Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention in Technology Law & Politics http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r12764563 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:36:46 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:36:46 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12820284 ColdFiltered : Good information, Karl, and thanks for publishing it for me to become enlightened with. Since it did not cater to residential customers I wonder if this was inf fact because they could not offer it to residents at a price point to be competitive.

I do not have the necessary information, but certainly willing to entertain anything presented. As such, I wonder if the commercial effort slated for a five-year-to-black for their business model would have potentially taken longer for a residential model.

I can see where politicians can cause problems, which I noted in the beginning. I now have to wonder why, then a private-sector cannot do this in competition? I mean, if a not-for-profit business like the Marietta can see a turn-around in five year selling only Voice/Data, how long would it take to sell a triple-play to 5x the number of potential customers?

With this in mind and operating as the city of Marietta did I cannot understand why a for-minimal-profit organization hasn't stepped up to the plate. Its easy for Cox and Bellsouth to play hardball with Lafayette, but Atlanta is another town of a different genetic code.

And since the Marietta Muni was not based on fiber-to-the-home, what platform did they use? Really curious, here. I may need to go convince my City Hall to begin efforts to provide a triple-play solution to those living in decent households. This could warrant me a new job. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12820284 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:46:46 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819895 Karl Bode : Funny you should mention Marietta. I wrote a story for this website exploring the potential for muni-failure, and used Marietta briefly as one example. I was written this letter by one of the people involved in constructing it, who wanted to remain anonymous:
quote:
Dear Mr. Bode:

[Identifying information deleted] As such, I read with interest your recent article in which you mentioned the growing myth that Marietta FiberNet was a failure before the City sold it. I would like to set the record straight, because this myth is contradicted by the facts.

The notion that Marietta FibreNet was a failure apparently stems from an article published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on July 29, 2004, suggesting that Marietta "lost" $24 million and then sold out to avoid any more red ink. The author arrived at the $24 million figure by simply subtracting the City's selling price, $11.2 million, from its investment in the system, $35 million. This was obviously wrong and misleading on its face, as the author did not take into account the millions in annual revenues that the system generated over the years.

Furthermore, when judging and comparing private-sector communications providers, industry analysts typically use a standard known as "EBITDA" - Earnings, Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization. See, e.g., »www.investorwords.com/5534/Earni···ion.html. Marietta FiberNet had not only been running EBITDA-positive every year since 2001, but it was on track to go fully into the black in the first quarter of 2006. Thus, according to the standards that analysts typically apply to the private sector, Marietta FiberNet was a success, not a failure. American Fiber Systems certainly did not consider it a failure. To the contrary, it hired 100% of the system's management and staff to continue to do exactly what we had been doing before the sale.

What really happened in Marietta? The current mayor ran three years ago primarily on the issue of getting the City out of the telecom business. At the time, the system was still in its adolescence, and it had several years of projected losses to go before getting itself into the promising position that it was in at the time it was sold. The mayor, having won on this platform, made good on his promise to sell the system. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether the City could have obtained more for the system if the mayor were not so determined to sell it. But one thing is certain -- the system would surely have been even more successful and valuable if it had not had to operate under a cloud for the last three years.

I agree with the main point of your article -- that municipalities must be very careful about entering the communications field because failure is a real possibility. In fact, municipalities are extremely cautious, particularly because the open process through which they make such decisions ensures that they act conservatively and take every possible downside into account. I do not believe, however, that Marietta can fairly be cited an example of a muncipal venture that failed.

In any event, Marietta FiberNet was a not fiber-to-the-home system of that kind that a number of municipalities are considering today. Marietta FiberNet did not offer the "triple play," nor did it even serve the residential market. Rather, it only offered broadband and telecommunications services to businesses in Cobb County, Georgia, just northwest of Atlanta, and in some areas of Atlanta itself. Several private-sector firms were offering similar services in these markets. Thus, it is questionable whether Marietta's experience provides much useful guidance for other municipalities.


So yes it failed, but the numbers being thrown around are wrong (I pulled them from the AP and Atlanta Journal-Constitution), and it wasn't a residential outfit. There are good muni plans and bad muni plans. Does that justify state-level laws banning such efforts? There are instances where they are the perfect solution to fill in coverage gaps. There are instances where they are not.

