- Related Stories
-
Cities brace for broadband war
May 2, 2005 -
Tangled up in fiber
May 2, 2005 -
Philadelphia reveals Wi-Fi plan
April 7, 2005 -
Philly, Verizon reach accord on city Wi-Fi plan
December 1, 2004
Verizon stridently opposed the plan, liberal advocacy groups just as emphatically endorsed it, and politicians in Harrisburg ended up approving a compromise bill that effectively let the city of brotherly love do what it wanted.
Now this politechnical dispute is bubbling up from states to Washington, D.C., where lobbyists are pressuring Congress to resolve the question of whether governments or private companies do a better job as Internet service providers.
What's new:
Lobbyists are pressuring Congress to resolve whether governments or private companies should be selling Net access.
Bottom line:
Municipal governments say they want to reach low-income people who don't have access. Critics say governments would be tempted to impose onerous taxes and regulations on private companies--which would be, after all, their competitors.
"Our focus is that 75 to 85 percent of our population in our low-income and minority areas that don't have access," said Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer. "When we talked to them and we did surveys with them, they said 76 percent of the time that cost was the No. 1 reason why they didn't have access to the Internet."
Philadelphia plans to blanket a 135-square-mile area with low-cost wireless access by next summer. Neff said the estimated $10 million project could ultimately save the city's government up to $2 million in telecommunications bills, which it could in theory reroute to other social programs. Municipal governments need to do this because "we want to ensure our families and children have the abilities they need to compete in the 21st century."
But if reaching low-income people is the primary goal, said Jim Speta, an associate professor at the Northwestern University School of Law, then cities could keep costs down by relying on "consumer demand pull"--that is, handing vouchers to poorer consumers, who could use them to pay for private sector broadband.
"The economics are quite clear that the more efficient way is private ownership rather than public ownership," Speta said.
Dueling federal proposals
An opening federal salvo has come from Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who introduced a bill last month that would effectively prohibit state and local governments from providing Internet, telecommunications or cable hookups if a private company offers a "substantially similar service." Existing municipal services already in place would be permitted to continue.
If enacted, Sessions' proposal would have a dramatic impact. Dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of cities have started to offer municipal broadband services to their residents and more are in the works.
Some, like the efforts of Ashland, Ore., started with high hopes but have become saddled with piles of debt. Others, like Philadelphia, are even more ambitious but have not yet proven whether they'll be a money-losing or profitable venture.
Another bill veering in precisely the opposite direction could be introduced as early as this week by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Their proposal, the Community Broadband Act of 2005, is expected to permit a town or city to explore the option of deploying its own broadband network. (Neither McCain nor Lautenberg's offices returned phone calls seeking comment on Wednesday.)
The Bell phone companies and local cable companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying local and state officials to pass laws that would prohibit cities and towns from building their own broadband networks. In the last year, 14 bills were introduced in state legislatures to prohibit the build-out of municipal networks. But state legislatures typically only meet for the first six months of the year.
This is one reason why the topic is now being addressed at the federal level, said Ben Scott, a policy analyst at Free Press, a liberal advocacy group in Washington that's trying to rally opposition to Sessions' bill.
"We had to fight this battle in 14 different states this year," said Jim Baller, an attorney in Washington who represents municipal governments. "It's counterproductive to be wasting time having
See more CNET content tagged:
Philadelphia, lobbyist, ownership, city, government
Seriously, the article nails it: railroad build-outs, canal build-outs, highways, telephone lines, water and sewer, electrical lines all require special consideration because they provide the infrastructure for the people. In each case, the government has had a very strong hand in determining the level of private versus public ownership and responsibility.
On the one hand, railroads were granted generous rights-of-way and had less governmental intervention against them. A reflection of the times is more properly the explanation for this, since mid-century 1800s were not well-noted for antitrust actions.
On the other, AT&T was forced by the US government to build out the nation in return for operating its regulated monopoly. Like it or hate it, Ma Bell connected North America better than any other telco (for its size; comparing NTT to AT&T is retarded).
I don't think anyone disputes the rationality of water, sewer, and electric service distributions being consolidated, unless you don't like water, sewers, or electricity. Or you prefer multiple water mains running through town, etc.
