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

The Only Way?

[piecewise]

This might be the only way to get broadband out there faster. The way it is today, service providers are stuck in a corner. They know the demand is out there for broadband. People DO want it, for the most part. They also know that broadband (DSL, for example), has certain requirements like distance which can hinder performance.

So if I live too far from the main DSL switch building, too bad for me! Also, broadband is dependent on the physical characteristics of a customer zone. If I live in an area with old cable networks and nasty phone lines... that just adds to list of what must be upgraded.

So the service providers must be content for now in offering to the few. (I live in a very snazzy community with a lot of money. All of them would buy broadband, yet nobody can get it. So even with guaranteed customers (and hundreds of them), it still might not be profitable!)

Having municipal networks would really bring broadband out. I'm all for it. If we let the markets do it themselves, it'll take years. Not that municipal networks would suddenly spring up overnight, but they would guarantee more broadband (significantly so) and would guarantee a standard and central office from which others could branch themselves.

Having government doing stuff private businesses normally do can have very good effects in certain situations...

Ups and downs

[BillyGoatThree]

Right after I read it I was really excited about this idea. Get out from under Verizon? You betcha!

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.

Of course, in actual practice they'd only provide service for the "popular" OS's. Which defeats the whole purpose of having a public utility in the first place.

For the love of God, Covad, run a damn line to my house so I can get Speakeasy! Or at least give me a estimate of when you CAN do it so I know how long the wait will be.

Why shouldn't they?

[wunderhorn1]

Because every yahoo with some "family values" agenda to push will be demanding filtering and God knows what else on these "public" pipes. I do not want add any more reasons for people to feel they can restrict what I do on the internet, and making my connection "public property" sounds like a prime candidate for the far Right to try to push their values on me.

Plus, the US Gov't doesn't have the greatest track record on building things on-time or on-budget, nor on keeping things in shape.

I'd rather see more Gov't incentives for private companies to build private infrastructure and Gov't regulations to insure consumers are protected.

Goverment is not better then telecom.

[flatiron32]

I am frankly a little afraid of this idea. I do not want government involved any more in my life then it needs to be, whether it be local, state, or federal. The type of government that provides services" to its people is called socialism. I like our democratic republic just fine and believe that if you do not like the way that private companies are acting, then you should work to change them. I know that leviathans like Verizon can see impossible to change, but they can be! First, if you want service in your area and know that upgrading is the problem but your area really wants the bandwidth, have every one right letters saying that you are willing to pay a little higher connection fees for the service for a few years after the service comes. Now obviously that does not sound like a fun plan, but it might work. If you think that you can do a better and/or cheaper job than the current provider, become a competitor. One thing that is true in the post is that competition will make the current system change. The problem with having government be the competitor is that they are not driven by profit so they can always under cut the competition. They also have an endless supply of cash to waste, yours!

A question you must always ask yourself is: "Is this really an area where I feel comfortable having a group of ill-informed non-experts wasting my money?" Remember it was the government that created AT&T and it is government that will rebuild it again if we do not fight it!

Have A Blessed Day and Pray for America.