7 ms·

The FCC Can't Save Community Broadband, But We Can

95 points by dwaxe 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago
The term "community broadband" here seems misleading. As far as I can tell, most of the ISP objections to such efforts involve a local government effectively creating its own ISP. Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties (such as tax funding), even if it doesn't go even further and ignore regulations it applies to everyone else. Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for (in whole or in part) whether they use it or not, and that gets to set the rules you have to follow but that it can choose not to. I don't think any of the ISP objections or court cases would hold up against an actual community effort, as opposed to a government effort. If a group of people got together and decided to start a community ISP, nothing should stop them.
- wtallis 10y ago
  ISPs—in the sense of providers of last-mile connectivity—are a natural monopoly. They have inherent anti-competitive properties no matter what their ownership structure. The important question is whether being owned by a national corporation or by a local government or by a local association allows for more effective regulation of that monopoly in practice; it indisputably needs regulation. The competition that's actually worth caring about and encouraging and protecting is competition for backhaul connectivity to CDN nodes and peering points, and services offered on top of the internet connection (email, VoIP, TV content, etc.). Trying to make things fair for two competitors putting trenches along the same street is a fool's errand and obscenely wasteful.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    It only makes sense to have one set of fibers to individual homes, yes, and it'd be nice to have a single provider of that infrastructure separate from any ISP. (It'd be even nicer if cities ran underground conduits for future expansion, so nobody needed to trenching individual cables/fiber; then it wouldn't really matter either way.)
    - pjc50 10y ago
      a single provider of that infrastructure separate from any ISP This is (sort of) the UK model with 'local loop unbundling'. BT Openreach maintains the wiring and is supposed to sublease it to various ISPs, including BT-the-consumer-ISP. It works OK, except that customer service issues in the wiring can take a long time to be resolved.
- tomschlick 10y ago
  > such as tax funding Comcast and others got exactly that. They got federal/state/local money to wire up the country with high speed internet and then fell short when they hit the rural areas that needed it most. Not only that but certain cities gave them exclusivity agreements so that there couldn't be competition for X years.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>and then fell short when they hit the rural areas that needed it most. Why do rural areas need the Internet the most?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jpitz 10y ago
      Because urban dwellers have choice when it comes to selecting an isp.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        Umm, no? American ISPs/cable companies are notorious for form get regional monopolies. In most places in the US, people really have only one option for ISP. You might think the situation is different in cities, but that is the case only on the surface. The fact is that in dense urban settings, many apartment buildings form exclusive partnerships with cable providers such that residents must sign up with that provider of they want cable/internet.
        jlgaddis 10y ago
        And then there are places -- like the rural areas mentioned above -- where my parents live. They have zero options.
        jpitz 10y ago
        In all of the suburban and urban areas I've lived in and near, it has been the case. In the rural area I live now, my options are crappy satellite or expensive 4g. /anecdote
- feld 10y ago
  Internet access is basically a utility now. Additionally, great internet activity can significantly boost the local economy of a small city by bringing in tech businesses and IT workers. It's in the city's best interests to keep it modern. Currently the big ISPs are making money on aging infrastructure as long as possible and not expanding coverage if it doesn't look profitable enough. In Madison, WI the discussion of municipal fiber is in the works and they're targeting depressed communities first.
  - feld 10y ago
    *great internet connectivity thanks smartphone autocorrect
- feld 10y ago
  Internet access is basically a utility now. Great internet activity can significantly boost the local economy of a small city by bringing in tech businesses and IT workers. It's in the city's best interests to keep it modern. Currently th bug ISPs interests are making money on aging infrastructure as long as possible and not expanding coverage if it doesn't look profitable enough. In Madison, WI the discussion of municipal fiber is in the works and they're targeting depressed communities first.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties It's unreasonable, when those who object are themselves monopolists (private ones), and as such are themselves anti-competitive. I'd say, for any community private monopolist vs city / state owned (or hybrid partnership) ISP is a better situation than private monopolist alone. Especially since private monopolists have zero interest in wiring or upgrading rural areas, which aren't profitable for them. So community owned ISP is for sure the only option there if you want to have high quality modern network. Either that, or private monopolists should be regulated to the point of requiring modern bandwidth and fair pricing.