It might seem somewhat a comedown for the nation's telecom commentariat, but the big issue in telecommunications for 2005 is municipal broadband provision. Should municipal government be involved in broadband provision or not? Some reports suggest that upwards of 100 such projects are already planned or deployed.
It certainly has attracted much attention from state governments and telecom company lobbyists. By various estimates, close to 20 states are moving to prevent their county and city authorities entering the broadband field. This has largely been at the prompting of telecom lobbyists concerned about the prospect of new competition. State governments might be winning the legal battle, but municipal advocates are certainly claiming the high ground, aided and abetted by their friends in the technology media such as Esme Vos of muniwireless.com, Mike Masnick of Techndirt Wireless and Lawrence Lessig of Wired.
Lessig recently ridiculed the anti-municipal groups, inferring that they think they are engaged in an anti-communist crusade. Centerpiece of their counter-attack is a report published by the New Millennium Research Council featuring contributions from the U.S. Internet Industry Association and free enterprise think tanks such as the Heartland Institute.
This collection of polemical essays is actually well argued and footnoted, but it committed one big crime in the eyes of the critics: It was ultimately funded by telcos and others, who (shock, horror) didn't overtly advertise their involvement.
BUILDING A CASE
The truth, as with most of these types of absolutist debates, lies somewhere in the middle. Municipal network advocates have a good case for the idea that a government's telecom usage should be standardized on one portable wireless mesh network, as is the case with many of these proposals. There are undoubted efficiencies and leaps of functional productivity that can be achieved through such investment. And it's hardly radical to suggest that access to such networks should be offered on a limited public basis in locales such as libraries. After all, we've never heard Borders complain that a public library hurt sales.
Likewise, there are genuinely rural and remote counties that might have to wait years for competitive broadband provision. These locales are no stranger to public subsidy and investment in the fields of telecom and cable network provision. Extending that to broadband is hardly unorthodox.
However, it's another thing to suggest that the dense demographics of areas such as San Francisco, New York City and Los Angeles suffer under the tyranny of broadband market failure. But that's exactly the justification used by municipal authorities in such locales.
San Francisco wants to build a fiber network through its sewers and extend free access to citizens via wireless tails. That's right, free, a ratepayer-funded subsidy to the broadband user from the non-broadband user. Local observers of the S.F. authorities have responded with scathing critiques in the city's press.
COMPLEX CASE
While one should always be skeptical of community-geared rhetoric from the private sector, it is also prudent to be skeptical of legacy-enhancing proposals from governments, particularly when they involve the provision of services in which they clearly lack skill sets or legitimacy. No doubt there are many mayors who think broadband provision is a natural fit with trash-collection and park mowing, but the business case for broadband is actually quite complex.
With all due respect to mayoral eminences such as Mr. Newsom of San Francisco and Mr. Bloomberg of N.Y.C, it might be a good idea to leave these problems to such types as Mr. Whitacre.
Grahame Lynch is a former editorial director of America's Network. Get his private client newsletter by request at grahame.lynch@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment