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.

---

said by Karl Bode :

All I ever want to see is each community being allowed to decide for themselves.

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...

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

If there is going to be a debt, let a publicly-traded company or even a private company take the responsability.

---

said by 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.

---

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

said by ColdFiltered :

---

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.