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    To the extent local governments have sold monopoly rights to an individual ISP, I certainly think those should go away immediately. Beyond that, though, having a monopoly doesn't inherently imply anti-competitive behavior. Nor does it excuse creating a new anti-competitive ISP. > So community owned ISP is for sure the only option there if you want to have high quality modern network. I agree, a community-owned ISP can be a great solution, especially for areas under-served by available options.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      For-profit ISPs that have monopolies are abusive, in pricing and in the quality of services they offer. This is close enough to a universal truth that there's no point in considering the exceptions for public policy purposes; we can assume incumbent ISPs are abusive ISPs. Removing the artificial barriers to competition does nothing to abolish the natural one, nor to remove the advantage an incumbent ISP has from having been helped overcome that natural barrier. The only sure way to break out of the pattern is through another use of the government power that created the monopoly in the first place: either by regulating that monopoly to curb its abuses, by creating a second publicly-owned network to host a functional competitive market, or by seizing the existing infrastructure to turn it into the publicly-owned network that is a prerequisite for the kind of competitive market that can work. The above three options are things that have to be done by the government because other private enterprises either cannot do it or cannot have sufficient economic incentive to do it. Of those three options, the first is far less permanent than the latter two, and the second is far less frightening than the third.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties That's the point - as a natural monopoly, ISPs are inherently anti-competitive. They should be government (or quasi-government) entities just like every other utilities. > Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > That's the point - as a natural monopoly, ISPs are inherently anti-competitive. No, last-mile fiber is a natural monopoly; connectivity through that fiber is incredibly competitive. I'm not arguing that last-mile fiber shouldn't be a utility; it especially makes sense to put it in when building new infrastructure, ideally along with conduits to allow for future expansion or maintenance. But that shouldn't imply acting as an ISP.
  - techsupporter 10y ago
    > Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service. It is funny that you write that. As you probably know, but to inform others, electric service in several states is competitive. Customers choose a supplier and that supplier puts enough power on the grid to serve their needs. Suppliers are generally unregulated in terms of pricing and customer selection. The last mile poles and wires are owned by a regulated company with that company's rates subject to oversight and a requirement to serve every subscriber. That's how we should do internet connectivity.
- snewk 10y ago
  > Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties Technically anti-competitive, yes. Although in the case of Chattanooga, residents now have the option to pay a price more in line with the global first-world market rate. comcast was simply not interested in increasing speed or lowering prices. Now that there is real 'competition' (from the govt run utility), good old comcast has magically lowered their rates and increased service offerings. Because they totally were going to do that anyway /s.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  > a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties (such as tax funding), It is exceedingly rare that municipal networks are built with direct tax funding. Municipalities just don't have that kind of money lying around. Municipal networks are normally funded with bonds, much like commercial networks. > even if it doesn't go even further and ignore regulations it applies to everyone else. That's an interesting assertion. Can you name one regulation that municipal networks can ignore, that applies to everyone else? > Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for (in whole or in part) whether they use it or not, Municipal networks are usually paid for by it's users and subscribers. Sure, you can imagine things, but this scenario just doesn't play out that often in reality. > and that gets to set the rules you have to follow but that it can choose not to. Which rules are you referring to? > I don't think any of the ISP objections or court cases would hold up against an actual community effort, as opposed to a government effort. If a group of people got together and decided to start a community ISP, nothing should stop them. Unfortunately this isn't true. Some states even regulate what networks co-ops can build and operate. Some ISPs even do their best to annihilate open access and dark fiber networks by municipalities.
beerbajay 10y ago
