Minn. Supreme Court Upholds City's Right To Build Own Network
BcNexus writes with news from Minnesota that may have significance for cities around the US where municipal networks are either in place or planned: "Here's the latest development in a fight pitting a telecommunication company against government competition. The telco, TDS, took its fight all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court because it thought the city had no right to serve people's internet, voice and television needs with its own network, but has failed."
Also from Minnesota today, BcNexus writes "The State of Minnesota was the first to blink and chose to avoid a court showdown when it dropped its attempt to block online gambling sites."
I'm all for free Markets but the current Internet situation in Minnesota is pathetic. If the people want better service and are willing to fork out the dough let them however this project (if it gets off the ground) has a huge chance of failing like the many other attempts at Municipal Internet.
Public access to the WWW should be a part of the public broadcasting system for the same reasons information should be freely available to a free people. This, of course, assumes that citizens of the U.S. are still a free people.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Even if the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled against a city-owned and run network there are other ways around it. Be clever, start a non-profit ISP and have them build out the network. Fund it through the ubiquitous government grants that the Obama Administration is giving out towards increasing broadband penetration. Also, fund it through city "Technology" grants. The neat thing about legal loopholes is that they sometimes backfire against those that exploit them.
Internet connectivity in Minnesota is so bad that broadband wireless service, with its slow speed, download caps, and unpredictable coverage, is still an improvement.
"it thought the city had no right to serve people's internet, voice and television needs with its own network"
I think there is an argument to be made that the city shouldn't be serving television, especially anything public access. With internet and phone the user has full control over the service (assuming a non-tampered connection), but the choice of television stations is highly subjective and could be biased by politicians/bureaucrats. Because the city service will likely be (at least indirectly) subsidized by the tax payer, it may put companies that offer a less biased channel selection under a lot of pressure. This is a bad thing.
Wyandotte MI is a self-sustaining city. It has it's own power, water, cable-tv, and probably it's own internet (wired or wireless) http://www.wyandotte.net/ in spite of the fact Detroit or Detroit companies hold a monopoly on most utilities in the area. When the Detroit utilities want to muscle communities in the area, where Wyandotte holds it's own, they laugh. Comcast is especially upset that Wyandotte had cable even before cable was available anywhere. Comcast can't touch it like they do in the Downriver Area. It is evident you know Wyandotte Cable has been around when the software for the teleprompter stops, and it shows 'Amiga OS 3.9' somewhere on the screen. The power of independence.