« Google Video: New! Improved! | Main | Effective security vs "security theatre" » Should networks be public utilities?Somebody told me once that I shouldn't mention "Internet access as public good" in debates about municipal networks because that creates a frenzy of resistance in the minds of the duopolistic telcos/cablecos and the legislators they've lobbied so successfully over the years. I can understand the resurrected Ma Bell's concern: they understand that their real value is in their networks; bad news if upstart municipalites start building their own. And this concern isn't new: when Austin, Texas tried to build it's own fibre-to-the-home network in the 1980s, telcos lobbied the Texas legislature for a law that would end the project. In a world where network access has significant implications for economic development, public safety, education etc., there's a growing sense among smaller rural towns and cities that they'll be left even further behind than they already are if they don't have robust networks, and they're generally underserved by private providers who realize rural networks will be expensive to build and not particularly profitable. Which brings us to Powell, Wyoming, which is building its own fiber-optic network "capable of delivering ultrafast Internet, cable TV and telephone service to virtually every household and business...." The rise of community-backed projects has sparked debate about whether it's proper for government to compete with private enterprise, and whether broadband technology is a luxury or a virtual necessity that cities should provide, the way they do water or garbage service. The local telco (Qwest Communications) and cable provider (Bresnan Communications) oppose the project, of course. But more cities want to do this because they're not getting what they need from incumbent providers. And they're not going to wait around. [Link] jon posted this at 6:28 AM |
read weblogsky! latest posts: |
