Why There's A Need For Municipal Broadband
from the muni-money-and-mayhem dept
Glenn Fleishman points to a Washington Monthly article that does an excellent job of highlighting why there's a need in the US for municipal broadband services -- because incumbent providers do an inadequate job of serving many communities, and regulators let them get away with it. Both the original article and Fleishman's post point out examples of incumbent providers refusing to invest in offering services wanted and needed in some place, and also the double-standard the companies have when they object to localities spending public money to compete with them, but gladly accept all kinds of tax breaks, subsidies and incentives from local governments to support their own businesses. The lack of real competition in the broadband market has allowed it to stagnate and lets providers get away with subpar offerings and high prices. Clearly the current regulatory situation isn't doing anything to spark competition -- far from it -- leaving underserved localities little option but to jump into things themselves. It's not a question of free markets or government interference; incumbent providers just don't want to have to compete, period, regardless of who is their rival.
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
Deregulation is more likely to foster growth and new options in this area. If more companies were free to lay lines and compete with the big providers, prices would go down (as always happens when there is adequeate competition), and people would be happier with the freedom to say to their provider "stop raising rates or I'll SWITCH."
Full disclosure here: I am a very politically active libertarian, and pre-law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
First off, most of the new muni-broadband offerings don't use taxpayer money. Second, it can make sense for government to get involved in areas where there's a clear market failure -- which does appear to be what has happened in parts of the broadband market. Because of the nature of deploying a broadband network, having some element of public cooperation can be quite helpful -- whereas "deregulation" can cause problems. Since companies need rights to be able to either lay lines or place wireless transmitters you can make a reasonable argument that government should be at least helping to keep the market fair and competitive, rather than completely stepping back.
I think part of the problem may be the name "muni-broadband." If you look at many of the new deployments (such as the one announced yesterday in Anaheim), it's really a private WiFi network set up by Earthlink. The only muni part is that Anaheim is granting the right of way for Earthlink to install its access points (for a fee).
And, if you actually read the articles that Carlo is pointing to, they make a very convincing argument that the overall social and economic benefits of these muni-WiFi setups is quite clear -- mainly in generating lots of new business.
The libertarian view is a good one to take, but you need to recognize things like natural monopolies and how certain markets impact others before completely condemning muni-broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Full disclosure here: I am a very politically active libertarian, and pre-law.
Keep in mind that, like most libertarians, he's from a time before there was a law, and things were different then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
And as for natural monopolies - I think the first step to curing this is eliminating the legal definition of a corporation, that "single entity" legal definition of a company. And again, in a truly free market, if you don't like the monopoly, you can always try starting up some competition yourself. When a company becomes so saturated into society that living becomes impossible outside of its realm, then there is a true societal problem, and societal problems are certainly within the government's role to take a hand in solving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Localities are always striving to seperate themselves from others in order to entice business into the area - to increase the tax base in order to provide more services. Businesses create jobs (more tax payers) and pay taxes themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Da Man - Shittin' on us again
Internet is a public utility now. As is electricity, phone access, natural gas, gasoline, water, and food.
Our local providers are avoinding certain areas like they have plague. Primarly these are areas where a high percentage of the population is afro-american and / or hispanic.
Not to mention I have a friend who lives in the CITY LIMITS of CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA; the largest city in North Carolina: and he still cannot get dsl because the local phone company keeps dragging thier asses about upgrading the equipment in his area. The local cable company wants to charge him $2800 to run a line 600 feet for cable internet access, and their is no public wide access wi-fi network.
You say the government needs to stay out of it, ordinarily I'd agree. However when companies refuse to offer fair access to all users, they invite the government to step in and regulate their business for them. And more power to the government if they have to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The government needs to be more of a societal skeleton than the meat and organs of society, let the private sector handle that. The gov doesn't exist to serve every whim of the people. That'd be terribly dangerous, as 51% can sure ask for a lot, when it suits them. A 50+% tax to pay for all that doesn't sound appealing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Why not let the municipalities serve the people they exist to serve?
We have electric co-ops in Texas. No one gets free electricity, but everyone who wants it has easy access.
Good luck with your law career. Get you a dog. Name him Loophole...Sic him, Loophole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theory
Blah, blah, blah.
When I read the article and as everyone else knows, the companies that you covet are screwing the public.
The problem is their is no competition and these companies have us backed into a corner. Do you want it or not. This is the premium you must pay.
Robber Baron is the first thought.
For modern times, monopoly.
For Republicans and Libertarians, bend over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go call Grover Norquist re:Abramoff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go call Grover Norquist re:Abramoff
I am not knocking you Walter but the sad sack of people that believe placing a label on things makes them good people.
The problem is they have no idea what the labels usually stand for other than a point to argue on.
So much for blind faith. Well I guess most of them follow GW. That is pretty blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go call Grover Norquist re:Abramoff
Walter said using a tithe to help a sickly old lady would be Christain and you cut that down. very compationate, jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go call Grover Norquist re:Abramoff
"Scott you are blind if you think that does not already happen.
If you do not think that you can be monitored then I am so sorry that you are that nieve.
Read about monitoring of the internet and government policy. Read a few laws that have been past and maybe the secret ones that have been exposed.
Your world will begin to crumble. I am sorry that your ballon has lasted this long and that you thought you actually had freedom under Bush."
4 lines of drivel - 3 hilarious errors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Municipal broadband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Municipal broadband
If you do not think that you can be monitored then I am so sorry that you are that nieve.
Read about monitoring of the internet and government policy. Read a few laws that have been past and maybe the secret ones that have been exposed.
Your world will begin to crumble. I am sorry that your ballon has lasted this long and that you thought you actually had freedom under Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
At the same time, I think it does represent a certain laziness of local politicians. They should have taken off the gloves and really negotiated this type of access into their future contracts with telcos and cable companies. They took the easy way out and negotiated new contracts with new service providers. And, I'm quite sure they took plenty of donations from everyone involved.
I look forward to Muni WiFi, but I am not so naive that I think it was handled in the best possible way, it will work as seamlessly as promised, and that the municipalities won't bear any costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]