Slashdot Mirror
Americans Support Letting Cities Build Their Own Broadband Networks, Pew Finds (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Most Americans want to let local governments build out internet service if the internet providers in their area aren't any good, according to the Pew Research Center. In a phone survey of over 4,000 people last month, Pew found that 70 percent of respondents agreed that local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are "too expensive or not good enough." The results show an overwhelming support for municipal broadband -- networks that are at least somewhat run by local governments -- at a time when encouraging broadband buildout is a top federal priority. But despite the support, in much of the US, building out municipal networks just isn't possible. More than 20 states have passed laws banning local governments from starting their own broadband service, largely at the behest of internet providers that want to avoid competition at all cost. Though Pew's survey found some positive results for municipal broadband, it found less support for broadband subsidies for low-income homes. Under half of all Americans, 44 percent, said they supported subsidies, while nearly everyone else surveyed said they felt internet service "is affordable enough" that most households should be able to pay for it. (At the same time, nearly half of all people surveyed said they didn't know what speed of internet they received.)
Broadband should be a utility this day and age.
I have been on a municipal fiber network for over 10 years and it's been great. A high bandwidth symmetrical connection with a wide choice in ISPs. Previously I had cable internet through Comcast and the network stability, level of service and price have been like night and day. Internet is pretty crucial to living in modern society, it should be treated as a utility and a basic level of service provided to each home by the government. TV, phone and internet service providers still compete for the customer's business, they just do it on a level playing field.
Enigma
With lower prices, faster speeds and better service, you bet people would want municipal broadband. We've all seen what happens when there is no competition: the U.S. still isn't in the top ten of industrialized nations when it comes to broadband speeds (page 12 of the report).
I distinctly remember when my area got "competition" in broadband providers. Verizon came in and their CEO proudly stated, "We're not going to compete on price. We'll compete on quality." Well gee, thanks. To whom should I bend over for?
If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?
My dream: local governments (or the local power company) run the "last mile" passive fiber to every home. Then any company can apply to come in and start hooking up at the switch boxes. This means new offerings like Google Fiber could hook up quickly, and the old guard can still provide competitive service if they choose to (also dragging them into a fiber-first model). No need to fret over who gets connected at the house level, because you have public oversight at that level, and not having to do the last-mile means there's less incentive to hook up only the rich neighborhoods, because all of them can be done fairly efficiently once you have backhaul. This design also keeps the government from trying to be an ISP, which they aren't really equipped for -- instead they maintain the street-level infrastructure, something they do a lot of already.
Before telecom deregulation I had a small ISP over Verizon's copper, and (for the time) it was great. The ISP of course got killed off as soon as Verizon was allowed to stop sharing the lines. A decade of stagnation followed. I'd love to see the smallest changes on the public side to make private competition viable, and a municipally owned last mile makes a lot of sense.
In other news, monopolies will always be inefficient, provide lousy service and charge more.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Well healthcare in the USA is the highest per capita by a VERY large margin. You are paying more, not getting more.
Worse, given the massive costs, tens of millions of Americans do NOT have adequate health care options.
And then it turns out that the infrastructure is also ageing, needing over $1 Trillion to fix it
And China is doing quite well, its now a bigger economy than the USA, its modernising rapidly in all areas.
Communism with corruption is a failure, but then so is capitalism with corruption.
These posts are always about individuals and families, but fail to mention small businesses. I live in Boulder, CO, and a lot of new small and medium businesses are opting to move ten miles North to Longmont because they have municipal fiber. (It's certainly cheaper to live or operate a business in Longmont, but many have pointed to the availability of high-speed synchronous fiber as the driving factor.)
Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans. I think that tends to materialize as being very susceptible to propaganda from business. It was the same for health care, before Obama was elected, Americans seemed to generally like the idea of single payer healthcare depending on how you phrased it. That support evaporated overnight when it started to look like a remote possibility. A the mention of "death panels" a good number of people were suddenly ready to die to protect insurance companies from the evil government.
Asking people if they like municipal broadband you're going to get yes. Asking them after comcast says "THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPYING ON YOU" with "like we do" in fine print? There will be a ton of morons instantly declaring it's an anti-american idea.
I personally can't fathom why someone would fear the government they can vote in but love corporations they can't even sue, but I've been accused of being an out-of-touch liberal...
Pew found that 70 percent of respondents agreed that local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are “too expensive or not good enough...
Under half of all Americans, 44 percent, said they supported subsidies, while nearly everyone else surveyed said they felt internet service “is affordable enough” that most households should be able to pay for it. (At the same time, nearly half of all people surveyed said they didn’t know what speed of internet they received.)”
Read the headline carefully. The survey did not find that most people think their municipality should provide the service. What it did find is that people think that under certain circumstances a municipality should be allowed to provide the service.
There are lots of ways to broadcast your ignorance, but not too many as effective as "I am against community broadband."
Like, seriously. :)
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Generally speaking, this happens as follows:
Company: "We don't want to have to compete"
Politician: "But that's your job"
Company: "Here's $100k for your 'campaign' if you make it go away"
Politician: "Sold"
Now in many cases its not really that nefarious. Quite often the local government promised one company or another a local monopoly because it was the only way to get internet access at all -- this was way back in the days when the internet was fresh and new and nobody would have really thought to just build their own, either due to lack of expertise, lack of interest or lack of available funds. Or all three.
As those contracts expire, we'll probably see more push for municipal broadband. Of course a lot of those local governments will also just renew their contracts because keeping the status quo is easier than actually doing something (especially when there's that green grease on the palms.)