how on earth does it make sense to compare a rail network to an ISP?

When considering handing over a [n effective] monopoly on ISP services to a local government, it's reasonable to look around and see if they're generally managing other things that they do have a monopoly on well or poorly.

While I don't love Comcast, their uptime and consistency for me has been excellent for me over the last decade and their value-for-money acceptable-[0]. I would not have the automatic expectation that municipal broadband would be "better" in any meaningful way, despite the ire that many have for Comcast.

"The bar is better than Comcast" invites comparisons to other local government systems, IMO.

[0] - Though it's a huge waste of time for both sides for me to call up every two years to threaten to cancel and negotiate the re-addition of the (reasonable) promotional rate to my account.

Comparing the price and quality of Comcast internet in the US with service in other developed countries (and some developing countries) clearly shows how poor a job Comcast is doing.

The fact that you find Comcast quality or price reasonable is further evidence that market-based outcomes for internet service in the US are not efficient.

Marked based outcomes are efficient. 90 miles east of here, metro Boston generally has a choice between three modern providers - Comcast, RCN, and Verizon.

The western part of the state seemingly does not have the population density to attract this kind of investment. Comcast here is the monopoly provider of what we consider modern service, and AFAIK engages in their standard monopolistic playbook of throttling, caps, and continual billing shenanigans. Verizon is the ILEC, and could easily upgrade the DSL infrastructure for higher speeds and slowly build out fiber where it makes sense. But they don't because they see no profit in competing!

The worst part is that when Comcast steps up their game to compete with Whip City Fiber, Comcast will then spin those upgrades as an example of how municipal fiber was unnecessary. This has happened pretty much everywhere a city has gotten fed up with an incumbent monopoly and built out municipal infrastructure. And that is my main point - if one is a actual proponent of free markets, then one should support a second player entering the game and creating competition.

In this situation, the main thing municipalities are bringing to the table is the investment capital - investment which the quasi-governmental "private" telecommunications industry has refused to make themselves. Municipal services do not prevent private companies from entering the market - they merely preclude the private companies from receiving the juicy public subsidies that they've become accustomed to for building out their "private" infrastructure.

Markets can work. But often they don’t. I live in the center of Boston and have access to Verizon (not FIOS!) or Comcast. I’ve spent more time on the RCN website than I’d like to admit and they do not cover my building.

If you need more evidence that in this case the market does not lead to desirable outcomes, Verizon charges a monthly 5$ fee to NOT list your phone number (this is for the phone number you are required to sign up for in order to get internet service).

I'm just drawing a distinction because there's this toxic political meme of labeling an area with no competition as "the free market", and smearing collective action attempting to serve themselves as "government meddling", when in reality the latter is just the market mechanism itself! Customer demand gets so pent up that they start demanding a new competitor, and seek investment from the main source available to them. The new municipal entity still has to compete in the market for customers, and so any complaint from the incumbent about the government pushing them out of business is horse shit.

Sorry about your Internet choices - I was speaking based on friends in Arlington and Newton. It sounds like the market has failed you too, and it was not correct to chalk it all up to population density. RCN's upload speed sucks compared to my fiber here, so maybe that's some consolation?

Have you investigated whether any CLECs offer better DSL connections over that Verizon (Nynex, really) copper? IIRC, if you go to Megapath's website and check their business options (which I think involves a follow up phone call), they will send you a spreadsheet of all services available at your premises, which can be informative.

> The new municipal entity still has to compete in the market for customers, and so any complaint from the incumbent about the government pushing them out of business is horse shit.

Do you not see any difference between vigorous competition among profit-seeking companies, where mis-steps can cause loss of profits, loss of jobs, and ultimately bankruptcy and competition between a company with risk on the line versus a municipality that doesn't have to take on any of those same risks?

Yes, I do see a difference between apples and oranges - in areas with "vigorous competition", municipal fiber does not get support!

We're talking about areas where there has been no competition, and the incumbent has already succumbed to the same exact lethargic rent-seeking that people ascribe to municipal services.

Also it appears you seem to be thinking that "municipal fiber" means there are employees at City Hall with a blank check from the general fund. WG&E is a separate corporate body, overseen by the City of Westfield. I would guess they will be doing operations for Charlemont et al, but Charlemont will be free to choose a different operating contractor in the future.

So what we're really talking about is the ownership of the built-out infrastructure, which government has traditionally been paying for anyway - this story is about Charlemont not giving $500k to Comcast! The idea that the government should pay to build out infrastructure to be owned by a private company isn't the "free market" - it's textbook corruption!

For context - I am libertarian, and I recognize that there is no difference between government and a de facto monopoly that one is forced to patronize. In fact, the latter is a great way of describing the former. If you want to make a philosophical argument that government has no business subsidizing communications infrastructure at all, I won't argue. But that is generally not the point of contention around "municipal broadband".

I pay Comcast $78.04/mo (all-in) for “up to 150/10 Mbps”, no data cap, and 100+ channels (inc HBO) of TV. Internet uptime has been 100% since the last major multi-day power outage and speeds measure consistently 100-110/5-6. (Comcast has a monopoly in my town.)

How does that compare to your area? What measure(s) of quality of residential service should I consider?

Compare the price and quality of Comcast internet in the US with internet in Canada.

I'm from the US but live in Canada and the price of everything is higher, to include network and, especially, cell phone costs.

Doesn't mean that Comcast isn't crap though.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/why-canadian-cell-phone...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wireless-prices-cell-phone-...

Would you rather compare it with the antiquated sewer systems that dump untreated sewage into local rivers every time it rains? https://wtop.com/dc/2017/07/heavy-rain-raw-sewage-potomac-an...

ISPs are closer to rail than say water. Most municipalities get along fine with water systems built a century ago. But broadband networks require active maintenance and continual upgrades. Rail technology moves incredibly slowly--D.C.'s system featured automated train control when it was built in the 1970s. But the government couldn't even keep that system working so they had to turn it off. I have zero faith these same people could keep up with upgrading switches, routers, etc.

It really doesn't help your argument to compare rail and water with communications infrastructure. They have very little in common.

I struggle to think of anything they do have in common. Capital cost, operating cost, speed of innovation, the average American's interest in the level of service provided, the possibility for competition, the practicality of parallel infrastructures... does rail/water have anything in common with an Internet connection?

Water/sewer hookups (1) have most of the cost recovered at construction time, via a $20-30,000 per-house charge; and (2) once built, don't require upgrades to keep up with advancing technology and higher per-user demand. If municipalities struggle to maintain infrastructure in the face of static or slowly growing demand, why on earth would you expect them to do better when it comes to infrastructure with rapidly advancing technology and exponentially increasing demand? Why would you trust government entities that can't simply keep 1970's-era automated train control technology working with infrastructure that improves dramatically every decade?

2) is just absolutely incorrect. Buildings are renovated and incoming services changed all the time.

Clearly you know very little about physical infrastructure other than its translation into $.

I'd like to contrast with the rail system in most of Asia (or at least Seoul and Hong Kong). Government run, and always on time. The worst thing is how it can be packed full, but that's just uncomfortable

Hong Kong's MTR is a private, publicly-traded corporation. So are Japan's major rail operators. Korea's long-distance rail operator is government-owned, but not government-run (it's structured as a government-owned for-profit corporation). Singapore's rail system is operated by two for-profit corporations (on tracks built by a government board).

Huh? The Hong Kong system is run by MTR Corporation. The Seoul subway is run by Korail and Seoul Metro corporations.