they enjoy by trying to bribe the state government to ban this local government run utility that forces competition. They want their monopoly status and the ability to set their own price point back, and bribing for a law is well worth the money if it works.
Now if the issue was that Time Warner wanted to lease some of that fiber and start competing in that market (had they not already been established there) and were denied then the situation would be different. In that case one could certainly argue that the local government is being socialistic while blocking any sort of capitalistic competition from entering the market.
One could still argue that the local government is being socialistic, but that is beside the point. Introducing a competitor in a monopolistic market is exactly the type of things we _want_ our government to be doing. Granting one or two companies sole ownership of a market and then saying that "competition will work everything out" is a ridiculous argument to use in favor of _not_ adding competition.