In Sweden, when I moved into a new apartment I was able to get fiber broadband from one of EIGHT providers. This was because the fiber network was owned by a corporation created by the city. The result? For $65/mo I could get 500/100 Mbit/s connectivity. On Time-Warner in NYC, $65 only gets me "up to 300 Mbit/s". In Sweden, I could get symmetric 1 Gbit for $93/mo; I don't even have that option in NYC. Installation? I just connected my computer, chose a plan via my web browser and had everything working within 20 minutes.
- hanklazard 10y ago
  Meanwhile, stateside, I have ONE internet service provider available in my building (Comcast). After talking with mgmt about allowing other ISPs, I was told that Comcast actually wired the building, so there will not be any other options. To no one's surprise, I'm being gouged for barely 5 Mbps down.
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    The downside would be that if your city did the wiring, you'd be paying for it through higher property taxes. A counterargument might be that both the city and Comcast could both raise money through munipical or corporate bonds from investors, so local citizens might not need to pay any extra taxes as long as the city breaks even charging for its wiring.
    - hanklazard 10y ago
      I was thinking that the property/building owner could have just paid an independent contractor to wire the building when it was built (it's only 10 yrs old), much the same way various subcontractors are used for different jobs when building a house. That way, data streams could come in through the cable lines that run to the building or one of the new wireless options that are being offered in my city. That was just my very basic thought about how this could feel less anti-consumer/monopolistic--I don't actually know how these types of things are usually done so feel free to let me know if you have more expertise!
greggman 10y ago
I hate the anti competitive structure we have in the USA now but I can't see how government run ISPs could ever be w good thing. 1. Network tech advances at breakneck pace. Do you really think government is going to update aging infrastructure every few years? Sure the current ISPs might not to that now. Proper competiton might fix that. Government ISPs will make that even worse. 2. Censorship seems far more likely on government ISPs . Someone will lobby "the government shouldn't allow X on government run things". You'll have no recourse. Proper competiton would solve this. Government ISPs won't. 3. Spying: governemts want to spy. What better way to spy than with their own systems. Yes there is a problem with the current local monopolies but I don't see how government run ISPs is the right solution.
- brians 10y ago
  I think on 2 and 3 you're mistaken: it is often much harder today for law enforcement or intelligence parts of the government to get data from other parts of the government, who can ignore them or tie them up in bureaucracy, than from companies. On the first point—yes, I think you're quite right. But maybe FTTH is enough for many years to come?
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Re 2. if it makes you feel better even a competitive market won't do much to fix this. Even a small ISP is is always going to be big and connected enough to fear having some license or service yanked if it does not toe the line. Re 3. a diverse market for ISPs might improve this a bit though. Depending on the whims of the courts. A "renegade" ISP might decide to make a name for itself by getting into trouble for not helping out in spying.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Wrt 1, I buy that for switches and such, but the pipes themselves- fiber seems pretty future proof. Nothing faster than light. All that could really change would be a tighter spec for slightly higher bandwidth ala cat5e vs cat6, OR eventually 1 fiber strand isn't enough and we start needing to bundle ftth.
- amazon_not 10y ago
sathackr 10y ago
I've always had a problem with Governments(who don't pay tax on their profits) operating in environments where they may compete directly with private industry(who must pay tax on their profits) We have two cities nearby that run their own power companies and all areas around the cities are supplied by a much larger private company. Power rates in both cities are higher than the surrounding areas, and outages are far more common in the city-ran areas. I know of several cities that have attempted to provide city-wide wi-fi service. I do not know of any that were successful. Most of them bought the mesh-networking koolaid and disaster was the result.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  This view of competition is too narrow; it misses the bigger picture of the benefits and detriments to society. Also, a few anecdotes do not disprove the theory, especially when many of the municipal utility efforts that fail had meddling from corporations trying to sabotage them. Many citied and towns across the globe have demonstrated that municipally owned infrastructure can be better than monopoly owned infrastructure.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  Municipal utilities pay a fee to the local government which is equal or more than what they'd pay in taxes as a private company. It's called PILOT, payment in lieu of taxes.
  - sathackr 10y ago
    Hmm interesting...I wasn't aware of that. Must research.
duncan_bayne 10y ago
Community Broadband is a propaganda term. What the (normally excellent) FCC is actually talking about is taxpayer funded broadband. "Community" imparts a friendly air of voluntary association to something that, at root, is funded by coercion.

