Chris Mitchell from the Institute from Local Self Reliance, has been following the Municipal Telecommunications Services bill. The quick review is that the bill’s original changes would make it easier for local governments to provide telecommunications services to the local community. As it stands, the bill requires interested local governments to allow residents to vote of whether or not the local government should provide telecommunications services – but it requires a super majority of 65 percent. So this year there was a proposal to eliminate the super majority and allow the idea to pass with a simple majority. However in session that proposal was change to include some other contingencies being placed on the vote.
Chris promotes making it easier for local governments to provide telecommunications services; today the Minneapolis Star Tribune features another opinion. Tom Steward, investigative director for the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota promotes keeping barriers in place to reduce risk for tax payers…
The fact is that the telecommunications business is a risky venture for private providers and even more so for a local government — a far cry from providing water or sewer services, where there is no other option for consumers.
Yes it is risky, but I would argue that communities face bigger risks is hoping Qwest, Mediacom, Charter, etc., will build the infrastructure these communities need.
Communities took risks in not building electrical grids when the private sector refused to invest also. The Freedom Foundation never misses an opportunity to expand the freedom of giant corporations to run our lives.
I was just talking with my dad about the different levels of interest in community investment in broadband. Some communities are willing to make the investment some aren’t. I guess the question becomes who gets to make the decision.
It also demonstrates the need for community education on the benefits of broadband, especially in the un- and underserved areas.
I think you’ve done as much work as anyone in terms of shining a light on the issue.
There are two issues here. What level risk is certainly one. The second is question you pose correctly — who gets to decide?
On the first question, we can provably say that the experience of municipal success in broadband is substantially greater (more successful) than has occurred in the private sector. One only needs to see the failures in the CLEC markets over the past 10 years and the current round of bankruptcies, and near bankruptcies, and out right failures in the cable business to know that municipal efforts have performed remarkably well. It seems that municipal approaches have lessened risk for a number of factors. They are a safer, less risky approach, than has been demonstrated by the private sector.
As to who gets to decide — that’s the point. With the advent of the Internet this is no longer a “nice to have” commodity. And that need increases daily. As such it involves all of us. When communities are shunned, or services made unaffordable by providers, they should have recourse. To date the only recourse that works is for them to build it themselves. And even allowing for a few poor decisions, in a few early efforts, their success has truly been remarkable. Are you proposing educating people more, instead of building networks, such that their dissatisfaction increases or do you have a solution?