Municipal Networks as Alternative to Commercial Broadband?

kenny asks: "There was a front page Wall Street Journal article last month (Aug. 17--sub. required) about local municipalities like Tacoma, Wash. and Coldwater, Mich. building out public fiber-optic networks through tax-free bond issues and run like local utilities. My question is what's been people's experience with municipal broadband networks? It seems like it's made people happy, and if the internet is like a public utility and if companies are dragging their feet about providing service, why shouldn't municipalities take it upon themselves to deliver service for their constituents?"

"Universally, it seems, people get better service and prices when such networks are implemented. It also forces telecom companies operating in the area to offer better service and prices as well, in short, to compete. But it's also increased companies' lobbying efforts against such municipal activity and it's not hard to see why such companies like AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications (controlled by Microsoft), and Qwest don't like it."

Not many municipalities are saavy enough to think about deploying this sort of infrastructure, however. For those in that situation, what kind of lobbying efforts must a municipality put together before village/town/city officials will take notice? If the government does notice, what kind of arguments should be made to convince them that it might be worthwhile to make such an undertaking?

Comments

Governments should stick to things they know

[tmark]

why shouldn't municipalities take it upon themselves to deliver service for their constituents?"

They shouldn't do this for the same reason they shouldn't be installing cable tv services, or telephone services, cell phone networks, or movie theaters: these are non-essential services which the private sector is willing and able to provide, and which governments have little experience or expertise with. The only thing governments should be providing for us are public goods which the private sector cannot or will not provide us.

Further, I have little confidence in the ability of a municipal or other government to provide efficient, inexpensive Internet (or other) services, and I can think of many more things I would rather have them provide or improve. If the government really feels a need to provide their citizens with connectivity I think it is best done with a limited number of Internet kiosks at places like libraries, city halls, etc, but I would vote against anybody who would suggest that providing more than this is the job of our government.

Right, like broadband

[BillyGoatThree]

"The only thing governments should be providing for us are public goods which the private sector cannot or will not provide us."

Maybe downtown Seattle has a lot of choices, but out here near the sticks I have exactly one broadband choice: Verizon. People actually IN the sticks have zero options.

IT WON'T WORK

[caseydk]

I was thinking about this last night. Internet access is pretty much ubiqitous in our lives, and (at least for me) is absolutely essential in order to function. Certain resources, like gas, electricity, and telephone service are considered essential, and the gov't sets standards and requires availibility of these services. These services are required to be availible all the time. However, IPS's [rr.com] can get away with spotty QoS, ninexistant customer support, and can just close up shop when they go broke. Shouldn't internet access be provided, subsidized, or regulated by the gov't as is any essential utility?

The standards that are involved do not ensure the same QOS that we're used to with a standard phone or electrical system. When you pick up the phone, it's assumed that there will be a dial tone. When you try to get online (unless you have boradband like me!) you have to dial and try to get a connection. How many times have you been bumped offline? How many times have you crashed your system? How many times have other things happen where you lose your connection?

The fundamental difference with the phone and IT systems is that the phone system works on the basis that not everyone will wnat to use the phone at any given time and even if they do, it'll just be momentary. That's why telco's started to freak when "getting online" started to become popular with the bbses. Suddenly, they had many people making many calls at about the same and then holding the line for hours.

The tcp/ip standards has specific conditions on when it is to drop packets and degrade service for non-vital stuff because it can be re-transmitted later.

This is also why true convergence won't work between these two systems. One works on the basis of having dumb normally unconnected terminals that require incredibly high QoS (phones) while the other works on the basis that eventually the info will get through, but the order doesn't neccessarily matter and the connection could always be live.

Consider this an upgrade to the Postal Service

[waxmop]

Because it's really the same thing.

The US has a postal system is run by the government and not the private sector in order to make sure ALL citizens get some degree of service, or "connectivity" in /. parlance.

Note how the Postal Service provides a "baseline" for all citizens, but doen't hold a monopoly. If you want to send a package faster, pay a little more and use UPS or a bike courier.

Having a government agency run the show guarantees that everyone can at least send a package somehow. There's no "sorry, your neighborhood just isn't rich enough for us to lay fiber / put in a mail route" going on.

Free markets don't always come to the socially optimal outcome, and they certainly can't be relied on to distribute resources equitably.

Sure, it won't be free, but if we really care about this "digital divide" then this will bridge it a lot faster than waiting for Verizon.

Re:Consider this an upgrade to the Postal Service

[Katan]

I wish it was as simple as "like another government service". You know, it wouldn't be described that way if the local government decided to get in the same field as you.

For example, you run the local automobile dealership. The city doesn't think you are giving the "value" to the users. What do you do? Take tax dollars from everybody in town and subsidize the industry for lower rates. All of a sudden the government is in your pocket taking your money twice. Once for the taxes, the second for stealing your business.

The second issue is that people seem to think high speed Internet is a right that should be nearly free. Does anyone realize what it costs to build these networks? Thats why in rural areas it takes longer as the investment and following ROI are a slow process. All the time people want 768k for 20 dollars a month. Hows that going to pay? Enter the mighty local government - we can take tax payer dollars and build this network to give all these services at that low rate. Once agian, tax dollars are floating this overall losing proposition. And if you don't use it, again you are paying twice.. .once in taxes, once the the other service provider.

Lastly, once these networks are in, they become the giant beasts that can not be stopped. Since they are losing money, every legislator with a noble idea will try to get the muni-network into more lines of business. Constantly trying to self justify itself.

Lastly again.... is cable TV really an essential service enough that the government has to step in? Get a freaking Satellite dish people...

