Seriously, something like that is going to happen. Tacoma, a city near Seattle, had their own broadband. The city broke all kinds of laws to give a contract to another provider so they don’t own the service anymore. Seattle was fighting for their own internet at the time and used Tacoma as an example. Guess what happened next.
ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Since it appears there’s precedent for this falling apart, hopefully Cleveland’s government will have done their research and be prepared, albeit I’m not necessarily optimistic either.
chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
It’s not a precedent, it’s a playbook and telecos have been following it for decades. If you have one of the big telecoms in your city, they will sue to block municipal broadband. These suits win more often than not and even when they lose the rollout is usually delayed long enough as a result that they break even on legal fees.
This is actually Cleveland’s second attempt to expand municipal broadband after their last effort in 2021 was thwarted when the Ohio state government banned Cleveland and other cities from building out fiber – obviously at the behest of lobbying from ISP special interests.
This new attempt works around the law by forming public-private partnerships instead of true state-owned infrastructure. It’s the most they can do without violating state law:
bassomitron@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The metro area where I live had to do this public-private partnership for the same reason. They proposed public fiber years ago and Mediacom sued and blocked it. This was how our metro area (a collection of roughly 6 cities) got around that bullshit lawsuit. As a result, we now have 1Gb symmetrical fiber for $60/mo (Mediacom charged $120+/mo for 1Gb and maaaaybe 10Mb up on good days, oh and constantly had outages).
Fuck Mediacom and their ilk.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Fuck the courts that enable them instead of shutting these monopolies down.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Just because the city’s not “putting anything in” doesn’t mean they aren’t contributing or absorbing costs.
The city should have a stake in it, since it’s on city property, and the city maintains the local infrastructure (poles, right-of-ways, etc) that these companies need to install anything. Otherwise it’s just another (local) monopoly.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 year ago
Wow, I missed that they banned it in Ohio. It must only apply to new systems as I’m fairly sure Fairlawn is still operating municipal fiber.
That’s really irritating though, of course they snuck it into a budget bill.
chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Whoops! I went back to double-check after seeing what you said and found that the provision was actually dropped from the bill in the time between when it was passed by the Senate and signed by the governor.
The way it got quietly dropped like that kept it from being well publicized, but the long and short of it is that I misremembered and then failed to spot this detail while fact-checking myself. I’m sorry for spreading misinformation – I’ve updated the original post
neatchee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I grew up in Cleveland. Family still lives in the area. I am not expecting anything good to actually happen
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The Browns are more likely to win the Super Bowl than this happening.
neatchee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We doing okay this year, despite our best efforts to fail