I agree with you to a point, but man there are ways that Comcast and Verizon just can't compete with Municipal. If I want to upgrade a modem I can read some reviews of the best Wifi6 routers or whatnot, or I can ping the guy I know who works for my provider (who also basically introduced me to my partner of 8 years) and get his take on it. The closest thing I've gotten to that with a Comcast person was shooting the breeze about easement rights for his van and how that neighbor calling the cops on him is going to be disappointed.

When I call for support it's some lady a mile away who answers on the third ring, and if I break my modem she apologetically asks if it's OK if somebody's there in an hour to fix it for me for $35.

It's like buying local vegetables except its internet and cheaper. You can't beat it.

You make some good points. I was very focused on speed/price/quality of network service in my post.

This also reflects my own biases and preferences. All I want from an ISP is a reliable uplink at a decent price. The last piece of equipment that is the ISP's is the ONT. I built my own router. I used to have my own DOCSIS modem, but I gave that to a family member a while ago and have had fiber since.

Ideally, I never talk to someone from my ISP. I have had Fios since 2017, and I have only had to talk to them once, to cancel service when I moved. So, as long as I have had Verizon (importantly, in homes that were already wired for Verizon and a competitor), they have been an ideal ISP.

I recognize that my preferences are far from universal, but my original post did not reflect that.

>Competition works. In my experience, the dominant factor determining ISP quality is the presence of another ISP with a substitutable offering.

Yes. This is the root of the problem with Internet access in the US. The post-Reagan relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed many monopolies to grow, and combined with lobbying at all levels of government has created the stagnant environment we have now for Internet and wireless services.

I understand your point, and to that effect I'd opt for a duopoly over a monopoly ten times out of ten. That said, even duopoly for internet options sucks. Here in Canada your choice between Bell/Rogers, or Bell/Vidéotron, or Bell/Shaw, etc. makes almost no difference vs the choice between a single one of them. They just bought out almost all independant providers in the country (we're all enjoying huge discounts right now that are obviously temporary, and were used as a tool to undercut them to make the purchases pass more easily).

I would argue it's more important to have more than one option, but it still DOES matter who those options are.

> Municipal fiber is not special due to the ISP being municipal government.

Sorry but that's not true, it is special because it can do things a large profit-maximizing ISP can't. It can give free internet to schools and libraries, it can give subsidized rates to lower income neighborhoods, it also brings control of the ISP under democratic control.

By removing from it the need to be an entity seeking to extract maximum profits, a whole host of other things can be done.

There are more organizational structures than "large, profit-maximizing corporation" and "municipal government".

In support of my argument, I present: co-op and not-for-profit.

More broadly, since I wrote more than one sentence, my point was that the dominant factor in bringing down prices and bringing up reliability of service is having multiple viable options available.

I never made a claim that there are no other differences attributable to organizational structure, though I do see one might misinterpret in that way.

Co-ops and nonprofits aren't always great. We have a co-op grocery++ store (almost like Walmart I assume) in Norway named Coop. It's a fine store and all but they're no different than the rest.

They spend tons of money on advertising etc so they just end up acting exactly like a forprofit corporation except they can say they're a co-op and market themselves as "a little bit yours" because you can pay like $20 a year or something and "own" it.

I'm convinced there's a bunch of forprofits siphoning off the profits somehow. Just like with charities, they find ways to extract that cash flow. Slurping it up like black gold.

The benefit of a coop structure like this is for the workers. Worker owned coops tend to have flatter pay scales, retain employees longer, and are internally democratic.

Municipalities aren't always great. That is an entirely different point than the uniqueness of municipalities.

I don't disagree with anything you said.

Even if you're just narrowly looking at prices, a community run ISP will be cheaper even if it has a monopoly. Therefore the claim there is "nothing special" about them is untrue. The difference is one is run to maximize profit and the other isnt.

The existence of non profits or coops is irrelevant to the original claim. Although I'm fully in support of those also.

I see that you are quoting someone else, so I will let you continue your argument with them.

My experience has been similar. After many years of only having one viable choice of ISP, once another upgraded their lines and could compete suddenly things changed very quickly.

I recall a tragically comic phone call to cancel service with Cox (of course you were required to do all cancellations over the phone). I told them the speed and price I was getting from their competitor, which was already installed and confirmed, and they tried to convince me those numbers were not possible! Hahahaha! Bonus, the new provider's downtime also proved to be far less over the next few years.

Yes, a few years ago I was paying half of what my mom paid for internet through affinity, despite only living 15mi away, because I also lived extremely close to Google Fiber. They’re well aware of when they have actual competition and will tune prices accordingly. I’m surprised there haven’t been massive lawsuits about it considering how obviously they are abusing their regional monopoly status.

I disagree, it’s special because it’s owned collectively by the people living in the community without some for-profit middleman rent seeking inflated payments for sub-par service. This isn’t some victory for capitalism and free markets. This is the government having to step in because of the failure of the market to provide a basic 21st century service to the people at a reasonable price. The same way the market has failed to provide healthcare access at a reasonable price in the US.

I think your conclusion is also incorrect. A for profit corporation only has incentive to maximize profit for their shareholders so if they are the only provider in town they will likely jack prices up. But a municipality/town does have incentive to improve the lives of their constituents and even if you don’t believe that argument, there is always the argument that a fast reliable internet at a reasonable price could spur economic investment in the community. So a single municipal owned internet provider could be a decent option without competition but that’s unlikely to be the case for a for profit business.

A co-op is owned collectively. Therefore collective ownership is not a unique feature of a municipal service.

Additionally a municipal service can certainly be contracted out to a private company (for-profit or otherwise). So there may still be middlemen.

I don't know where you read me claiming this article or anything like it would be a victory for capitalism.

If I count, I say twice that I am in full support of this endeavor and others like it. So I am not sure why you are arguing as if I am opposed.

But if you do want to argue, I have lived in mid-sized cities in the US and observed abysmal municipal services in the form of public transit and also community wifi. I have also been in municipalities where these services are wonderful.

I would argue that public transit, even more than internet, can spur economic activity and improve the lives of residents. Nevertheless, despite the potential value of the service, there is no guarantee that a municipality does even a halfway decent job of it. Why should I necessarily expect different in the case of this particular service, internet access?

Before this conversation devolves I will remind you that I voiced my full throated support for this initiative twice in my original post and have noted that twice in this post. My response here is specifically addressing the points that you raised that municipal service is unique in its ownership structure and more likely to be good because of its incentive structure.