Municipal Broadband - Good or bad?
Over the last several years, there have been a handful of communities who have implemented community provided broadband service...which means government supplied. The sides have been sharply drawn and the battle is raging!
There are a couple of questions I'm asking that will affect how we look at this issue:
I ask the first question because if the private sector is taking care of business, then the government has no reason to get involved. From what I've been reading, municipalities are targeting a section of their communities that have been overlooked by the private sector...at least that's what they're claiming. Let's take Philadelphia, for instance. The city of Philadelphia has decided to implement a city-wide wireless network to provide broadband service to urban areas where no broadband service is currently being provided. The city is currently deciding who they will choose as the builder of the multi-million dollar project: Earthlink or Hewlett-Packard. Philadelphia's decision has been so unpopular with private providers of broadband service that it has spurred legislation regarding the implemention of government controlled broadband networks in other communities in Pennsylvania. Strongly backed by Verizon, the new law requires potential municipal broadband projects to be submitted in writing and approved by the local telephone providers before they can move ahead.
That leads me to my second question. In the case of Philadelphia, if the contenders to build the project are giants Earthlink and HP, then isn't the city of Philadelphia going to get the experience of the private sector in creating the city-wide wireless network? Does that mean that the government, at least in this case, will be providing services that will at least be equal to the service that COULD be offered by private telecommumnications companies if they chose to offer it, which they have not? In this case, anything is a better than the broadband that is available now....which is nothing, nada, zilch.
Who's going to benefit? Hopefully, the folks who don't currently have a broadband option. Private ISPs are going to spend their money wisely in areas where they will not only recoup their costs for providing broadband, but are going to make a profit. For that reason, there are some underserved areas that those same private companies have determined do not represent cost effective investments. If the government doesn't serve them, will they remain unserved until they can prove their profit potential?
So, what do YOU think about the competition question? Is it unfair of municipalities to provide a service in an area where private companies have already decided not to compete? Do taxi cabs compete with city buses?
There are always two sides to every question, and this situation is no exception. My understanding here is that the government is only planning to provide broadband service in areas that private companies have already decided not to service. There has already been legislation drafted to prevent the government from having unfair competitive advantages over private sector providers. To decide for yourself, you can read Section 409 of the newly drafted legislation. If you're like me, you probably see it as an effort to say as much of nothing specific as possible.
Opinions...everybody has one. In this case, I live in a rural community that probably wouldn't be serviced by municipal broadband anyway. I can see where having broadband access in areas that are not currently served by private ISPs would be welcome by those who are doing without. I can also see that smaller ISPs may be put out of business just because the government can afford to offer a service that they can't. I don't have much sympathy for the big guys, but I'd sure hate to see the little guy get squashed. This brings to mind the infamous Walmart argument, don't you think?
[And the Views continue...]
There are a couple of questions I'm asking that will affect how we look at this issue:
- Is the private sector not doing a good enough job at providing broadband Internet service?
- Can government do a better job than the private sector?
- Who's going to benefit from municipal broadband?
- Is this going to create unfair competition, or just introduce additional competition in an already competitive market?
I ask the first question because if the private sector is taking care of business, then the government has no reason to get involved. From what I've been reading, municipalities are targeting a section of their communities that have been overlooked by the private sector...at least that's what they're claiming. Let's take Philadelphia, for instance. The city of Philadelphia has decided to implement a city-wide wireless network to provide broadband service to urban areas where no broadband service is currently being provided. The city is currently deciding who they will choose as the builder of the multi-million dollar project: Earthlink or Hewlett-Packard. Philadelphia's decision has been so unpopular with private providers of broadband service that it has spurred legislation regarding the implemention of government controlled broadband networks in other communities in Pennsylvania. Strongly backed by Verizon, the new law requires potential municipal broadband projects to be submitted in writing and approved by the local telephone providers before they can move ahead.
That leads me to my second question. In the case of Philadelphia, if the contenders to build the project are giants Earthlink and HP, then isn't the city of Philadelphia going to get the experience of the private sector in creating the city-wide wireless network? Does that mean that the government, at least in this case, will be providing services that will at least be equal to the service that COULD be offered by private telecommumnications companies if they chose to offer it, which they have not? In this case, anything is a better than the broadband that is available now....which is nothing, nada, zilch.
Who's going to benefit? Hopefully, the folks who don't currently have a broadband option. Private ISPs are going to spend their money wisely in areas where they will not only recoup their costs for providing broadband, but are going to make a profit. For that reason, there are some underserved areas that those same private companies have determined do not represent cost effective investments. If the government doesn't serve them, will they remain unserved until they can prove their profit potential?
So, what do YOU think about the competition question? Is it unfair of municipalities to provide a service in an area where private companies have already decided not to compete? Do taxi cabs compete with city buses?
There are always two sides to every question, and this situation is no exception. My understanding here is that the government is only planning to provide broadband service in areas that private companies have already decided not to service. There has already been legislation drafted to prevent the government from having unfair competitive advantages over private sector providers. To decide for yourself, you can read Section 409 of the newly drafted legislation. If you're like me, you probably see it as an effort to say as much of nothing specific as possible.
Opinions...everybody has one. In this case, I live in a rural community that probably wouldn't be serviced by municipal broadband anyway. I can see where having broadband access in areas that are not currently served by private ISPs would be welcome by those who are doing without. I can also see that smaller ISPs may be put out of business just because the government can afford to offer a service that they can't. I don't have much sympathy for the big guys, but I'd sure hate to see the little guy get squashed. This brings to mind the infamous Walmart argument, don't you think?
[And the Views continue...]