95 points by dwaxe 10y ago

The term "community broadband" here seems misleading. As far as I can tell, most of the ISP objections to such efforts involve a local government effectively creating its own ISP. Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties (such as tax funding), even if it doesn't go even further and ignore regulations it applies to everyone else. Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for (in whole or in part) whether they use it or not, and that gets to set the rules you have to follow but that it can choose not to. I don't think any of the ISP objections or court cases would hold up against an actual community effort, as opposed to a government effort. If a group of people got together and decided to start a community ISP, nothing should stop them.

wtallis 10y ago
ISPs—in the sense of providers of last-mile connectivity—are a natural monopoly. They have inherent anti-competitive properties no matter what their ownership structure. The important question is whether being owned by a national corporation or by a local government or by a local association allows for more effective regulation of that monopoly in practice; it indisputably needs regulation. The competition that's actually worth caring about and encouraging and protecting is competition for backhaul connectivity to CDN nodes and peering points, and services offered on top of the internet connection (email, VoIP, TV content, etc.). Trying to make things fair for two competitors putting trenches along the same street is a fool's errand and obscenely wasteful.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  It only makes sense to have one set of fibers to individual homes, yes, and it'd be nice to have a single provider of that infrastructure separate from any ISP. (It'd be even nicer if cities ran underground conduits for future expansion, so nobody needed to trenching individual cables/fiber; then it wouldn't really matter either way.)
  - pjc50 10y ago
    a single provider of that infrastructure separate from any ISP This is (sort of) the UK model with 'local loop unbundling'. BT Openreach maintains the wiring and is supposed to sublease it to various ISPs, including BT-the-consumer-ISP. It works OK, except that customer service issues in the wiring can take a long time to be resolved.
tomschlick 10y ago
> such as tax funding Comcast and others got exactly that. They got federal/state/local money to wire up the country with high speed internet and then fell short when they hit the rural areas that needed it most. Not only that but certain cities gave them exclusivity agreements so that there couldn't be competition for X years.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>and then fell short when they hit the rural areas that needed it most. Why do rural areas need the Internet the most?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jpitz 10y ago
    Because urban dwellers have choice when it comes to selecting an isp.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      Umm, no? American ISPs/cable companies are notorious for form get regional monopolies. In most places in the US, people really have only one option for ISP. You might think the situation is different in cities, but that is the case only on the surface. The fact is that in dense urban settings, many apartment buildings form exclusive partnerships with cable providers such that residents must sign up with that provider of they want cable/internet.
      - jlgaddis 10y ago
        And then there are places -- like the rural areas mentioned above -- where my parents live. They have zero options.
      - jpitz 10y ago
        In all of the suburban and urban areas I've lived in and near, it has been the case. In the rural area I live now, my options are crappy satellite or expensive 4g. /anecdote
feld 10y ago
Internet access is basically a utility now. Additionally, great internet activity can significantly boost the local economy of a small city by bringing in tech businesses and IT workers. It's in the city's best interests to keep it modern. Currently the big ISPs are making money on aging infrastructure as long as possible and not expanding coverage if it doesn't look profitable enough. In Madison, WI the discussion of municipal fiber is in the works and they're targeting depressed communities first.
- feld 10y ago
  *great internet connectivity thanks smartphone autocorrect
feld 10y ago
Internet access is basically a utility now. Great internet activity can significantly boost the local economy of a small city by bringing in tech businesses and IT workers. It's in the city's best interests to keep it modern. Currently th bug ISPs interests are making money on aging infrastructure as long as possible and not expanding coverage if it doesn't look profitable enough. In Madison, WI the discussion of municipal fiber is in the works and they're targeting depressed communities first.
shmerl 10y ago
> Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties It's unreasonable, when those who object are themselves monopolists (private ones), and as such are themselves anti-competitive. I'd say, for any community private monopolist vs city / state owned (or hybrid partnership) ISP is a better situation than private monopolist alone. Especially since private monopolists have zero interest in wiring or upgrading rural areas, which aren't profitable for them. So community owned ISP is for sure the only option there if you want to have high quality modern network. Either that, or private monopolists should be regulated to the point of requiring modern bandwidth and fair pricing.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  To the extent local governments have sold monopoly rights to an individual ISP, I certainly think those should go away immediately. Beyond that, though, having a monopoly doesn't inherently imply anti-competitive behavior. Nor does it excuse creating a new anti-competitive ISP. > So community owned ISP is for sure the only option there if you want to have high quality modern network. I agree, a community-owned ISP can be a great solution, especially for areas under-served by available options.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    For-profit ISPs that have monopolies are abusive, in pricing and in the quality of services they offer. This is close enough to a universal truth that there's no point in considering the exceptions for public policy purposes; we can assume incumbent ISPs are abusive ISPs. Removing the artificial barriers to competition does nothing to abolish the natural one, nor to remove the advantage an incumbent ISP has from having been helped overcome that natural barrier. The only sure way to break out of the pattern is through another use of the government power that created the monopoly in the first place: either by regulating that monopoly to curb its abuses, by creating a second publicly-owned network to host a functional competitive market, or by seizing the existing infrastructure to turn it into the publicly-owned network that is a prerequisite for the kind of competitive market that can work. The above three options are things that have to be done by the government because other private enterprises either cannot do it or cannot have sufficient economic incentive to do it. Of those three options, the first is far less permanent than the latter two, and the second is far less frightening than the third.
pdkl95 10y ago
> a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties That's the point - as a natural monopoly, ISPs are inherently anti-competitive. They should be government (or quasi-government) entities just like every other utilities. > Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > That's the point - as a natural monopoly, ISPs are inherently anti-competitive. No, last-mile fiber is a natural monopoly; connectivity through that fiber is incredibly competitive. I'm not arguing that last-mile fiber shouldn't be a utility; it especially makes sense to put it in when building new infrastructure, ideally along with conduits to allow for future expansion or maintenance. But that shouldn't imply acting as an ISP.
- techsupporter 10y ago
  > Imagine trying to compete for last-mile water or electric service. It is funny that you write that. As you probably know, but to inform others, electric service in several states is competitive. Customers choose a supplier and that supplier puts enough power on the grid to serve their needs. Suppliers are generally unregulated in terms of pricing and customer selection. The last mile poles and wires are owned by a regulated company with that company's rates subject to oversight and a requirement to serve every subscriber. That's how we should do internet connectivity.
snewk 10y ago
> Objecting to that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable; a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties Technically anti-competitive, yes. Although in the case of Chattanooga, residents now have the option to pay a price more in line with the global first-world market rate. comcast was simply not interested in increasing speed or lowering prices. Now that there is real 'competition' (from the govt run utility), good old comcast has magically lowered their rates and increased service offerings. Because they totally were going to do that anyway /s.
amazon_not 10y ago
> a government ISP has inherent anti-competitive properties (such as tax funding), It is exceedingly rare that municipal networks are built with direct tax funding. Municipalities just don't have that kind of money lying around. Municipal networks are normally funded with bonds, much like commercial networks. > even if it doesn't go even further and ignore regulations it applies to everyone else. That's an interesting assertion. Can you name one regulation that municipal networks can ignore, that applies to everyone else? > Imagine trying to compete with a competitor that everyone has to pay for (in whole or in part) whether they use it or not, Municipal networks are usually paid for by it's users and subscribers. Sure, you can imagine things, but this scenario just doesn't play out that often in reality. > and that gets to set the rules you have to follow but that it can choose not to. Which rules are you referring to? > I don't think any of the ISP objections or court cases would hold up against an actual community effort, as opposed to a government effort. If a group of people got together and decided to start a community ISP, nothing should stop them. Unfortunately this isn't true. Some states even regulate what networks co-ops can build and operate. Some ISPs even do their best to annihilate open access and dark fiber networks by municipalities.