To support banning them all is short-sighted and wrong, period.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819895 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:56:46 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819814 ColdFiltered : Karl, I never said I knew anything about minicipal projects. I'm presence here is a) as a consumer living in someone's community, and b) someone that has a little insight into the LEC world. What fears I have can be illustrated here:

»A Municipal Failure with the original Associated Press article »www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/loc···8308.htm

I can only wonder who paid for that $24 Million loss. If it wasn't the residents of Marietta then who?

And if they are born out of failure I would ask specifically where did the cable and telco fail in Atlanta, specifically Marietta. Yes, prices are not as attractive as SBC-Yahoo DSL but if it were a failure I would expect both the cable and telco to give up after a time. Yet, they have thousands of customers buying into a 'failure'?

Hey, I would love to get a dry-copper $20/month 1.5x256 but I do not see anyone offering it--including no muni. But, as Marietta learned their lesson, the network elements are not without flaw, not without costly maintenance, and certainly not able to run unattended or watchdoged by untrained individuals.

This is not to say a muni-broadband project cannot work--as you have shown it can! But it should also be illustrated in kind that it cannot work, and examples of how it didn't work. So, let me do a little more digging as I want to know who picked up that $24 Million loss from the Marietta failure.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819814 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:45:48 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819646 Karl Bode : Your comments about offering service for "free", suggestion they won't be regulated because they're government run, comparisons to offering Windows for free, suggestion they all must use taxation; all indicate to me you're largely unfamiliar with the hundreds of ongoing municipal projects.

Yet oddly you're ready to support state-level bans on a subject you're unfamiliar with.

Click! Network is a municipally funded cable network in Tacoma, is running in the black, and has been featured in a number of news outlets:

»www.wired.com/news/business/0,13···,00.html
»www.tricitybroadband.com/failures.htm

They piggybacked on a local power utility's fiber; fiber which would have been laid regardless to manage their network. Their commercial revenues completely cover their operating expenses. They aren't offering service for free. Comcast still thrives in the region, though they've had to lower prices (god forbid) to compete.

You seem to forget that these projects are born out of failure of private enterprise. Improve incumbent service and lower prices, and this wouldn't be an issue.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819646 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:23:14 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819519 ColdFiltered : I do not know, because I do not live in Lafayette or LA. I am not saying there is localized regulation, but rather there could be since the not-for-profit muni may have that ability and, more importantly, use it to their advantage.

quote:
Poor analogy, since they'd still have to adhere to existing rules. Being government run doesn't give them some phantom get out of jail free card as you seem to keep hinting.

You obviously have not experienced the south.

I would like to know what philanthropist is willing to donate sufficient funds for a muni such that the residents under the muni umbrella has no worries or concerns about the potential after-failure condition.

I wish only for fairness in the market. A not-for-profit company is no business. If Microsoft all of a sudden gave away Windows XP Professional many law firms would file suits on behalf of the competition for unfair business practices. This is exactly what happened when Microsoft first gave away Internet Explorer--in direction competition with Netscape.

Again, I am all for muni, but I am more for not being burdened by someone else's desires and someone else's mistakes. I already have to handle financial mistakes on the federal and county levels. And yes, I would love to stop paying for 1.5x256 at a rate of $55 for the broadband and $30 for the POTS line to support it. No muni is going to come for free (in deployment costs). What may not appear on the front end will surely appear on the back end.

Now, show me cases of a deplyed 'successful' muni broadband project that didn't financially burden the residents. I am curious to know if any exist. Nothing comes for free.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12819519 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:04:08 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811277 JTRockville :
said by ColdFiltered See Profile:

What I am suggesting is a level playing field. Others think they should tighten regulations on businesses and then grant muni free-reign competition activities that would seek to cause businesses to potentially fold. Its also why I suggested that Lafayette remove localized regulatory restrictions in the telecomunications arena if they wishes to compete in muni-broadband, or not compete at all.

Its not fair nor right to handcuff your compeititon and then compete without wearing handcuffs yourself.
I'm curious, what "localized regulatory restrictions" is Lafayette imposing on privately owned systems, that municipally owned systems would be able to skirt?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811277 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:55:21 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811236 Karl Bode :
quote:
Either remove the regulations (makes it easier for those running a for-profit business), or prohibit city/county/state/federal-funded not-for-profit in your neighborhood.

That doesn't strike me as "balance".

