4 ms·

That's not entirely true. There is a very good reason for some of them: To ensure that lower income areas are serviced. Usually, a municipality will make servic

That's not entirely true. There is a very good reason for some of them: To ensure that lower income areas are serviced. Usually, a municipality will make servicing those areas a requirement of getting the franchise. Now, if we have municipal broadband, that could ensure lower income areas are serviced instead. But without that fallback, cancelling franchise agreements would likely increase competition in the rich neighborhoods, and lead to things being just as bad or worse than they are now in poor ones.

rayiner 9y ago
It's not a good reason. If you force private companies to take on the government's role of providing a safety net, you're basically guaranteeing that only mega-corps will be able to take that deal. It would be better, as you suggest, to let municipalities perform the traditional governmental role of building the safety net.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law.... Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania: > [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network. Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      No, I don't think the laws are most of the reason why it's rare. It's probably more that other municipalities have seen the huge fights put up by the incumbents that tie the projects up in legal battles for years that have had a chilling effect on it. Citizens know that it's going to cost a lot for the infrastructure, and then probably a lot more for the legal fights. Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
    - wool_gather 9y ago
      > Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-muni-broadband-expansion-bill-after-att-opposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...

rayiner 9y ago

It's not a good reason. If you force private companies to take on the government's role of providing a safety net, you're basically guaranteeing that only mega-corps will be able to take that deal. It would be better, as you suggest, to let municipalities perform the traditional governmental role of building the safety net.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law.... Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania: > [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network. Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No, I don't think the laws are most of the reason why it's rare. It's probably more that other municipalities have seen the huge fights put up by the incumbents that tie the projects up in legal battles for years that have had a chilling effect on it. Citizens know that it's going to cost a lot for the infrastructure, and then probably a lot more for the legal fights. Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
  - wool_gather 9y ago
    > Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-muni-broadband-expansion-bill-after-att-opposition/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...