> The free market allocates resources properly and will provide better and less expensive broadband internet, at no cost to the tax payer

I think the problem is that the opposite has actually happened, which is what motivates municipal broadband.

> The free market allocates resources properly and will provide better and less expensive broadband internet, at no cost to the tax payer

I really hope nobody thinks that applies to Internet service in the real world. All evidence suggests that there is no free market, the resulting service is not better, nor less expensive, and it has cost the taxpayers a significant amount.

So then why institute a ban? If opponents are so confident that the private sector will do such a good job, let the municipality compete with private providers and offer residents the choice, see who wins.

Largely because you’re running that experiment at the expense of tax payers.

If they're doing it right it shouldn't be an expense, the tax payers should be making a profit off of it. How much money does comcast make?

It's the taxpayers who want it and vote for this experiment.

Clearly not all of them or we wouldn’t be in this thread discussing it under this particular OP. I don’t care either way though I was just working through what the GOP logic likely is. Not representing my own opinion.

It is rare, in the US at least, for any representative or direct democratic situation to ask for unanimous consent. Someone will almost certainly disagree once you get past 1 voter (or one representative), and possibly they'll disagree with themselves.

What's interesting about this case is that the municipalities have made moves towards this with their own money and efforts. And it is the state which is attempting to squash it, that is those around them. It would be as if you said to your neighbors, "I'm going to try and do something which will have zero impact on you, like eating more vegetables that I grow at home." Then they all gang up on you and deny you the right to grow and consume your own vegetables. If the action were harmful to you and your neighbors, like say you decided to make meth in your home, then it could be a reasonable response.

What about municipal broadband causes harm to those outside the community which wants it such that their representatives in the state legislature have any reasonable standing to try and bar it?

> It is rare, in the US at least, for any representative or direct democratic situation to ask for unanimous consent. Someone will almost certainly disagree once you get past 1 voter (or one representative), and possibly they'll disagree with themselves.

Just because something passes by a margin of, let's say a hypothetical margin of 51/49, you're right that it didn't require unanimous consent but if you ignore the concerns of that other 49 and decide not to at least understand, represent parts of or compromise on certain aspects of an issue you're going to just create a situation of hostility for a large group of people that eventually leads to bigger issues.

As to your explanation/example, sure and I don't have an argument against that because I don't disagree with it. I would vote for municipal broadband and think the state is over stepping it's bounds here.

Yeah, I don't think the state banning and shutting down existing municipal broadband falls into the category of "compromise".

I don't believe I said it does, those are your words.