Law.com has an article that outlines several telcos' practice of suing municipalities to keep them from installing publicly-owned broadband internet services.
Now, stop me if I'm wrong. Aren't these the same telcos that say Network Neutrality must die, that they must be given local monopolies and the right to charge services like YouTube extra fees for using up bandwidth? It seems they're crying that they can't afford to upgrade networks themselves, but they don't want cities to offer it as a public service either.
This is a case of "Do as I do, not as I say." In other words, talk a lot about broadband, but don't do anything about it. At least they're consistent.
The telco argument is that cities have an unfair advantage because they can fund the projects with cheap bonds and do not have to turn a profit.
A Salt Lake City lawyer representing the state responds in the article: "[I]f the private sector had been more responsive, there would not have been a need for the project."
Isn't it about time we consider broadband internet an essential public utility?
Om Malik cites a Pew study that shows broadband growth in the U.S. is slowing, noting that low income groups are cutting back on broadband spending.
The U.S. lags abysmally in establishing high-speed broadband. One study says the average download speed in the U.S. is 1.9 Mbps, compared to Japan at 61.0 Mbps, Korea at 45.6 Mbps and the netherlands at 21.7Mbps. (The ITIF, however, says the U.S. comes in at 4.8 Mbps, beating the U.K and Greece, at least.)
And guess how these countries do it? Public funding.
I know all you libertarians say we need to let the private sector work. The problem is, it sometimes doesn't. When it comes to telcos, that's just about never.
Thanks to Slashdot for pointing me to the Law.com article.