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[well_jung]

We aren't talking about the Federal Gov't. We're talking about municipalities. Effectively, this is the same as getting together with your 5,000 best friends and sharing the costs associated with running an ISP and installing the needed infrastructure. Only the relationship is formalized, and the City Gov't already has lawyers.

Re:Ups and downs

[Basje]

But, during the (10 second) interval it took between when I clicked "post comment" and when the textbox finally appeared, I rethought. Provide to whom? As a gov't service they can't discriminate. Which is great for us Linux users--no more crappy DHCP/VPN-disabled junk. But pretty sucky for the administrators who have to have configs available for everything from Win98 to VMS to OS2 to BeOS.


How is that? Why can't they just put a box in your home which has a 10.x.x.x ip address, and do some nat later down the line?

Of course, there will be people whining they cannot run servers off that, or other other limitations. Those people should realize, that, as with all public services there'll be a certain service level for a certain price. If you want/need anything other, you'll have to pay for it yourself.

In that respect, one can compare it to public roads or sewers. You pay for 'em by taxes. If they're not what you want, you still have to pay. You're free to build your own besides, but you will have to pay for those as well, by yourself.

Still, most people think public roads and sewers, while not perfect, are better than dirtroads, and dumping everything in the street. YMMV.

Thus, if internet access is to become a public service, it has to be determined what the service level will be, for what price, and then we'll talk again.

Reality vs. Myth - Municipal Nets

[Tappah]

Having read many of the posts here, I find a great deal of mis-information being bandied about, as well as a general lack of understanding as to the current situation involving Muni nets.

First, the RCOC's (Regional Bell Operating Companies) have lobbied furiously against the creation of these networks. Cable has lobbied too, but cable companies have very little influence in statehouses and capital hill, as compared to the RBOCs, which weild enormous lobbying power, especially at the state level. As a result of this all-out lobbying effort, many states flatly prohibit municipalities from building any sort of network which will compete in any way against an RBOC.

Cities have fought back, however. Many towns, where broadband or even basic cable television service are sorely lacking or nonexistent, want to build these networks. There are several lawsuits right now seeking to overturn restrictive state laws by citing a provision in the Telecom Act of 96 which provides that no state may enact law which prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting the ability of "any entity" from providing telecom service. The FCC, ever beholden to the RBOCs, ruled originally that "any entity" did not include municipal governments, as a sop to telcos who feared taxpayers might just say "screw this, lets build our own". However, there are strong signs that a federal appelate court will overrule the FCC, and force states to allow muni's to start building nets, if taxpayers (us) vote to do so.

The fundamental question is: do we have the right to decide to provide our own?

Municipal governments provide 90% of direct government benefits, to most citizens. The provide streets, street signs, trash pickup, water service, maintain zoning standards, handle legalities like deeds and property matters, and intercede on behalf of citizens in a great many matters. It is an incontrovertible fact, that municipal governments are the best, most effective, and most efficient segment of our democratic system of government here in the US.

Even so, very few people bother to take notice of what your local city government is doing (which no doubt contributes to their efficiency).

I've seen several people here state, that City Governments have no experience with IT, are clueless, incapable, etc. This is flatly false.

City governments are no different than any other large company these days, and all of them larger than about 30,000 population have IT departments. The people that work in those departments often face daunting challenges, as the perils of the annual budget year cycle, and requirements for "low bid" purchases, force them to try and operate non-homogenous networks. They don't have the luxury of saying "100% company X" on anything. IT people that can keep networks like that running, must have skillsets that span very wide areas of knowledge.

And what the RBOCs fear most: Muni's have experienced and expert people in the tough areas of network operation already in place. Consider this: Munis regulate every inch of right-of-way in the "last mile", because they own it. Their people are more familiar with it than anyone, anywhere. Munis also have experts on telco regulation on staff, to deal with franchise agreements, rate regulation, etc. Muni's have contruction inspectors, log-standing relationships with Contractors, and experience in utility location/colocation. And Muni's have strong IT staff, as a rule.

There's one last thing to consider. Are you pissed at the service you recieve from your telco or cable company? Whatyougonnadoaboutit? Answer: not much you can do.

But consider - if your local goverment were your provider, what could you do then? Vote. Run for City Council. Local politics is personal folks - and unlike national politics, your personal problems are likely shared by your next-door neighbor. You as an individual can easily effect the outcome of a City Council election. Think on that, as you consider whether you're likely to get better service from a Muni telco.

This is valid

[Shotgun]

I'm usually against the government getting involved in just about anything, because they do tend to screw things up a lot. But the things that I consider valid for the government are basic things that:
A) everyone needs
B)for which there can be little to no market distinction
C)has a costly infrastructure associated with it

One such case is vaccinations. A vaccine will either work or it won't, and every child has to have them before they begin school. Company A's brand will really differ very little from Company B's, and I'd hate to see what kind of disgusting commercials companies would produce to try to distinquish thier product from a competitors. ("See twisted knarled Eddy? He used the wrong Streptomiacin vaccine!)

Another good case is school systems.

I see internet service as being the same. Everybody needs or will soon need a connection if they want to exist normally in a developed nation. One pipe is nearly identical to the next, and it is starting to get ridiculous to have a twisted pair in the ground next to a coax cable next to a fiber optic line while there is a satellite dish on the house next door and a wireless transmitter on a tower down the street. A simple connection (as opposed to the things that the broadband services currently want to provide--they want to sell you 'services', ie. baggage you don't need) is not difficult to provide and puts everyone at a level playing field.

In my view, government run internet equates to government run roads. It's too expensive for everyone to build and manage their own.