“It’s all about fairness.”
by T. Colin Dodd
Many municipalities and rural county governments in the US are stepping up to fill a void, providing their citizens with taxpayer-subsidized broadband internet access, services that the private sector has so far neglected to provide. Economies of scale mean that areas without high speed internet get it, and low-income people without access to the internet are at least one step closer. A valuable public service is provided at a very low cost to the individual.
But for obvious reasons, some telcos, cable companies, and ISP’s hate it, and they are taking their objections to legislators in state houses across the country. Claiming it’s all about “fairness,” a private industry that has long lobbied for deregulation, now wants to impose restrictions on cities and local governments that would effectively spell the end of public-broadband.
In North Carolina, House Bill 1587, “The Local Government Fair Competition Act” (apparently named with the same sense of humor as “The Clean Air Act”) is up for consideration and has a good shot at passing. Despite opposition from the North Carolina League of Municipalities and cities that already offer or are planning to offer the service, a well-funded lobbying effort by the Alliance of North Carolina Independent Telephone Companies is bearing fruit in the legislature. Donations to campaign committees are being made and legislation is being written. The dynamics in North Carolina are typical, playing out all over the US, town by town, county by county. The outcomes there and elsewhere will define how broadband technology is used for a generation or two.
The core idea at the heart of the legislation is that it’s somehow not fair for a local government (which pays no taxes and has no need to turn a profit) to compete in the marketplace with private companies who are just trying to make an honest buck. Even for ardent free-marketeers, the idea that government might be “taking over” things that “should be” handled by the private sector is frightening enough to shake their convictions. It’s an argument often heard in the healthcare debate, and, to some, it is an interesting, amazingly complex question with delicate interplays between competing interests and with “no clear” answers…you know, it’s nuanced.