There is no problem, in my mind, in building out the infrastructure for broadband in a municipality. Waiting for Verizon or another RBOC to build out your neighborhood is not an option; the days of a benevolent dictatorship in the form of AT&T, soaking huge long-distance fees in return for connectivity throughout the US, is over. It's been over. Because the bargain is past, Verizon and other RBOCs should not expect to enjoy the benefits of a monopoly without the attendant responsibilities to the people they purport to connect.
Let the munis build the infrastructure. Let them bid out the maintenance contracts for its upkeep, and let them lease the lines (fiber, we hope) to *anyone* who wants to provide a service: cable, RBOCs, ISPs, whoever. The munis should actually *make* money if they have smart administrators on staff, because leases should eventually recoup the build-out costs, provide for the maintenance, and generate an alternative revenue stream.
Verizon doesn't want this, because Verizon likes their 90/10 split on the business. If it gets flipped, and now Verizon has to compete with Joe's ISP for your Internet dollars, it'll be exposing its tremendous shortcomings as a gargantuan monopoly: too slow, too big, too aloof from its customer (we're not ratepayers anymore, you bastards).
Remo
Seriously, the article nails it: railroad build-outs, canal build-outs, highways, telephone lines, water and sewer, electrical lines all require special consideration because they provide the infrastructure for the people. In each case, the government has had a very strong hand in determining the level of private versus public ownership and responsibility.
On the one hand, railroads were granted generous rights-of-way and had less governmental intervention against them. A reflection of the times is more properly the explanation for this, since mid-century 1800s were not well-noted for antitrust actions.
On the other, AT&T was forced by the US government to build out the nation in return for operating its regulated monopoly. Like it or hate it, Ma Bell connected North America better than any other telco (for its size; comparing NTT to AT&T is retarded).
I don't think anyone disputes the rationality of water, sewer, and electric service distributions being consolidated, unless you don't like water, sewers, or electricity. Or you prefer multiple water mains running through town, etc.
There is no problem, in my mind, in building out the infrastructure for broadband in a municipality. Waiting for Verizon or another RBOC to build out your neighborhood is not an option; the days of a benevolent dictatorship in the form of AT&T, soaking huge long-distance fees in return for connectivity throughout the US, is over. It's been over. Because the bargain is past, Verizon and other RBOCs should not expect to enjoy the benefits of a monopoly without the attendant responsibilities to the people they purport to connect.
Let the munis build the infrastructure. Let them bid out the maintenance contracts for its upkeep, and let them lease the lines (fiber, we hope) to *anyone* who wants to provide a service: cable, RBOCs, ISPs, whoever. The munis should actually *make* money if they have smart administrators on staff, because leases should eventually recoup the build-out costs, provide for the maintenance, and generate an alternative revenue stream.
Verizon doesn't want this, because Verizon likes their 90/10 split on the business. If it gets flipped, and now Verizon has to compete with Joe's ISP for your Internet dollars, it'll be exposing its tremendous shortcomings as a gargantuan monopoly: too slow, too big, too aloof from its customer (we're not ratepayers anymore, you bastards).
Remo
- Creates a government monopoly (possibly).
- Slows technological improvements.
- Kills competition, drives prices up.
- Poor customer service
Internet access is not a life or death type of service. If you want lower costs and better access for everyone, keep this a free market enterprise where all fish are allowed to swim and compete for food.
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d49a7645-c2b3-4daf-a165-2a066cb1f791
As for cities, states or counties that want to put in the own net access systems I think it is a good idea. Either that or the companies that have net access already in place need to be forced by laws to limit the amount the charge so that everyone can afford it and they need to be forced to expand to cover the whole city, state or county. They shouldn't be able to pick and choose what, were and who they want to cover.
I have several friends that live about a mile out side of Santa Rosa, Ca. They have an SBC substation less than 1/4 mile from them and yet SBC refusses to install the needed equipement for these people to get broadband. This should not be permitted. They either offer it affordably to everyone or they get the hell out and the city, state or county does it.
Robert
Letting the government build in these areas do not hurt the greedy corporation and helps the area with new broadband acsess. This is one way for governments to help revitilize certain areas, and has been successful in Canada. It is the governments job to help its people, not service greedy corporations.
It is sad that the corporations have so much control over everything these days.
- Creates a government monopoly (possibly).
- Slows technological improvements.
- Kills competition, drives prices up.
- Poor customer service
Internet access is not a life or death type of service. If you want lower costs and better access for everyone, keep this a free market enterprise where all fish are allowed to swim and compete for food.
http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d49a7645-c2b3-4daf-a165-2a066cb1f791
As for cities, states or counties that want to put in the own net access systems I think it is a good idea. Either that or the companies that have net access already in place need to be forced by laws to limit the amount the charge so that everyone can afford it and they need to be forced to expand to cover the whole city, state or county. They shouldn't be able to pick and choose what, were and who they want to cover.
I have several friends that live about a mile out side of Santa Rosa, Ca. They have an SBC substation less than 1/4 mile from them and yet SBC refusses to install the needed equipement for these people to get broadband. This should not be permitted. They either offer it affordably to everyone or they get the hell out and the city, state or county does it.
Robert
Letting the government build in these areas do not hurt the greedy corporation and helps the area with new broadband acsess. This is one way for governments to help revitilize certain areas, and has been successful in Canada. It is the governments job to help its people, not service greedy corporations.
It is sad that the corporations have so much control over everything these days.
Time for news.google.com :-(
Kieran Mullen
Portland OR
But the question of whether the Feds will be the ones to decide is in fact new. Perhaps the headline wasn't perfect, but congressional intervention is a new development.
Time for news.google.com :-(
Kieran Mullen
Portland OR
But the question of whether the Feds will be the ones to decide is in fact new. Perhaps the headline wasn't perfect, but congressional intervention is a new development.
A little government competition would be good. Build the fiber lines, and the ISP's will come.
A little government competition would be good. Build the fiber lines, and the ISP's will come.
readily available for almost every one in the US, city dweller or
remote farmer or anyone in between. And AT&T, with the
cooperation of the individual state's Public Service Commissions,
provided that service using business phone revenue to subsidize
the 'end-of-line' residential customers. And it worked well,
producing one of the world's finest communications systems at
a reasonable cost for everyone, and free maintenance.
Then the Justice Department got involved and rewrote all the
rules. So AT&T was broken up, customers had to pay (usually)
the actual cost of service with no subsidy. and suddenly,
whatever was wrong with the telepohone was the other guy's
job.
So now, the rural people get screwed, nobody's phone works like
it should, and the Justice Department honchos sit back with
smug looks on their faces.
Actually, if the Justice Department had any brains, they would
have penalized AT&T by making them take over the Post Office.
Then, we would have had the TWO best communications
systems in the world.
Now, we have neither.
Look at other government approved monopolies. Cable and electricity. Neither has grown cheaper, nor by themselves, improved its service.
Monopolies are the bane of any industry, just look at Microsoft dragging down nearly the entire computing world.
readily available for almost every one in the US, city dweller or
remote farmer or anyone in between. And AT&T, with the
cooperation of the individual state's Public Service Commissions,
provided that service using business phone revenue to subsidize
the 'end-of-line' residential customers. And it worked well,
producing one of the world's finest communications systems at
a reasonable cost for everyone, and free maintenance.
Then the Justice Department got involved and rewrote all the
rules. So AT&T was broken up, customers had to pay (usually)
the actual cost of service with no subsidy. and suddenly,
whatever was wrong with the telepohone was the other guy's
job.
So now, the rural people get screwed, nobody's phone works like
it should, and the Justice Department honchos sit back with
smug looks on their faces.
Actually, if the Justice Department had any brains, they would
have penalized AT&T by making them take over the Post Office.
Then, we would have had the TWO best communications
systems in the world.
Now, we have neither.
Look at other government approved monopolies. Cable and electricity. Neither has grown cheaper, nor by themselves, improved its service.
Monopolies are the bane of any industry, just look at Microsoft dragging down nearly the entire computing world.
You don't see Verizon bringing anything innovative out of their monopoly.
Remo
You don't see Verizon bringing anything innovative out of their monopoly.
Remo
- Hmmmmmmmm!
- by June 27, 2005 3:53 AM PDT
- They were poor in the 60's Hmmmm, they were poor in the the 70's Hmmmm, they were poor in the 80's Hmmmm, they were poor in the 90's Hmmmm, and now they are poor in the 2000's, Maybe the " poor" should quit doing the things that make them poor! Oh wait that's right the goverment helps them!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(50 Comments)