Remove all regulations holding companies accountable, or ban all muni outfits? Those are the choices? Why can't existing regulations be applied to both muni's and corporations?
quote:
Its like your county putting up a delivery service using county police cars. They get to speed around the place with lights flashing and horns honking to achieve an unfair advantage based on rules they put in place.
Poor analogy, since they'd still have to adhere to existing rules. Being government run doesn't give them some phantom get out of jail free card as you seem to keep hinting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811236 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:50:44 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811145 ColdFiltered : No, I am willing to afford the legal condition one way or the other, but not both. Either remove the regulations (makes it easier for those running a for-profit business), or prohibit city/county/state/federal-funded not-for-profit in your neighborhood.

I really did not think this position of mine was difficult or unfair. Its like your county putting up a delivery service using county police cars. They get to speed around the place with lights flashing and horns honking to achieve an unfair advantage based on rules they put in place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12811145 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:40:33 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12810257 Karl Bode : Again, there's about a million different ways to fund and operate a muni-project. To automatically assume all of them will engage in predatory pricing, be corrupted and fail to self-regulate, simply isn't accurate.

quote:
Its not fair nor right to handcuff your compeititon and then compete without wearing handcuffs yourself.

I'm confused now. Above you said you'd support state level muni-bans (several steps beyond handcuffs, I'd say), yet now you're concerned with competitive symmetry and fairness?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12810257 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:41:22 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809964 ColdFiltered : Actually, my belief is that if government wishes to compete they must do so either as a for-profit entity like everyone else, or remove restrictive market regulations that would otherwise only benefit the NFP entities.

Some seem more than willing to ignore the ration thought that for profit businesses cannot hope to compete in a market against a not-for-profit competitor, especially when the regulatory entity is controlled by that governing body that operates the NFP entity.

What I am suggesting is a level playing field. Others think they should tighten regulations on businesses and then grant muni free-reign competition activities that would seek to cause businesses to potentially fold. Its also why I suggested that Lafayette remove localized regulatory restrictions in the telecomunications arena if they wishes to compete in muni-broadband, or not compete at all.

Its not fair nor right to handcuff your compeititon and then compete without wearing handcuffs yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809964 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:53:15 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809382 Karl Bode : Ok, so you would ban communities from making that decision for themselves. That's the stance I have the problem with, not necessarily that you believe governments shouldn't compete with business.

It's the belief your belief supersedes all others, and that legal bans - not city by city debate, discussion, and votes - are an "answer".

When you, in Atlanta, begin to support the incumbent lobbying efforts to buy laws banning me in New York from voting on a local government run Wi-Fi system........I see that elimination of choice as far worse than any of the fiscal issues you fear.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809382 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:23:57 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809342 ColdFiltered :
said by Karl Bode See Profile:

I'm asking you, do you support laws banning communities from running their own broadband networks (Wi-Fi or otherwise)?
Karl, you move on false grounds.

It was not my intention to not answer the question at hand, but rather I poorly answered it, and in a manner I suppose some could not derive from my last reply.

Now, to directly answer your question: Yes, I would prohibit any effort by a community from competing in the free-market as a not-for-profit while they also still remain in control of potentially harmful policy-making and regulation-implementing mechanisms that could serve to unfairly give them an edge against for-profit businesses in the same free-market.

We could simply take the irrational limit of the activity and have the community setup prohibition on all for-profit organizations, too. Irrational? Yes. Possible? Yes.

A business without expertise can fail at someone else's financial expense. A community government failing is at the taxpayer's expense. I'm looking for balance, but I am looking more for taxpayer protection against inept and potentially illegal activities.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12809342 Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:17:06 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12802195 Karl Bode : I notice you won't answer a direct question.

For the record, I don't care if you support government in business, that's obviously your right and you raise plenty of legitimate questions.

Plenty of citizens support the idea and have equally pointed questions to ask of you. It's part of the give-and-take of honest debate.

I'm asking you, do you support laws banning communities from running their own broadband networks (Wi-Fi or otherwise)?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12802195 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:33:05 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12802173 ColdFiltered : Um, I didn't say I was for or against Philly in what they do. I do say I think for my local government that it has no part in the free market without the expressed removal of regulations they might have imposed on the free market.

What good does it to have to compete against an entity that doesn't seek to profit? What good does it to compete against an entity that can make, alter, or remove policy and or regulation to suit its not-for-profit situation and hinder free-market competition?