beerbajay 10y ago

In Sweden, when I moved into a new apartment I was able to get fiber broadband from one of EIGHT providers. This was because the fiber network was owned by a corporation created by the city. The result? For $65/mo I could get 500/100 Mbit/s connectivity. On Time-Warner in NYC, $65 only gets me "up to 300 Mbit/s". In Sweden, I could get symmetric 1 Gbit for $93/mo; I don't even have that option in NYC. Installation? I just connected my computer, chose a plan via my web browser and had everything working within 20 minutes.

hanklazard 10y ago
Meanwhile, stateside, I have ONE internet service provider available in my building (Comcast). After talking with mgmt about allowing other ISPs, I was told that Comcast actually wired the building, so there will not be any other options. To no one's surprise, I'm being gouged for barely 5 Mbps down.
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  The downside would be that if your city did the wiring, you'd be paying for it through higher property taxes. A counterargument might be that both the city and Comcast could both raise money through munipical or corporate bonds from investors, so local citizens might not need to pay any extra taxes as long as the city breaks even charging for its wiring.
  - hanklazard 10y ago
    I was thinking that the property/building owner could have just paid an independent contractor to wire the building when it was built (it's only 10 yrs old), much the same way various subcontractors are used for different jobs when building a house. That way, data streams could come in through the cable lines that run to the building or one of the new wireless options that are being offered in my city. That was just my very basic thought about how this could feel less anti-consumer/monopolistic--I don't actually know how these types of things are usually done so feel free to let me know if you have more expertise!

greggman 10y ago

I hate the anti competitive structure we have in the USA now but I can't see how government run ISPs could ever be w good thing. 1. Network tech advances at breakneck pace. Do you really think government is going to update aging infrastructure every few years? Sure the current ISPs might not to that now. Proper competiton might fix that. Government ISPs will make that even worse. 2. Censorship seems far more likely on government ISPs . Someone will lobby "the government shouldn't allow X on government run things". You'll have no recourse. Proper competiton would solve this. Government ISPs won't. 3. Spying: governemts want to spy. What better way to spy than with their own systems. Yes there is a problem with the current local monopolies but I don't see how government run ISPs is the right solution.

brians 10y ago
I think on 2 and 3 you're mistaken: it is often much harder today for law enforcement or intelligence parts of the government to get data from other parts of the government, who can ignore them or tie them up in bureaucracy, than from companies. On the first point—yes, I think you're quite right. But maybe FTTH is enough for many years to come?
adrianratnapala 10y ago
Re 2. if it makes you feel better even a competitive market won't do much to fix this. Even a small ISP is is always going to be big and connected enough to fear having some license or service yanked if it does not toe the line. Re 3. a diverse market for ISPs might improve this a bit though. Depending on the whims of the courts. A "renegade" ISP might decide to make a name for itself by getting into trouble for not helping out in spying.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Wrt 1, I buy that for switches and such, but the pipes themselves- fiber seems pretty future proof. Nothing faster than light. All that could really change would be a tighter spec for slightly higher bandwidth ala cat5e vs cat6, OR eventually 1 fiber strand isn't enough and we start needing to bundle ftth.
amazon_not 10y ago

sathackr 10y ago

I've always had a problem with Governments(who don't pay tax on their profits) operating in environments where they may compete directly with private industry(who must pay tax on their profits) We have two cities nearby that run their own power companies and all areas around the cities are supplied by a much larger private company. Power rates in both cities are higher than the surrounding areas, and outages are far more common in the city-ran areas. I know of several cities that have attempted to provide city-wide wi-fi service. I do not know of any that were successful. Most of them bought the mesh-networking koolaid and disaster was the result.

nitrogen 10y ago
This view of competition is too narrow; it misses the bigger picture of the benefits and detriments to society. Also, a few anecdotes do not disprove the theory, especially when many of the municipal utility efforts that fail had meddling from corporations trying to sabotage them. Many citied and towns across the globe have demonstrated that municipally owned infrastructure can be better than monopoly owned infrastructure.
amazon_not 10y ago
Municipal utilities pay a fee to the local government which is equal or more than what they'd pay in taxes as a private company. It's called PILOT, payment in lieu of taxes.
- sathackr 10y ago
  Hmm interesting...I wasn't aware of that. Must research.

duncan_bayne 10y ago

Community Broadband is a propaganda term. What the (normally excellent) FCC is actually talking about is taxpayer funded broadband. "Community" imparts a friendly air of voluntary association to something that, at root, is funded by coercion.