In a welcome departure from recent trends, the Indiana State House of Representatives rejected a bill that would have all but prohibited municipalities from building their own broadband networks. Sponsored by Rep. L Jack Lutz (R-House District 35) and championed by telecommunications company SBC, the bill would have forbidden municipal construction of broadband networks if service was already available elsewhere. If broadband was not available, cities and towns would then be able to build networks, but without public funds.
Similar laws have been passed in 14 other states, most recently in Pennsylvania, which passed a Verizon-backed law prohibiting the establishment of municipal broadband networks where a usage or access fee is charged. Similar legislation is currently under consideration in six other states. A Supreme Court decision last year cleared the way for states to enact such laws, which the telecommunications industry argues are necessary to prevent governments from competing unfairly with the private sector and keep residents from being burdened by higher taxes.
"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.
One problem with that position is that there are some places where there is little or no broadband service to begin with. Large telcos like SBC and Verizon have little or no interest in moving into such areas, leaving residents with nowhere to go for broadband access. In other places, incumbent ISPs may be faced with a lack of competition, leaving them with little or no incentive to upgrade their networks.
The "budget strain" argument is also a specious one. It is true that creating and maintaining such networks can represent a considerable outlay for cities and towns. That said, much — if not all — can be recouped via usage fees and leases. High-bandwidth fiber networks can also be used to attract new businesses to town. In that way, networks are no different from the other infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, sewers, and water systems which needs to be maintained in order to make a town a place worth living or doing business in. If communications companies were more aggressive about investing in and upgrading their network infrastructure, there would likely be less pressure on local governments to take the task on themselves.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050217-4626.html
Similar laws have been passed in 14 other states, most recently in Pennsylvania, which passed a Verizon-backed law prohibiting the establishment of municipal broadband networks where a usage or access fee is charged. Similar legislation is currently under consideration in six other states. A Supreme Court decision last year cleared the way for states to enact such laws, which the telecommunications industry argues are necessary to prevent governments from competing unfairly with the private sector and keep residents from being burdened by higher taxes.
"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.
One problem with that position is that there are some places where there is little or no broadband service to begin with. Large telcos like SBC and Verizon have little or no interest in moving into such areas, leaving residents with nowhere to go for broadband access. In other places, incumbent ISPs may be faced with a lack of competition, leaving them with little or no incentive to upgrade their networks.
The "budget strain" argument is also a specious one. It is true that creating and maintaining such networks can represent a considerable outlay for cities and towns. That said, much — if not all — can be recouped via usage fees and leases. High-bandwidth fiber networks can also be used to attract new businesses to town. In that way, networks are no different from the other infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, sewers, and water systems which needs to be maintained in order to make a town a place worth living or doing business in. If communications companies were more aggressive about investing in and upgrading their network infrastructure, there would likely be less pressure on local governments to take the task on themselves.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050217-4626.html