To me, this sounds more like vendors skirting the telecommunications industry, encouraging locals that they can do it better, cheaper, etc. as if this is a solution you just add water to. And this isn't just about Philly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12802173 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:29:55 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801939 Karl Bode : So then you support banning communities from deciding for themselves what their best course of action is?

You, in Atlanta, support banning the citizens of Philadelphia from having a say in whether or not they want a city run Wi-Fi system?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801939 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:01:23 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801909 ColdFiltered : Karl, I have a problem with the government competing in the free market, yes. When the policy-makers and regulation enforcers present a not-for-profit competition what sane for-profit business is going to be willing to compete?

Example, other than Amtrak what other passenger rail service is there in the USA? When was the last time you answered your front door so that UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. could deliver junk mail?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801909 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:58:35 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801593 tschmidt :
said by ColdFiltered See Profile:
My biggest fear is that very few will take part in the actual decision-making process, and the potential for corruption is at hand.

That is a concern. But isn't that a problem for the community to address?

said by ColdFiltered See Profile:
How many times have we seen corrupt city officials result in the debt being the burden of society. If there is going to be a debt, let a publicly-traded company or even a private company take the responsability.
Probably about the same percentage we see in private industry. They too pass on the cost of their mistakes to taxpayers.

The issue here is not whether or not muni broadband a good idea. The fundamental principal is can the local community control its own destiny or is it beholden to the whims of the private sector?

If the local community does not want to have electricity or paved streets they ought to be able to decide for themselves.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801593 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:23:54 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801563 Karl Bode :
quote:
If there is going to be a debt, let a publicly-traded company or even a private company take the responsability.


Some municipal projects do just that and get their financing from private sources.

Trying to understand: do you approve of state-laws banning all towns and cities from considering the option?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801563 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:19:47 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801465 ColdFiltered : My biggest fear is that very few will take part in the actual decision-making process, and the potential for corruption is at hand.

How many times have we seen corrupt city officials result in the debt being the burden of society. If there is going to be a debt, let a publicly-traded company or even a private company take the responsability.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801465 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:09:35 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801251 Karl Bode : All legitimate questions. All questions each town or city should sit down and discuss. There's about a million answers to each depending on how your town decides to fund/plan/build their solution.

The problem arises with the bills being passed to ban that discussion from taking place.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801251 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:43:00 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801151 ColdFiltered : My biggest concerns are as follows:

1.) As a resident of some township, do I get a real in whether a muni in setup? This is important to me because no doubt that if I disagree and the muni service get's setup I am having to front a portion of that bill.

2.) What qualifications are the city's IT people going to have? Are they going to be qualified to design, engineer, deploy, start-up and maintain a muni system reliably? Will none, some, or all of the WAN IT responsabilities going to be out-sourced to outside the community? Last time I check WAN IT people are not cheap, so I wonder what proficient staff my city would get.

3.) Are bids taken, or is the idea being sold by one or two equipment vendors desperate because of lost sales from the talco and cable industry? Are the spending-decisions being publicly made? Voted upon? By qualified people?

4.) Exactly how would a system be paid for? Vendor acting as lender, too? What about competitive bidding?

5.) What exact services will my government compete in in terms of usurping the free-market? Will this be voted upon by the residents? And will it be subsidized via an open system (like ppcpunk describes)?

6.) What protections will there be for the residents paying for the system? What benefits are to be prescribed for the residents? What economic losses, if any, resulting from government competing in the free market?

7.) What damage compensation will be yielded to residents for torn-up property during a system deployment, system maintenance, etc.?

8.) How do you advise your residents holding stocks and or bonds in those telco's and cable companies?

9.) How much would each resident be financially responsible for? Will this be a usage-defined burden, or based on another matrix? Can residents opt-out? And if someone cannot afford are their negative consequences therein?

Jesus, I could go on and on. I am no different than the next consumer and would love a cheaper monthly bill for my broadband, but I am not willing to financially burden someone else not interested in a muni effort just because I am interested in this luxuty.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12801151 Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:32:03 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12791087 Karl Bode :
quote:
Why in the world would the Bells be trying to protect residents?


Because "We don't want to have to work harder and potentionally lose revenue" isn't a very impressive argument from a PR standpoint. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12791087 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:36:03 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12790457 JTRockville :
said by Karl Bode See Profile:

All I ever want to see is each community being allowed to decide for themselves.
Looks like Copps (for one, anyway) agrees.

said by CNET News.com interview with Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner:
Why our broadband policy’s still a mess
by Jim Hu, February 28, 2005

...snip...

