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

Re:ask slashdot

[Foss]

It's all to do with it being made by a company called Microsoft. Microsoft was founded by a businessman that goes by the name of Bill Gates. This man sold his soul to satan in order to gain control over 90% of the world's computers, through this "Microsoft" company. The only real drawback (aside from selling his soul) was that the company name had to reflect the constant state of his genetalia. Thank you.

Commie bastards!

[mrfiddlehead]

Isn't that the sort of comment made by any descent red blooded Yank? Hey, fair's fair. Just last week I heard some dimwit from Michigan accusing Canadians of having a Soviet-Style government because of their medicare system. I did give him the benefit of the doubt at the time because of the nastiness in New York, but I know that his ilk are all too common in the Yoo Ess.

The *only* way to have a decent broadband system is to have a public utility installed. California learned this the hard way when it came to its power system. If you expect that you'll get competative service from the multinational communications giants you're kidding yourself because it's only a matter of time before they'll all be one giant bloody company anyway.

God help us, indeed ... and those words don't come easily for an atheist.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[hieronymous72]

Local muncipalities are different than the "US Gov't". The people directing the build out live in the area and hence have a much more vested interest in the venture succeeding and being on schedule (well, within reason of course).

Does your local government tell you what you can and can't do with your electricity? Or what you can talk about on your phone (okay, the phone isn't a local utility but same difference in my book)? If they just provide the network, and someone else provides your ISP services/bandwidth, etc. then they are the ones responsible for your content, not the local government.

And BTW, it's not just the "far Right" that would want content filtered. the "far Left" would want hate content filtered and other topics that didn't push tolerance of others. (Offtopic: Isn't it amazing how many of those touching tolerance of everything are generally intolerant of people that aren't intolerant themselves?)