> They're no more corrupt than large corporate players, but I can vote for my local government

My point is that's a terrible baseline to settle for. If our metric for "should we do it" is solely "is it better than Comcast," we've got a problem. My specific concern is around local police having expanded access to locals' internet activity.

No its not. That's a huge distinction - these services are held in the public's interest. Not for the profit motive of small group of shareholders. And things like demand having any control or the idea that you can really switch to the "competition" don't actually exist.

Where were you when all of these private companies built-in backdoors for law enforcement anyways.

I don't see how the local police would have any more access than they would if Comcast were in charge. They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

> They'd still have to get a warrant to search anything.

Even better, anything they found without a warrant would be thrown out, unlike if Comcast volunteers to give up data about you.

The police aren't running the municipal ISP? There's no sense in lumping all "government" into one bucket.

OK, do you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?

> you're rejecting both the idea of the local municipality and corporates. What's your preferred solution?

Municipality builds and owns the infrastructure; competitively leases it to private operators for fixed periods of time.

That just seems like choosing the worst of both theoretical worlds you described. The local gov't still has final control over your infrastructure but you also have private industry skimming profits off something you already paid for with taxes.

That's entirely the point and I wouldn't be surprised if this person were a Comcast lobbyist. The goal is to have the public enthusiastically absorb the cost of infrastructure, then introduce inefficiencies designed to sour the public's opinion of municipally-owned internet. The lessees would be able to throttle their own service and blame the infrastructure while raising prices and blaming the cost of leasing. This plants the seed for the public to consider divestment of infrastructure to "lower costs" and "improve efficiency". Then your telco du jour swoops in and offers to buy it all at a fraction of what it would have cost them to invest in the community themselves. In the end the telco ends up with a steal and the residents end up holding the bag.

To me it seems like the best of both worlds. Local government has more limited control with their technical incompetence while private industry doesn't have the ownership leverage to run you around. I want the people I vote for to have control, but I sure as hell don't want them managing, staffing the people for, and maintaining the infrastructure. You can call it "skimming profits", but I just call it IT outsourcing and any reasonable local government should lest they all write their own software and have their own large IT departments. You didn't "already pay for" future maintenance with your past taxes.

Seems to me law enforcement having access to our internet activity (presumably moderated by the courts) is better than private companies just selling that data to the highest bidder

In my ideal world we would be talking about the public utility of having network cables (of some baseline quality) running to every building in a municipality that any number of ISPs can provide the actual service for.

> we would be talking about the public utility of having network cables (of some baseline quality) running to every building in a municipality that any number of ISPs can provide the actual service for

Me too. And I think municipal broadband is the right first step--I'm lobbying for it in New York. But as it scales, we'll move from competent municipalities to incompetent one to evil ones. I'd prefer we figure out the balance of power before Ferguson, Missouri rolls out municipal broadband. (Or before they turn into new Port Authorities and BARTs.)

I'm kind of shocked that you'd openly admit to this kind of behavior. You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities, then intentionally introducing inefficiencies by leasing usage out to said private entities. I'm guessing after customers pay more taxes and still have the same internet bill, you'll then lobby that public internet is a failure and advocate for divestment for some massive discount that will be happily picked up by whatever local monopoly is extorting citizens. Truly disgusting.

> You're lobbying for the public to foot the bill for public infrastructure to be used solely by private entities

By this token this describes basically all public infrastructure then. It's not like roads were built with the idea that only public employees would use them.

> then intentionally introducing inefficiencies

Compared to the inefficiency of having ISPs have to build multiple separate physical networks? This service can be provided to ISPs at zero cost if it really worries you.

> I'm guessing after customers pay more taxes and still have the same internet bill.

Well duh, internet is priced based on how much people value it, not how much it costs to provide. Even in a world where the infrastructure is publicly owned no ISP would dare kill the golden calf by significantly cutting prices. ISPs typically compete in the other direction by providing better service at a given price.

> public internet is a failure

This wouldn't be 'public internet' by any reasonable definition, this would be local loop unbundling. It provides the means for an ISP to enter the market without significant construction costs. Any promise that this will reduce prices or lead to better service is purely speculative.

> By this token...

This would be like NYC building a road exclusively for Uber and Lyft, who can then charge you whatever for access via their transport. NYC loses because it then becomes dependent on ride sharing companies to justify its investment, so these companies can negotiate leases toward zero with the constant threat of pulling out.

> ...internet is priced based on how much people value it...

Yes, and it should absolutely not be. It's literally a series of ~~tubes~~ low-voltage power lines.

> Any promise that this will reduce prices...

Which is why it's a terrible idea. Residents should not be footing the bill for infrastructure that exists to create an artificial marketplace of identical (or worse, artificially differentiated) services. Being an ISP is not mysticism and is easily achievable by local government precisely because the majority of being an ISP is owning the wires. It also gives residents the ability to democratically determine what their own priorities are and adjust local QoS based on their own needs.

You can vote with your wallet, too.

Comcast is the sole cable internet provider in my area, and in many areas. I realize that it would be the same scenario for this community (in terms of options), but voting with your wallet is impossible in some communities.

Many people can't with regards to ISPs. I only have one provider that goes to my address.