The Other FCC Decision

[Commentary] On February 28th the Federal Communications Commission issued two decisions. One concerned net neutrality, the other municipal broadband. The first garnered by far the most attention, as it should. Net neutrality affects everyone and locks down a fundamental principle for Internet access. But as another presidential campaign looms, the FCC decision on municipally owned broadband may offer more fertile ground for a vigorous political debate on the role of government and the scale of governance.

The Economic Argument: Protecting Shareholders and Taxpayers. Republican state legislators rarely act to protect taxpayers from unwise investments by local government, unless those investments might generate effective competition with the private sector. No state restricting municipally owned broadband also restricts a city from going deeply into debt to build a sports stadium (many of which are actually financed directly by taxpayer dollars). To my knowledge no state that requires a city to hold a referendum before it can build a broadband network also requires it to hold a referendum before selling it.

The Political Argument: States Rights Republicans argue the federal government shouldn't intervene because Washington is too remote from the realities and needs of states and too unaccountable to that states' voters. But state capitols are similarly remote from the realities and needs of communities within their states and equally less accountable to them.

[David Morris is the Director of The Public Good initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance]