There are a lot of arguments for and against letting municipalities
do this. In this blog, I'm going to give
a list of arguments why people would be against it, and I'll explain why those
arguments are stupid.
---
Why municipal
broadband is awesome.
First, I'll showcase
a Municipal network that is a model for how it should be done: EPB Fiber in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. I heard a lot of
talk about this, so I decided to check them out and do some research on
them....
Get a load of this: You can go lean with 100 megs down AND
up for 58 dollars a month, or go super fast with 1000megs down and up for 70
dollars a month.
To put that in perspective, I'm paying more than that for a
50meg down / 10 up connection with Comcast.
Makes me want to move to Chattanooga.... almost.
On top of that, EPB Fiber behaves like an ISP should. There are no caps. They don't choke down services like Netflix
and then try to extort money from them so they can be put on a "fast
lane." They have actual tech
support reps that aren't low-paid script readers. Reliability is rock solid. No slowdowns, even during peak times, EVER
(And if it is, it's barely noticeable).
In short, an awesome experience.
Not a single bad review on tech sites in regards to internet service.
You may be thinking, "If muni broadband is so great,
how come more cities across the USA are not building their own networks to get
us out of the hell that is my local, private ISP?"
Well, read on....
---
There are laws
against it.
Currently, 22 states have laws in the books that make it
insanely difficult for a municipality to create their own fiber ISP, or
outright ban them from even thinking about doing so.
These bills are created and paid for by the incumbent,
private ISPs in the prospective states which then bribe local lawmakers and
governors to pass into law. Once they
are passed, no matter how bad an incumbent ISP is, there is not a damn thing a
municipality can do to create their own network to get its residents out of the
hell that is the local telco or cable company.
The two best examples are North Carolina and Florida. NC passed a law banning cites from creating
their own network, even if a private ISP has no intention of actually servicing
that area. Florida passed a law stating
that cities can create their own
network but it cannot use taxpayer dollars and it has to show that it can be
profitable before even 1 inch of fiber is laid into the grown.
You may be thinking, "But why would states ban a city
from creating its own network?"
Well, it has to do with how they are funded and the level of
competition they bring. Read on....
---
Muni broadband is
funded by taxpayer dollars and their take rate is off the charts high.
1. The tax issue:
Municipal networks, like EPB Fiber, are built and subsidized
by taxpayer dollars. The reason why EPB
can offer such low rates is because they are taxpayer subsidized. This leads to some issues.
The argument against muni broadband created in this manor, as explained by someone on a tech forum I visit, is this:
Let's say a town of
20,000 is being served by one ISP, a DSL provider. Its residents have been complaining for
years of shitty service with no improvements in sight so the town decides to
build its own network using taxpayer money.
There's only one problem: there are 5,000 people living in this town
that either don't have internet - maybe they are busy and are never home, maybe
they can't afford it, are elderly, whatever - or like the current service they
have. Why should those people's tax dollar
go towards a service they don't want or need?
I bet if you ask them, they would say, "I'm not paying for your
internet or anybody else's internet."
There is a reason why this argument is stupid:
You may not use University Drive or the Florida's turnpike
to get to work everyday, but your tax dollars still go towards maintaining
them. Can you imagine if people were
allowed to pick and choose what roads they wanted to maintain with their tax
dollars? There would be a lot of roads
crumbling into disrepair!
As for those 5 thousand people mentioned? I would simply tell them, "It's not
about YOU. Stop with the me, myself and
I attitude and be willing to help out your follow citizen for once!" Sorry, but when the majority of people ask
for something to be done, the small minority of people should not be ruining it
for the rest of the people in the area.
Don't like it? Move or simply
shut the hell up and let the other people have decent internet for once.
2. The competition issue:
Municipal networks, like EPB Fiber have a high take rate
simply because it's the better option in the area. Many of its user are "conquests"
who came from other ISPs.
That is another reason why the private ISPs don't want cites
to be able to create their own networks: they think they are "unfair
competition" because they can offer a superior product for a fair price.
