Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Minn. Supreme Court Upholds City's Right To Build Own Network

Posted by timothy on from the looking-forward-to-state-run-gun-stores dept.

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."

6 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Free markets by dburkland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Free markets by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the failed Muni internet setups have been attempts at wide-area wifi. I'd be more inclined toward optimism when it comes to fiber deployments. Wide-area wifi is, unfortunately, a huge pain in the ass. The idea is attractive; but making the tech actually work is a serious headache, at best. Fiber, on the other hand, works pretty well.

      I'm not especially interested in having the government be my ISP(once you get to the peering point, let the market sort it out); but I'd love to seem them handle the "last mile" part of the connection with the same efficiency that they've handled my current municipal utilities.

    2. Re:Free markets by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They have this pretty damn well planned. I would not assume this will die especially with the competitive pricing they were originally talking about. It was like $100/mo for a triple-play at 100MB/s or something if I recall correctly. Also they have plenty of the smart enterprising type (ones with actually ethics to boot) behind this whole thing.

      You can tell that this has great potential from 2 things:

      1: the doublespeak from the non-muni: "The lack of judicial action on the part of the (Minnesota) Supreme Court will likely discourage other private enterprises from doing or expanding their business in Minnesota".

      Anyone who screams about lost business when the only lost business is their own, is full of shit.

      2:supreme court basically just nullified any potential to enforce a franchise agreement here, and didn't buy the telco BS.. That is huge for good business and this case will expand far outside the state (and has a lot of coverage at the top of google results today too). I guarantee you this has an enormous country-wide impact.

  2. public broadcasting by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Also by DaMattster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Television by rm999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.