| ▲ | LaurensBER 2 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While this is great when it works it does raise some interesting challenges, what happens if the ISP loses money, should taxes be used to cover the cost since this is a public service? Is it reasonable for this ISP to undercut commercial offerings? Internet is in a weird grey zone where it's almost a utility but not on the same level as water or sewage. I'm glad this non-profit ISP exists but on a national level I would prefer (strong) net neutrality laws. Probably not an issue in NL but in less developed countries neutrality isn't guaranteed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | linohh 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Usually these ISPs are part of or under the municipal utility provider. So if they lose money, it first gets offset by profits from other utilities and eventually yes, the taxpayer will step in, directly or indirectly. No big deal. No one is complaining about subsidies for water or power lines in rural areas, neither should they when it comes to internet. Remember: These ISPs were founded because the market was already failing to provide decent offers or any at all. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | rcbdev 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Austria the Internet, like the postal service, is a Universal Service ("Universaldienst"). As such, any completely unserviced citizen can petition the current Finance Minister to decree an ISP of his choice - usually A1, which is the privatized form of our former public office for postal services and telegraphs - to service their area. The costs of facilitating the servicing of this area are covered by all active ISPs of a certain size operating in Austria. Telecommunications law in Europe is a very interesting thing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | redserk 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why make the assumption that municipalities must treat their internet services as a second-rate utility? Many local governments are competently run. If the internet is out, it's going to be just as visible and probably will yield as many complaints as losing power, sewer, and water. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | oersted 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There's voting with your wallet and voting with your, well, vote. In some sense a democracy is also a market and can lead to efficient allocation of resources, particularly common resources for common good. This is why public utilities tend to work so well in practice. People, especially in the US, don't seem to realise that such services are also subject to strong market forces, just a different kind of market. Voters care a lot about good public services, and they also care a lot about not getting taxed much. This can lead to very efficient outcomes in well functioning democracies, often more efficient than those that come out of private enterprise, when it comes to services that most of the population needs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wat10000 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If it loses money, do some combination of raising prices and cutting costs. Aim for an average of zero profit/loss over the long term. Undercutting commercial offerings is perfectly fine if it works out that way. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||