Last year, the private ISPs servicing the state of Georgia
funded a bill where if just one
person in an entire ZIP code was able to get at least 3meg internet from a
private ISP, that city was banned from creating its own fiber network to
service its customers. Even if a private
ISP had no interest in better servicing the area. Fortunately, the governor vetoed it.
What was totally comical, was what an executive of one of
the ISPs servicing that state said about why the bill needed to pass:
"Municipal broadband creates unfair competition that
will cause us to lose customers and harm our business."
That is a pretty weak argument, and here's why....
Well, DUH! Let's say
you are currently only able to get up to 6 megs service from the local DSL
provider and thanks to them being greedy assholes they oversell the area
causing speeds to drop like a rock during peak times. Your city then builds their own fiber network
that offers speeds up to 100megs down and up for less than the price you're
paying now for that shitty DSL service with no slowdowns and overall tons
better service. Unless you like torture,
you are going to dump your DSL and go with the municipal option.
Now being that as it may, instead of the private ISPs being
scared of their business being harmed, they should look at competition from
municipal broadband as a way to light a fire under their ass to start giving
better service to the customers they already have! When you have competition, you start doing
things to avoid making people jump ship.
That's the thing: Because private ISPs have no competition
in just about all areas they serve, they simply don't care about their
customers. This isn't like Germany where
a town might have three or five ISPs battling for customers and offering low
rates for super high speeds and great service.
The private ISPs in the USA know they can screw people all they want and
the customers have no choice but to bend over and take it as there is no other
option in most areas.
In short, municipal broadband is not unfair competition, it's good competition because it would keep
the private ISP honest and hopefully, they would start giving better service as
a result.
----
Now for five other
petty arguments against municipal broadband....
1: The government
can't run the post office correctly, what makes anyone think they can run an
ISP?
My answer: The post office is a federal-run operation that
is failing simply because most people view things online and through email
nowadays. A muni broadband ISP would be
run by the electric company of behalf of the local city like EPB Fiber. There is a big difference.
2: Broadband run by
municipalities means that it would be easier for them to turn user info over to
the feds than a private ISP.
My answer: I hate to break it to you, but if "the
feds" wanted any ISP to turn
over user data, they have to comply
or face charges. Doesn't matter if it's
a private or muni option.
3: A local
municipality can't swoop in and steal customers away from a private company by
offering a competing service for cheaper rates, that's communism.
My answer: If think
that, then I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you think 9/11 was an inside
job, the moon landing was fake, the Challenger space shuttle was blown up so
the teacher on board couldn't talk about the mission, or that plane crashes
happen because humans are not meant to fly.
In other words, put down the tinfoil hat and the bong and please get
back to reality.
4. What happens if the
broadband project stalls? For every EPB
Fiber success story there's 10 stories of cities trying to build a network and
then failing at various points of progress, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.
My answer: Way overblown.
While there is a certain aspect of validity to this (That's why Google
was able to buy a fiber network in Provo, Utah for 1 dollar), it's certainly
not 1 success to 10 failures. And the
failures mentioned are almost always due to cities getting the go-ahead,
starting work and then facing roadblock after roadblock - paid for by, you
guessed it, private ISPs - that the city just says, "screw this, it's not
worth the hassles." So don't blame
the city, blame the private ISPs for not letting you have a good option in the
area for once.
5. Let's say that
enough people in an area switch from a private ISP to a municipal option that
the private ISP throws in the towel and retracts from the area, leaving only
the municipal. Then one day the
municipality decides that internet service is not their forte and shuts down
the service, leaving the town with NOTHING.
What do you say about your awesome municipal broadband then?
My answer: A valid question, but again a stupid one. Successful muni's like EPB will never shut
down. That's because they have a
customer satisfaction rating that is basically 100%, and thanks to being
subsidized they are always profitable.
Actually, even if they weren't subsidized they would still make a profit
as their network is paid for, operating costs are cheap and they are in no
danger of losing customers. Just some
more doom-and-gloom thinking that is unnecessary.
----
Even the FCC thinks
that municipal broadband is good and should not be interfered with.
