Slashdot Mirror
Broadband War & an Interactive Municipal Map
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions a CNET News.com story on the U.S.'s growing debate over municipal broadband. Across the country, acrimonious conflicts have erupted as local governments attempt to create publicly funded broadband services with faster connections and cheaper rates for all citizens, narrowing the so-called digital divide. The Bells and cable companies, for their part, argue that government intervention in their business is not justified and say they are far better equipped to operate complex and far-flung data networks.
There is also an interactive municipal broadband legislative map that details the major battlegrounds on the issue. At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge. Its map shows a breakdown of muni-projects in each state, which have or are developing fiber or Wi-Fi projects, and are facing (existing or pending) legal barriers to doing business."
Can anyone explain how in the hell the Baby Bells etc. are actually managing to push bills preserving their effective monopolies through state governments?
(Hint: saying 'bribery' might be true, but it ain't the kind of answer I'm after!)
We Build Beautiful Websites
The real shock in any of this is that the telecom companies haven't done this already. 802.11b (at least) as been everywhere, at the same price that normal NICs used to cost, for at least 3 years or so. The number of laptops being lugged around by people was huge even then.
The idea of public broadband has always been an attractive one for slashdotters, the incursion into this arena by Grant County PUD in central Washington State stands as an example of why we don't want bureaucrats meddling in business.
In this state the PUDs are treated as municipalities under the law and are given a set of rules under which they can operate. Broadband and electrical power are different services so it took an act of the Legislature to allow them to enter the market. The legislature, under some pressure from the big telecoms who were afraid that the PUDs would "cherry pick" the larger communities and leave the rural people to fend for themselves, allowed the PUDs to be "wholesale" only. The first thing Grant County PUD did was ignore that law.
Grant County PUD had first partnered up with two local ISPs which charged $20 to $25 per month for the broadband servoces back at the inception of the project in 1999. But at the same time the Manager of that PUD was trying to attract an outside competitor, also a utility provider, to enter the market in this county at a subsidized rate of $8 per month.
The PUD did attract that utility but only by entering into secret (and illegal) agreements to subsidize the program at cost plus 10%. So the new provider would risk nothing and could make 10% on the rate-payer's money even if they gave away their services for free. Then the PUD employees threw as many of the new customers to this new competitor as possible while their managers used their position as investors to pressure prices to a point where the commercial ISPs could no longer compete profitably.
It was only after the PUD had spent several million dollars propping up this outside provider that the story became known. Meanwhile, the PUD had raised the electrical rates to cover the $100 Million cost of fibering only 1/3 of the County but lied when asked about it. The Commissioners and Managers claimed that the rate increases were due to other factors. However their own emails, obtained under the State's public disclosure act, showed this to be untrue.
Agricultural interests were incensed because they use a lot of that electrical power. A large farm might have a $500k yearly power bill for their irrigation pumps. While 4% isn't much for my house, it's a chunk of money on a half-million dollars.
It took almost a year after the discovery of the secret contracts and a State Auditor's report which also found illegal and improper actions, to rid ourselves of the management team that led us into this debacle. The largest ISPs in the area, including the first two to partner up with the PUD, went out of business and were gobbled up by another outside competitor; costing jobs and an economic drain on the communities' resources. The Commissioners who were supposed to keep a rein on the PUD managers are now up for re-election and facing some tough questions.
The problem with bureaucrats going into business is that, essentially, they don't understand profit and loss. It's all other people's money and if they make a mistake they just raise the rates to cover it. We could have fibered this County up for the money they spent, had they spent that money wisely. Instead they created a NOC they thought they could make profitable (not at $3 million a year to operate they couldn't), they installed fiber to the areas where their managers lived regardless of population density (it turns out the telecoms fears of "cherry picking" were well-founded, but the managers weren't smart enough to do it that way), and they drove jobs and money out of the area.
Had they simply created the infrastructure for the product instead of getting involved in creating subsidies for favored businesses we would have been ok. But that's the problem. Bureaucrats don't make good business people.
So if you don't want to see jobs go away, money disappear and your power rates rise, treat the entrance of government into business with caution. These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
Besides, Wi-Fi is old technology (in terms of providing wireless-anywhere service, as opposed to providing wireless-in-your-own-building service), to be replaced by EVDO.
If the municipality wanted to provide cable/DSL broadband, there is an issue of the municipality commandeering the local cable provider's wires for public purposes. I can't see a municipality laying down hundreds/thousands of miles of its own wires. A court would need to decide if emminent domain would apply.
then they should lower their rates. When the price of comcast highspeed is roughly $50/month - that is HIGH cost. Make it 25/month and the gov't will let it go - especially since that is what most municipalities are thinking of charging around. Now if the gov't can do it at 25 - and we know how bad gov't is at managing money - then the broadbad providers should have little to no problems doing this.
But they are greedy and they will lobby.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Now I don't have a choice but to use the contracted collector But municiple networks don't prohibit you from using other ISPs if you want to. The original post is right. Municiple networks aren't anti-competative. Municiples networks still have to compete for customers and recover their costs just like any other business. In fact, most proposed municiple networks are run by private companies, not by government agencies. The big telecos are free to bid on these municiple contracts just like any other business can. The only thing municiple networks do differently is pool customers into a large group that allows them to negotiate with a provider for better prices. Telecom companies want to be like the pharmaceutical companies and prohibit the pooling of buyers to negotiate for better prices for the consumer. Giant telecom companies are not working on behalf of customers, they are working on behalf of telecom shareholders and executives. The only way to build a true consumer-driven marketplace is for consumers pool their telecom buying at the local level. That is what municiple networks do.
If I want "free" wireless broadband, I can get it from my local coffee shop. I see no reason whatsoever why the old lady next door to me who doesn't even own a computer should be forced to pay for me to have free wireless in my house.
Except when her house catches on fire, and she wants the firemen to be able to communicate. Or she wants her water meter read without having to have someone visit every house in the county. Or she wants automated signs on the highway telling her where the next accident is.
Municipal wireless will enable all these things, even for people that don't have computers. This basic infrastructure will ultimately save the city money and make a host of services possible.
And it has the side benefit of giving people with computers access.
I believe in private sector competition. However, the government should be allowed to compete (fairly) when the private sector are slackers.
Why should citizens have to suffer because the phone companies are slackers with an un-serviceable amount of debt?
Some of the cities here in Utah have 100 megabit service to their residents for dirt cheap...
The government funds libraries, the government should fund high-speed internet. Make people get an internet card the way they get a library card, pay for high usage the way they pay for late fees, seems fairly straight-forward to me. Libraries are closing due to lack of interest- shut down five real libraries to open one lower-cost digital library.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
... are more interested in dragging their feet and ensuring that they have monopoly control over any markets they invest in, so that they can charge a far higher price for less service than competition would normally lead to, than in actually innovating and taking any lead. They are also only interested in 'dense' markets where there are lots of customers.
Since they seem to be playing the 'the government shouldnt compete with us' card, I suggest that communities instead form co-ops (which would be greenlighted thru rights-of-way and other resources) that would own and operate the services. Basically the same thing, but it takes away the BS objection that the incumbents have.
You'll note that there is no thriving book rental business (a better analog to a library than a bookstore). If I were to pitch to investors that I wanted to start a NetFlix-like book rental system, I'd get laughed out of my leather chair. Why would anybody want to pay me for books when the taxpayers already pay for the library to have such a good selection?
Libraries now lend movies, and Blockbuster still thrives. Only (at least in my town) because the library is forbidden from purchasing movies to lend - all the movies it has in stock are donated. If they had a mandate to start stocking and lending for free all of the movies that their users wanted to see, you can bet that Blockbuster would soon be out of business. Faster.
"At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge."
I thought this generation's critical infrastructure challange was repairing our power grid. remember... that blackout in the summer of 2003.
I stole this signature