Municipal fiber

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Subsidized by taxes perhaps?

no, no canadian crown corps are tax subsidized AFAIK, and definitely none that i mentioned in my previous post are

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Subsidized by taxes perhaps?

no, no canadian crown corps are tax subsidized AFAIK, and definitely none that i mentioned in my previous post are

lol, the only revenue generating agencies are probably the provincial liquor stores and lottery corp. Rest receive their budget from tax revenue.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
http://www.dslreports.com/show...ets-Their-Fiber-100724

We've been tracking the deployment of municipally-owned fiber in Lafayette, Louisiana for years, the project being particularly notable for some of the sleazy efforts made by Cox and AT&T (then SBC) to kill it. Those efforts, back in 2005, included everything from hinting at exporting local support jobs if the deal was approved, to hiring push pollsters to try and convince locals that the government-controlled project would result in politicians rationing consumer TV viewing. Needless to say, Cox and Bellsouth lost.

Click for full size
A few weeks ago, Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) unveiled their pricing for the service, offering triple play bundles ranging from $84.85 to $200, with downstream broadband services ranging from 10Mbps to 50Mbps (all symmetrical). LUS offers standalone symmetrical 10Mbps for $28.95, 30Mbps for $44.95, and 50Mbps for $57.95. There's no caps, no contracts, and no installation fee.

Those prices handily beat not only local competitors Cox and AT&T (it's now pretty clear why they fought so hard), but carriers in other markets too. Comcast offers a 50Mbps tier in select markets for $139.95 (when bundled), but its upstream speed is 5Mbps. Verizon's 50Mbps/20Mbps service costs $144.95/month standalone, or $139.95 when bundled. The fastest speed AT&T currently offers customers is 18Mbps/1.5Mbps, which is $65 a month if you bundle TV service.

According to the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, LUS began officially offering service yesterday after five years of debate. The service is being rolled out in four phases, with all customers expected to be able to receive service by 2011. The first customers were supposed to be online in January, but the launch was delayed by negotiations with broadcasters over channel lineups and prices. Phase I involves wiring two areas on opposite ends of the city.

"This infrastructure will allow Lafayette to continue making great enhancements to our city during a time when many areas are experiencing a slowdown in development," City-Parish President Joey Durel, said in a prepared statement "Beyond these initial services, the LUS Fiber infrastructure will favorably position Lafayette for economic development and other opportunities to move our community forward."

Those are some pretty awesome prices. Why aren't more communities doing this?

Because Americans abhor anything public, even though in some fields public can simply do it better (insurance, electricity, natural gas, telco, etc)

It's not necessarily that the public can do better, it's that we've allowed companies to buy monopolies where the government actively prevents competition from driving prices down. I'm not saying that publicly owned isn't preferable in some cases, just that we aren't dealing with a free market in the US.

That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Not automatically. With a public monopoly, there is little incentive for the government to keep spending in hand. The only way you can keep a monopoly in some semblance of control is to have a private monopoly with a public oversight board that oversees the private entitiy (and has an incentive to be adversarial with them).

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Scouzer


That's fair enough. A private monopoly is far more inefficient than a public monopoly.

Au contraire. Private monopolies are far more efficient. They just don't pass the saving onto you. Public monopolies tend to be less efficient.

Does it really matter? It's semantics either way. In my experience EVERYTHING that remains public in parts of Canada is ALWAYS cheaper than the private options...

Subsidized by taxes perhaps?

no, no canadian crown corps are tax subsidized AFAIK, and definitely none that i mentioned in my previous post are

lol, the only revenue generating agencies are probably the provincial liquor stores and lottery corp. Rest receive their budget from tax revenue.

mmm...not out west. none of the corps I listed have anything to do with tax money. period. they operate completely indepedently from the government, they aren't part of the provincial budget whatsoever

 

[RedCOMET]

I live in Lafayette, and DID NOT know this was happening.. Hopefully my apartment complex will be in early phases of the roll out.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: So


Not automatically. With a public monopoly, there is little incentive for the government to keep spending in hand. The only way you can keep a monopoly in some semblance of control is to have a private monopoly with a public oversight board that oversees the private entitiy (and has an incentive to be adversarial with them).

I am not sure about your solution. I would rather have public money with private oversight.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Welcome back thread from the dead

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Welcome back thread from the dead

talk to Redcomet