February 17, 2005 11:40 AM PST

Indiana kills anti-muni broadband bill

An Indiana state bill that would have made it hard for cities to build their own broadband networks was killed on Wednesday after the proposal failed to reach a vote in the state's House of Representatives.

The decision to block Indiana's House Bill 1148 highlights a growing clash between cities looking to build their own broadband Internet networks and local phone and cable companies opposing these measures.

Supporters of the bill, including SBC Communications, which serves Indiana, were critical of the outcome. Local groups opposing the bill applauded the decision, claiming that building broadband networks would help cities attract more businesses into the area.

"Several municipalities in Indiana are already providing broadband service," said Andrea Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, lobbyist organization. "We consider it a necessary part of economic development."

Johnson pointed out that smaller cities such as Marion and Scottsburg have unveiled their own municipal networks.

House Bill 1148, introduced in January by Rep. L. Jack Lutz (R-House District 35), would have prohibited municipalities across the state from building their own broadband Internet networks if a private provider were already offering these services, according Lutz's spokesman Matthew Symons. If there were no private provider in the area, the bill would have let cities go ahead with their plans, but barred them from using public bonds for funding.

SBC expressed disappointment with the Indiana bill's failure, but said public debate on the issue was important. Like most arguments presented by the Bells, SBC's said municipal broadband projects would do harm to taxpayers.

"When you look at a time when state and local budgets were severely strained, we think there needs to be a system in place that monitors government entry into what could be high-risk telecom investments on the backs of taxpayers," said Mike Marker, a spokesman for SBC in Indiana.

The public debate
Interest in public Internet systems is increasing across the country. Proposals are springing up in smaller cities such as Provo, Utah, and Chaska, Minn., and larger metropolises such as Philadelphia and parts of Los Angeles.

At the same time, the Baby Bell phone giants and cable conglomerates are aggressively lobbying state legislators to introduce laws prohibiting these efforts. In December of last year, a bill endorsed by Verizon Communications was signed into law by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, banning cities and townships from providing "any broadband or wireless services if a fee is charged."

The bill was hotly contested by the city of Philadelphia, which plans to build its own wireless broadband network and sell it to residents at a significant discount from Verizon's DSL service. Verizon argued that cities should not be competing with private companies and that residents would see higher taxes if the network went belly-up. Philadelphia and Verizon eventually struck an 11th-hour agreement that would allow the city to go ahead with its plans.

While Indiana rejected Lutz's bill, Marker said 14 states across the country have passed similar legislation, and six more are considering proposals.

A spokesman from Rep. Lutz's office echoed SBC's contention that the government should not use public funds to compete with private companies spending millions of dollars upgrading their systems to provide broadband.

"It's not a good idea for political subdivisions to be in competition with private business," said Matthew Symons, a spokesman for Rep. Lutz.

1 comment

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
ILEC altruism is amazing!
I cannot believe people would fight Verizon's valiant effort to save cities from installing a harmful telecom infrastructure. Imagine if people had cheap broadband access, funded by property taxes, and available to everyone in the same manner as gas, water, sewer, and roads? Chaos!

The defeat in Indiana is only temporary, as I'm sure SBC will find the necessary legal argument (and politicians pockets) needed to sway votes their way on another bill. We absolutely cannot allow public infrastructure to be run by municipalities, especially when a local monopoly is nearby waiting to profit heavily.
Posted by Remo_Williams (488 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.