Originally published: January 7, 2010
Last updated: January 7, 2010 - 4:59pm
[Commentary] The truth is that publicly owned networks do quite well. Communities typically borrow from outside investors to build the network and pay off the loans over a 15-20 year period with revenues from phone, television, and broadband services (for wired networks). These networks have eased telecom budgets (e.g. by increasing speed to schools while dramatically cutting costs) and encouraged economic development. Nationally, they average high take rates—a measure of how many people take service on the network. State barriers to publicly owned broadband networks may benefit monopolistic cable and telephone companies but can cripple communities within those states. Of course, such policies also give a competitive edge to cities in other states who have moved ahead.
- Stimulus to increase rural broadband may not be enough
- New Report Concludes: To Be Competitive, Cities Must Own High Speed Information Networks
- Will the FCC Vacate State Broadband Restrictions?
- Who decides what you can watch on your television?
- Law Curbing Muni-Broadband Advances In North Carolina
- Seattle, Gigabit Squared, the Challenge of Private Sector Cable Competition
- Circuit Court to FCC: You Can Restore Local Authority to Build Community Networks
- Tennessee Lawmakers Halt Debate on Broadband Expansion
- Community Broadband Beats Cable, DSL Companies in Speed, Price
- RUS Seeks Input on Telecommunications Modernization, Distance Learning and Telemedicine
- Public ownership of broadband access is best
- Minnesota Local Governments Advance Super Fast Internet Networks
- Is municipal broadband more important than net neutrality?
- Comcast vs. Community: The Future of Broadband Competition
- Municipal Broadband Opposition Laws: Pros and Cons -- and Legality