Supreme Court Says Bans On Municipal Broadband Is Legal
from the keep-it-all-private dept
Broadband Reports has the scoop on an issue that isn't getting very much press coverage - though, it probably should. It's become popular lately for local municipal governments to start offering their own broadband - especially when they feel that private interests are not doing a very good job bringing broadband to their residents. However, the traditional broadband providers are upset about this competition from the government, and are convincing many places to put up laws banning municipalities from offering services and competing with the private companies. The Supreme Court has now ruled that such bans are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean that no municipalities will offer broadband - just that it's okay for governments to ban such offers. Both sides make compelling arguments for their position. Municipalities feel that they can offer better service and better prices to residents, while private providers claim it's not fair to have to compete against publicly financed broadband. There's an easy response to that, though: if the private providers were providing adequate service, there would be no demand for municipally provided broadband. The reason these muni broadband providers are showing up is because the private companies haven't been able to do their jobs effectively. If anything, having muni competition should spur them to do a better a job. So, while it may now be perfectly legal for state governments to ban muni broadband, it probably doesn't do its citizens very much good. Update: The Associated Press is running a short blurb on the ruling.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It IS unfair competition...
Comcast bought AT&T Broadband and raised my cable broadband bill by $20 A MONTH because I declined a bundle including their crappy and overpriced digital cable service. I switched to the far more reasonable Verizon DSL, and wrote my congressmen about what I believed to be Comcast's price gouging practices. Should there be better processes in place to ensure that customers don't get screwed on price and poor service? Yes--I believe it more than anyone. But government-run ISPs aren't necessarily the answer...the notion runs counter to our open market system and could create as many problems as it solves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS unfair competition...
As someone who has been writing on this topic for two years, let me tell you this isn't an assumption at all. By FAR the majority of these systems are in response to either NO service or very poor service.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It IS unfair competition...
However, I doubt ALL cities would be so unscrupulous if they could make some hard cash out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfair?
What, exactly, is 'unfair' about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]