Say what you want about the current head of the FCC, but he
came out in support of municipal broadband and thinks that protectionist state laws
that ban cites from creating their own networks hurt competition and reduce
choice. He stopped short of saying that
such laws are unconstitutional, but in a way thinks they should be repealed.
To be honest, I wish he had the guts to try to get the
federal government to strike down all these laws and get them repealed.
But wait, what's that you say?
But isn't that federal
overreach? What about states' rights?
Sorry, but here is the cold truth: There are some, ok many,
states that are simply not able to make good decisions of their own and need
federal "assistance."
Protectionist broadband bills created and paid for by private ISPs and
signed into law are a prime example of this.
By the way, you may have seen senators and other politicians
publically side with private ISPs on this subject. One of them is Tennessee congresswoman Marsha
Blackburn (Republican, of course), who believes that states should be able to
ban cities from creating their own networks and that the FCC "should not
trample on their rights to do so." Her two biggest contributors are AT&T and
Time Warner. Draw your own conclusions.
Now there are some people that are in private ISP hell, but are actually against municipal broadband....
---
"I'm not
comfortable with (insert city here) using my tax dollars and then trying to
sell me 1gig fiber internet, no matter how cheap it is."
And....
"I know that
people don't like the telcos and cable companies, but letting local government compete
with them is not the way to do things."
Okay. That just
proves it to me: That if you have the same line of thinking as the above two
phrases, it will be really hard to convince me that you're not a shill for the
private ISPs.
It also means that if you don't like the lack of choices we
face in this country for internet but still don't think that cities and towns
should be able to offer their own option for internet even though it would
benefit you, then your rights to complain
about anything that your precious private ISP does should be stripped away from
you. What that means is, no matter
how they want to screw you over, you need to BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
So let's see....
You find out your buddy from Finland is using an ISP that
gives him 80 megs download speed for 30 dollars a month with no caps and no
throttling, while you're paying the cable company 100 dollars a month for a
service that's not even that fast... and with a data cap. BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
You're pissed off because you're ISP just raised their rates
without doing a thing to give you any additional benefit. BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
You call your ISP's tech support and you get a script reader
who blames the problem you're having with the internet on your computer because
they're allergic to replacing the modem you rent from them. BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
The 3rd party VoIP service you're using with no issues prior
suddenly runs like shit, so you have no choice but to cancel it. You decide to give the ISP's VoIP service a
try and it works great! Then you
discover on a tech watchdog site that your ISP throttled the 3rd party service
to make it look bad so people will move over to is its own in-house service
instead. Total violation of net
neutrality but BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
You find out that your ISP has oversold the area, due to
being too greedy to turn customers away when their equipment reached capacity
and too cheap to add capacity. This
causes the speed to drop like a rock during peak times. You go on tech forums and find out that
unless you move, you'll likely suffer this problem for the foreseeable future
as the ISP doesn't care as they're the only game in town. BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
You are stuck with only a 6meg internet service, and even
though you're very close to the central hub, you find out that your ISP is too
cheap to upgrade the lines which would allow you to get faster service. You wonder where all the broadband stimulus
money went that was recently given out, so you do some digging and find that
your ISP took the money and spent in on advertizing. BEND OVER AND TAKE IT.
----
In conclusion, cities and towns should not be interfered
with if they want to create their own ISP.
Taxpayer funded or not. Private
ISPs need to recognize that more competition is better for the economy and
gives people choices, and will only improve service in the long run.
People need to realize that other countries are laughing at
the (lack of) choices we have for high-speed internet service. There are ways to fix that. Get states to repeal the protectionist
broadband laws that favor the private ISPs, even if the federal government has
to step in. Next vote out the people who
are being bribed by the ISPs to write such bills or feel that people shouldn't
have choice. Next, realize that just as
your taxes go for making sure you can drive on roads that aren't crumbling,
that they can go for creating an ISP that you actually like. Finally, for the people in towns that may
actually like their ISP, that's your
choice but don't get in the way of the majority of people who want a faster,
better, more reliable option for internet.
Or you can just keep bending over and taking the screw job
that your private ISP keeps giving you.
Your choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment