Full Version: Is Broadband Internet the next public Utility?
In our chat session tonight, a brief mention was made to the idea of whether internet access has or will (or should) achieve a status similar to water and electric as far as public access goes.
With the advent of Municipal Wi-Fi and BOP (Broadband over Powerlines) internet access has the potential to reach a level of ubiquity only rivaled by the telephone.
Municipal wireless in particular has driven a debate (arguably with dollars in the middle of it) as to what role government should play in providing or facilitating internet access. To say the debate has been hotly contested would be an understatement. On one side you have reports of case studies like in Philadelphia, where municipal wi-fi may have a chance to help alleviate poverty.
Unfortunately, such prospects have raised the ire of cable and telecommunications firms as they see potential subscriber dollars fly out the window. This has resulted in one law in Pennsylvania (arguably sponsored by Verizon) that restricts the ability for local governments to pursue municipal wi-fi solutions. A similar bill was considered in Texas but died due to the House and Senate being unable to agree on details. Indiana and Colorado had similar legislation die recently as well.
I'm going to try and narrow the questions a bit, because I think this debate could be quite broad (pardon the pun):
1) Should municipal governments have the ability to act as an ISP to residents within their municipality, much like trash service or sewer service?
2) Should legislatures protect telecomm and cable corporations from having to compete with municipal wi-fi projects for broadband internet access? Why or why not?
3) What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of broadband internet access being a public utility?
With the advent of Municipal Wi-Fi and BOP (Broadband over Powerlines) internet access has the potential to reach a level of ubiquity only rivaled by the telephone.
Municipal wireless in particular has driven a debate (arguably with dollars in the middle of it) as to what role government should play in providing or facilitating internet access. To say the debate has been hotly contested would be an understatement. On one side you have reports of case studies like in Philadelphia, where municipal wi-fi may have a chance to help alleviate poverty.
Unfortunately, such prospects have raised the ire of cable and telecommunications firms as they see potential subscriber dollars fly out the window. This has resulted in one law in Pennsylvania (arguably sponsored by Verizon) that restricts the ability for local governments to pursue municipal wi-fi solutions. A similar bill was considered in Texas but died due to the House and Senate being unable to agree on details. Indiana and Colorado had similar legislation die recently as well.
I'm going to try and narrow the questions a bit, because I think this debate could be quite broad (pardon the pun):
1) Should municipal governments have the ability to act as an ISP to residents within their municipality, much like trash service or sewer service?
2) Should legislatures protect telecomm and cable corporations from having to compete with municipal wi-fi projects for broadband internet access? Why or why not?
3) What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of broadband internet access being a public utility?
1) Should municipal governments have the ability to act as an ISP to residents within their municipality, much like trash service or sewer service?
Sure, but they should not be the only show in town. Once one becomes dependant on broadband for making a living, as we have done, you want two distinct service providers. Right now it is broadband and dialup, but as soon as another broadband provider gets here, we'll dump dialup.
We are locked into one sewer service, but we have a choice on trash service. Locked into electric, water, and natural gas services. Get locked into one broadband service? No thank you. If the line goes down, we can't work. Well we can at slow speed and single-threaded. It is only for keeping one nostril out of the water.
Think of it as having multiple NICs and subnets on a network. You want redundancy to keep in business. Also like having multiple fiber optic rings around a municipality to protect against evil backhoe operators.
Oh, and if the electricity goes out, that's it. No moto generator here, but I'm thinking about it.
2) Should legislatures protect telecomm and cable corporations from having to compete with municipal wi-fi projects for broadband internet access? Why or why not?
If municipalities want to compete, let them. The more players, the better for availability and possibly price.
3) What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of broadband internet access being a public utility?
The major disadvantage is having only one service provider available. It's the same as running a production server without redundancy in power, CPU, memory, disk drives, NICs, and without UPSs and moto generators. No serious business runs this way. Availability is only as good as the single point of failure.
For the casual user, this doesn't mean much. Meaning comes in when getting online is the first thing you have to do to make money via telecommuting.
Telecommuting isn't what most folks do as yet, but I see it getting more common as time goes on. It makes business sense both to corporations and to workers. High availability broadband is necessary, and to ensure this, redundancy in providers is necessary. When one is down, the other hopefully stays up.
One thing to think about here is how the service provider connects to the Internet backbone. If the service provider only has one T1, then the bandwidth can only support so many customers, and the single T1 becomes a single point of failure. We had that problem at a local hospital, and Qwest (US West back then) was in constant denial that its line was down on its end. That can lead to intolerable network outages, or in other words, no Internet or WAN communications at all.
The hospital went to microwave WAN to get around this little problem that can cost lives.
In a nutshell, we want redundancy that allows 100% uptime.
