| |Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
San Antonio, TX
Competition Aint it a bitch?
Re: Competition It's a bitch when the muni providers don't play by the rules.
Re: Competition 1.) They had every chance to improve service preventing this place from even wanting to provide this service to begin with.
2.) They choose to invest in stopping this instead of investing in their network stopping the need for it.
3.) Rules or no rules the people voted on it and the government is there to serve the people.
4.) Consumers are not "owned" by these incumbents, especially when they are tax paying citizens that can change the rules to their favor if the want to.
5.) If the current incumbents dont like it, they can close up shop and move on. As a matter of fact I would even encourage them to do so. Let them put their assets/networks up for sale in these communities and stop servicing them all together. See who cares?
said by battleop: What I understand is your worried about City-Owned Competition because your working for a private carrier that might be affected by this.
Yep, but not for one of the mega huge carriers.
Re: What motivates starting up municipal fiber plans ?
said by FFH:Its funny, I thought you were describing Cox cable in Louisiana. Most large corporations already have this nasty habit of employing friends of friends as we call it.
The real problem, however, is that these projects (good, bad or otherwise) would never have been started if locals were happy with the level of service they were getting
I don't buy this as the key reason that these municipal fiber systems are started
. Empire building by politicians & heads of public utilities that get to build and control these new systems and pad the payrolls with relatives and friends is much more likely the reason.
Profit vs. Non-Profit, and other thoughts In the end the big difference between a government-operated system and a commercial one is that the government system is only obliged to satisfy its customers, while the commercial system is obliged to make profits for its shareholders, as well.
Unfortunately, commercial systems, like most American companies, these days, are mostly driven by shareholders and run by bean-counters. The customer often comes a distant second. Enter the municipal systems.
Random additional thoughts...
There's some misinformation going on here, btw. Some, perhaps many, of these municipal systems are funded by bond issues and designed to be self-sustaining afterward. They're not taxpayer-subsidized.
ISTM that if the commercial companies spent more of their time, energy and money making their product better and more affordable, rather than spending so much on advertising, lobbying and fighting battles against municipal initiatives, everybody'd be better-off and any lack of competition would become essentially a non-issue.
I'm stuck in a dualopoly situation, but, luckily, one of the two, Comcast, is offering what I want for the max I'm willing to pay and able to justify. Otherwise I might be pushing my town to consider a municipal system.
Re: More Power to the Local Muni!
said by Kommie:Big businesses always tout the "free market capitalism" as long as they own a majority market share that can push any and all competitors out of business (the Fox news network commentators always tell HALF the storyline about capitalism & the true nature of big businesses such as the OIL industry, Telecom, Banks, etc).. in that sense it's not FREE MARKET, it's monopoly market capitalism they support and pursue (at all costs). The historical context was to establish primary providers for utility services so that infrastructure which has to run through and around public/private property doesn't get trashed (much) or too entangled to be of use to anybody. These rules of business put a PUBLIC TRUST in these utility companies that they would be fair in the prices charged and upgrade services in a prudent manner that would benefit the majority of their customers. Telcos & Cablecos lead by AT&T and Comcast have flouted these rules time and again only to be rewarded by government with more USF and public subsidy. The infrastructure rules for major cities are NOT a one size fits all approach for suburban & rural geographies! This is a misconception that all across the USA there should be only 1, MAYBE 2 carriers (the 1996 telecom reform act making Cablecos a phone/voip company turned into a nightmare of stagnation with respect to infrastructure upgrades all the while chewing down telco profits).. In major metro areas public & private property could withstand 3 or 4 carriers competing for customers. Even with all the TIER-1 ISPs who've run fiber throughout the country... we've gone from about 8-12 down to about 7 major companies who own the infrastructure that all bandwidth runs on in this country. There are many hubs that could split off muni fiber projects to a 3rd or 4th competitor.
If the people voted 60% in Favor for Socialism then that is their choice. I am tired of seeing working class people protecting corporations that do not give a damn about them. Hell just look at the Caps. Having Public Broadband would at least keep the caps in check.