In which ways such ban would benefit people living in Ohio?
It wouldn't. It's also completely crazy to assume that concern entered into the minds of the legislation's sponsors at all. See the other thread today about the nuclear bribery scandal if you have any doubts about the Ohio legislature's integrity:
It’s one thing to pay a bill. It’s another thing to pay it twice.
Knowing from behavioral economics about loss aversion, it is reasonable for us to want to avoid placing ourselves in a situation where it forces us into foolish policy decisions.
For what it’s worth, I am generally in agreement with you, except that majority rule to extract money from some people to provide for others strikes me as poor taste. If the ones who want the service want to collectivize to pay for it, it makes sense to me that the government run that enterprise.
The difference between a market and the government is that if a product is unviable with 50%+1 but viable with 99%, that 50%+1 population can force it upon the rest. That difference to me is significant enough that I don’t think claiming voting as equivalent to market spending is reasonable.
ISPs, once they have a legislated monopoly in localities, have a solid track record of stagnating investment in improved capabilities regardless of billing increases.
Forcing ISPs to compete against self-motivated local establishments of ISP services is what makes capabilities and prices work best for the customers.
TIA
Do you expect a ban on municipal broadband to improve either the quality or price of internet service and if so are there any examples of this happening?