Sure, but they should not be the only show in town. Once one becomes dependant on broadband for making a living, as we have done, you want two distinct service providers. Right now it is broadband and dialup, but as soon as another broadband provider gets here, we'll dump dialup.
We are locked into one sewer service, but we have a choice on trash service. Locked into electric, water, and natural gas services. Get locked into one broadband service? No thank you. If the line goes down, we can't work. Well we can at slow speed and single-threaded. It is only for keeping one nostril out of the water.
Think of it as having multiple NICs and subnets on a network. You want redundancy to keep in business. Also like having multiple fiber optic rings around a municipality to protect against evil backhoe operators.
Oh, and if the electricity goes out, that's it. No moto generator here, but I'm thinking about it.
2) Should legislatures protect telecomm and cable corporations from having to compete with municipal wi-fi projects for broadband internet access? Why or why not?
If municipalities want to compete, let them. The more players, the better for availability and possibly price.
3) What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of broadband internet access being a public utility?
The major disadvantage is having only one service provider available. It's the same as running a production server without redundancy in power, CPU, memory, disk drives, NICs, and without UPSs and moto generators. No serious business runs this way. Availability is only as good as the single point of failure.
For the casual user, this doesn't mean much. Meaning comes in when getting online is the first thing you have to do to make money via telecommuting.
Telecommuting isn't what most folks do as yet, but I see it getting more common as time goes on. It makes business sense both to corporations and to workers. High availability broadband is necessary, and to ensure this, redundancy in providers is necessary. When one is down, the other hopefully stays up.
One thing to think about here is how the service provider connects to the Internet backbone. If the service provider only has one T1, then the bandwidth can only support so many customers, and the single T1 becomes a single point of failure. We had that problem at a local hospital, and Qwest (US West back then) was in constant denial that its line was down on its end. That can lead to intolerable network outages, or in other words, no Internet or WAN communications at all.
The hospital went to microwave WAN to get around this little problem that can cost lives.
In a nutshell, we want redundancy that allows 100% uptime.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 2 2005, 04:58 AM)
1) Should municipal governments have the ability to act as an ISP to residents within their municipality, much like trash service or sewer service?
Sure, but they should not be the only show in town. Once one becomes dependant on broadband for making a living, as we have done, you want two distinct service providers. Right now it is broadband and dialup, but as soon as another broadband provider gets here, we'll dump dialup.
We are locked into one sewer service, but we have a choice on trash service. Locked into electric, water, and natural gas services. Get locked into one broadband service? No thank you. If the line goes down, we can't work. Well we can at slow speed and single-threaded. It is only for keeping one nostril out of the water.
Sure, but they should not be the only show in town. Once one becomes dependant on broadband for making a living, as we have done, you want two distinct service providers. Right now it is broadband and dialup, but as soon as another broadband provider gets here, we'll dump dialup.
We are locked into one sewer service, but we have a choice on trash service. Locked into electric, water, and natural gas services. Get locked into one broadband service? No thank you. If the line goes down, we can't work. Well we can at slow speed and single-threaded. It is only for keeping one nostril out of the water.
AM....redundancy is an excellent consideration, but having the government provide the service does not exclude this from happening. First, the government could easily set up internally redundant systems. Second, providing redundancy could be the niche market that third party ISP's would provide.
As far as having the ability, I would say they absolutely should. I think it will first become a way to attract businesses to the area, which is certainly something that government can, and should, do. Also, it is providing a public service, again a governmental role. Finally, all the telecom companies are working towards 'data-tone'....having Internet access be as ubiquitous as described here. I would further argue for Federal efforts....broadband will become the driver of a large segment of industry....we can either lead, or follow, and we're much better off being in the lead.
QUOTE
2) Should legislatures protect telecomm and cable corporations from having to compete with municipal wi-fi projects for broadband internet access? Why or why not?
If municipalities want to compete, let them. The more players, the better for availability and possibly price.
If municipalities want to compete, let them. The more players, the better for availability and possibly price.
This is where my issues would arise. Municipalities aren't really competing...they have no profit motive. They also don't have to worry about customers...they can essentially just take our money and spend it on this. This could be resolved by implementing this via a referendum, giving the people a chance to vote on it, and then by having a competition to see who gets to be the provider.
QUOTE
3) What do you see as the benefits or disadvantages of broadband internet access being a public utility?
The major disadvantage is having only one service provider available.
The major disadvantage is having only one service provider available.
Again, while I absolutely agree that this is an important consideration, it is not excluded by having the government provide the service.
I see the major disadvantage being getting locked down into a single source, thereby restricting competition and innovation. This could get an area locked into last year's technology. However, as I see this service being used to draw businesses into the area, there would still be large incentive to keep things current. I think outsourcing this via annual contracts would alleviate this problem.