The Bells say that government should not be competing with the private sector.
They are not out there trying to put broadband in the municipality. Where is the competition?

The Bells also say they're trying to protect residents from being unfairly taxed if such an infrastructure were to go belly-up.
Well, a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.

...snip...



Why in the world would the Bells be trying to protect residents?

Isn't it their duty to protect profits?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12790457 Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:34:41 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12778497 waynemr : Free Press has also picked this up: »freepress.net/communityinternet/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12778497 Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:20:23 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12769827 Karl Bode : CNET wouldn't have touched a story like this six months ago:

»news.com.com/Lafayette+hits+snag···nefd.top]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12769827 Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:59:52 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12768159 Karl Bode : NOW on PBS is offering up a special on muni-broadband, specifically focused on PA's Wi-Fi effort:

»www.pbs.org/now/

»www.pbs.org/now/politics/digidiv···ate.html

How long NOW before they begin digging into the stuff I've been talking about in Indiana, where Comcast/SBC spent a quarter million dollars vs. a small community outfit that spent $4,000.

Or Lafayette, where BellSouth has threatened to pull 1,300 jobs if the city builds a triple-play fiber network.

Few yet are touching on the use of Issue Dynamics Astroturf to feed disiniformation to consumers. That's a big part of this as well.

This is a very DEEP and very SLEAZY story that they've only brushed the surface of.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12768159 Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:44:29 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12766923 Karl Bode : It would depend on what works. All I ever want to see is each community being allowed to decide for themselves.

There are about a million ways to fund, construct, and run a muni-broadband system. I don't care how the people there vote.

My problem is with these bills that ban them from considering it, and the massive disinformation campaigns being waged to confuse and mislead voters.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12766923 Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:09:43 EDT Re: Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12764563 ppcpunk : I am curious if you would rather see open system muni setups or closed?

Closed being only being able to use the local gov as the isp or open where you can choose any company who provides service on the muni network just like dsl.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12764563 Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:23:31 EDT Municipal Broadband FINALLY gets attention http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12751032 Karl Bode : I've been ranting about this stuff for four years now, as state-by-state the incumbents lobbied for bills banning local towns and cities from wiring themselves for broadband.

I don't care if people disagree with governments getting into the broadband business, but banning them from deciding for themselves is insane and in no-way serves the country's best interests.

For whatever reason techno-advocates and mainstream outlets just hadn't been touching it.

They'd write 87 page diatribes on FRIENDSTER, but the future of the broadband industry as we know it just never got much press.

I don't know if they thought it was too obscure or what, but the Philly Wi-Fi vs. Verizon story really blew the whole thing up, and now it's the trendy topic for all techno-journalists.

No matter what side you fall on, it's something that needs to be talked about.

Finally over the last year or so it's getting some play by "famous" folks like Larry Lessig.

»www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.0···tml?pg=5

I know I get hate mail from free-market nuts for merely suggesting communities be allowed to decide for themselves what telecom path to follow, I can only imagine his inbox after this article:

quote:
The private market has failed the US so far. At the beginning, we led the world in broadband deployment. But by 2004, we ranked an embarrassing 13th. There are many places, like Philadelphia, where service is lacking. And there are many places, like San Francisco, where competition is lacking. The result of the duopoly that currently defines "competition" is that prices and service suck. We're the world's leader in Internet technology - except that we're not.

The solution is not to fire private enterprise; it is instead to encourage more competition. Communities across the country are experimenting with ways to supplement private service. And these experiments are producing unexpected economic returns. Some are discovering that free wireless access increases the value of public spaces just as, well, streetlamps do. And just as streetlamps don't make other types of lighting obsolete, free wireless access in public spaces won't kill demand for access in private spaces. In economoid-speak, these public services may well provide positive externalities. Yet we will never recognize these externalities unless municipalities are free to experiment. That's why the bipartisan Silicon Valley advocacy group TechNet explicitly endorses allowing local governments to compete with broadband providers.

City and state politicians should have the backbone to stand up to self-serving lobbyists. Citizens everywhere should punish telecom toadies who don't. Backwater broad­band has been our fate long enough. Let the markets, both private and public, compete to provide the service that telecom and cable has not.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12751032 Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:58:56 EDT