The House of Representatives voted last week to keep the Obama Administration from overturning bans on municipally-owned internet service.
Here’s the background: Numerous cities across the nation have stepped in to fill vacuums in internet service by funding their own municipal systems, providing their residents with no-nonsense, fast broadband at a reasonable rate. Internet providers have responded to that growing trend by urging state legislatures to ban those systems, saying that government entities have no business funding projects that would otherwise be built by those companies based on demand.
Wednesday’s House vote was a loud and clear message to the Federal Communications Commission, which is considering regulations that would forbid states from restricting municipal broadband service.
FCC watchers think that Tennessee is likely to be the first state targeted by the federal agency. That, supposedly, is why Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) wants to prohibit the FCC from overruling any state laws that restrict municipally-owned broadband systems. Blackburn’s amendment passed 223-200 with most Republicans voting for it and most Democrats voting against it. (Or as they say in Tennessee, “fer” it and “agin” it.)
The municipal system built in Chattanooga, Tennessee has roiled other internet providers. Gig City, Chattanooga’s 1Gbps high-speed fiber internet network costs a relatively expensive $70 per month, but delivers download and upload speeds said to be 50 times faster than typical internet speeds.
If you’re thinking that sounds attractive, you’re not alone. Neighboring communities have expressed interest in joining Chattanooga’s network, but they’re being stymied by a state law that prohibits the city from expanding the service.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said local governments “shouldn’t be stopped by state laws promoted by cable and telephone companies that don’t want that competition.”
“I believe that it is in the best interests of consumers and competition that the FCC exercises its power to preempt state laws that ban or restrict competition from community broadband,” he said in a recent blog post.
Telecom and cable companies disagree. They’ve been pressuring state and federal regulators and legislators to impose regulations that would prohibit municipalities from building their own systems. They say it’s unfair to expect them to compete against government-owned internet providers that are funded with tax dollars.
They object to taxpayer-funded systems that, in their words, have a history of failing to live up to the hype and wasting taxpayer money. We don’t think anyone in Chattanooga would concur.
We’d like to open it up to hear your opinions.
On one hand, we typically come down on the side of the free market and the ability of competition to deliver the best, fastest internet to the most people.
On the other hand, America’s public utility industry has evolved in such a way that one company is usually granted a monopolistic right to provide utility service within a specific geographic area.
On this specific issue, we’d like to see the free market opened up so that America’s consumers get the best deal, but we realize that monopolies almost guarantee that they’ll end up getting slower service at a later date.
What do you think?
Source: National Review
AP says
I come down on the side of what is on the best interest of the People, NOT corporations. So my opinions are not skewed by adherence to some economic THEORY. Some things simply don’t work out efficiently and effectively in a For-Profit model. Monopolies are the opposite of a healthy free market. But, that does seem to be what it comes down to, time after time, as big companies buy up smaller companies and we have no Teddy Roosevelt to bravely break them up. Instead we are left with Too Big to Fail, and all too often a lack of fair competition in the market. Too few people seem to recognize markets MUST be regulated in such a way as to keep the market open and competitive. And some things should not be in a for-profit model.
I am ashamed of those at the federal level who would prevent local representatives from trying to serve the best interests of the people they serve. Whether it be with higher clean air and water standards, or access to Internet which must now be viewed as a utility, not a privilege. I am also ashamed of local representatives who serve at the bidding of their big donors and not there constituents. Those Corporatists who do not represent the best interest of the People should be sent back to private industry, as they are not fulling the obligation of Public Service. But, those who vote Corporatists into office have their share of the blame.
Some things do not lend themselves to the profit model. Every other 1st world country has figured that out. And we are falling behind some 3rd world countries because we can’t seem to recognize it. Instead we allow fear and scapegoating blind us to facts. The books: “Political Animals” and “Just How Stupid Are We?” by Rick Shenkman demonstrate this fact.
CheapInternet.com Administrator says
Whole lot of words, AP, but we’re not sure what your point is in regard to the Internet.
Mark says
This is a tough one. On the one hand, I know that these municipal networks are a Godsend for many people in mostly rural areas. Faster broadband, and honest prices. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in States Rights (10th Amendment). The Feds, especially these last few years, have overreached in such areas as health care, welfare, immigration and more. It’s anti-Constitutional., pure and simple.
The real problem that I see is corruption at the state level, where it’s even cheaper and less conspicuous for big internet companies to “sway” state law. The people need to make their voices heard at the state level.
But the optics of this just don’t look good for the congresswoman, do they?