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...

Re:The Only Way?

[Sethb]

Competition does wonderful things for broadband access. I live in Cedar Falls, Iowa, which runs its own cable and broadband company, they offer cable modem service for $30 a month. AT&T also provides service in the area, and that's who I had for the last two years, until I finally moved to an area serviced by both companies. The difference in service is remarkable.

With AT&T, my connection went down daily for months at a time, and if you ever did have a problem, they wanted you to wait two weeks for them to roll a truck to your house.

I've had one outage in the three months I've had CFU, and that was due to my modem failing. I noticed the problem at 7:10 p.m., called it in, and I was back online at 7:40 p.m. after one of their techs brought a new modem to my house and installed it for me. Try getting that kind of service out of AT&T.

Their lower price has forced AT&T to keep their prices low, as well. AT&T only charges $30 for service here, which often confuses their customer service reps, as we're one of the very few places that have service offered at that price.

It's much easier to get good service out of small local companies than out of the big conglomerates, and it's convenient having my internet access come on the same bill as my water, power, gas, etc.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Governments should stick to things they know

[sracer9]

I have to agree with most of what you say. I have always been a proponent for the private sector providing goods & services. However, here in Tacoma, this all happened as a result of the cable companies not being able to deliver. Like most places, we went through several of em'. From Viacom to TCI and now to AT&T. A few years ago, Viacom/TCI completely drug their feet on providing services to areas within the city. The residents were upset that they couldn't get standard basic TV services etc.. The City of Tacoma decided that adding a cable network to its utilities wasn't so bad an idea as it would extend services to areas that couldn't already get it, as well as provide consumers with a choice (where cable was available). All in all, it's worked out pretty good in Tacoma. Oddly enough, AT&T sure worked their butts off to get service in to previously un-served areas once Click was there. Now, most residents in Tacoma have a choice between Click (the City owned cable), AT&T, Qwest DSL and others.

I'm not sure if this sort of thing would work elsewhere, but in Tacoma, it exists due to the existing private sector companies not providing the services to begin with. Sometimes competition, even from public utilities, is a *good* thing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.