I wanted to provide an update to this topic. Evidently Pete Sessions - ® Dallas, TX has proposed HR 2726, the disgustingly named Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005. This legislation would give telco's veto power over any potential municipal broadband projects.
Municipal broadband isn't mutually exclusive with telecomm innovation. Regulation is. In my opinion, this country *does* need a national broadband policy. This is not a good first effort to achieve that.
Special thanks to Wertz
for bringing this to my attention.
Municipal broadband isn't mutually exclusive with telecomm innovation. Regulation is. In my opinion, this country *does* need a national broadband policy. This is not a good first effort to achieve that.
Special thanks to Wertz
for bringing this to my attention.
I wanted to provide an update to this topic. Evidently Pete Sessions - ® Dallas, TX has proposed HR 2726, the disgustingly named Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005. This legislation would give telco's veto power over any potential municipal broadband projects.
Yes, and this has reared up its ugly head in Colorado too. Fortunately, the Repubs no longer dictate policy to us, and the state bills are dying in committee.
Meanwhile, we are getting cable the week after next to augment our wireless microwave link. I'm very sure that this means two separate links to the Internet backbone too, but still under Qwest's dubious support? Maybe not, depends on the short haul deal from the backbone to the cable company. Could be Verizon, which would definately be a step up in service/responsibility. Oh, and we get a better deal from cable by keeping only one ISP, but now we'll have two local links. Still thinking this one through -- might not need more than one ISP, might be better to have two. Time will tell.
Was yakking with an MCI (now Verizon) techie last week, and he brought up broadband through electrical utility lines. Seems this technology is gaining credibility as an alternative, and who controls those lines? Usually, the city government in one way or another. REA in rural areas -- and bringing broadband out yonder becomes a done deal.
Add cell links to the power lines? Broadband while camping? Eh, maybe that's going too far.
If these restrictive bills get put into place, then we are restricing our own options. This is not a wise way to go. The telecom world is changing very quickly, perhaps more quickly than in the past decade or so. Keeping options open is important, even if the idea of virtual workforces is young. Maybe especially because the idea is young.
If the US workforce goes virtual, then who cares what businesses move into any area? This astounding change will impact ideas like urban economic development, where lots of tax money is spent on attracting industry physical presence. Also, it cuts commuting costs down to zilch. Kills the roach coach lunch industry, oh well, no loss.
Could very well introduce the local office space rental business, where folks who need to get away from the house can, and benefit from having lots of redundancy to the rental office. Plus that cuts commute times/dimes too.
Imagine that. It'd be way cool, where even the ideas of urban/suburban living get turned around. I you live close to your job just because you live, then you can live anywhere and still work. But broadband will be required -- so let's make it as available as possible, and as reliable as possible.
Kill the anti-municipality broadband bills. They are designed to hold us back from living better lives.
Yes, and this has reared up its ugly head in Colorado too. Fortunately, the Repubs no longer dictate policy to us, and the state bills are dying in committee.
Meanwhile, we are getting cable the week after next to augment our wireless microwave link. I'm very sure that this means two separate links to the Internet backbone too, but still under Qwest's dubious support? Maybe not, depends on the short haul deal from the backbone to the cable company. Could be Verizon, which would definately be a step up in service/responsibility. Oh, and we get a better deal from cable by keeping only one ISP, but now we'll have two local links. Still thinking this one through -- might not need more than one ISP, might be better to have two. Time will tell.
Was yakking with an MCI (now Verizon) techie last week, and he brought up broadband through electrical utility lines. Seems this technology is gaining credibility as an alternative, and who controls those lines? Usually, the city government in one way or another. REA in rural areas -- and bringing broadband out yonder becomes a done deal.
Add cell links to the power lines? Broadband while camping? Eh, maybe that's going too far.
If these restrictive bills get put into place, then we are restricing our own options. This is not a wise way to go. The telecom world is changing very quickly, perhaps more quickly than in the past decade or so. Keeping options open is important, even if the idea of virtual workforces is young. Maybe especially because the idea is young.
If the US workforce goes virtual, then who cares what businesses move into any area? This astounding change will impact ideas like urban economic development, where lots of tax money is spent on attracting industry physical presence. Also, it cuts commuting costs down to zilch. Kills the roach coach lunch industry, oh well, no loss.
Could very well introduce the local office space rental business, where folks who need to get away from the house can, and benefit from having lots of redundancy to the rental office. Plus that cuts commute times/dimes too.
Imagine that. It'd be way cool, where even the ideas of urban/suburban living get turned around. I you live close to your job just because you live, then you can live anywhere and still work. But broadband will be required -- so let's make it as available as possible, and as reliable as possible.
Kill the anti-municipality broadband bills. They are designed to hold us back from living better lives.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.