January 2015

[Commentary] The problem with high-speed Internet in the US is not availability or speed, but affordability.

A recent report from the Pew Research Internet Project shows that while 91 percent of the US adults in households with incomes greater than $75,000 per year use high-speed Internet at home, the number drops to 52 percent for those with yearly income below $30,000. This is not surprising. According to a report from the Open Technology Institute, the cost of a 25-50Mbps broadband service in Los Angeles (CA) is $70 or about 2.8 times more expensive than in London (UK). Community-owned broadband, if allowed, could offer an alternative when the market does not generate a healthy level of competition and the new BroadbandUSA initiative can help these services succeed.

This is not the only model, of course. Different countries around the world have taken a number of paths toward available, fast and affordable broadband, with different forms of private/public partnerships and levels of government incentive. Whatever the plan and whoever initiates it, ensuring broadband affordability is long overdue; it is rather urgent.

[Fabián Bustamante is a Professor of Computer Science at Northwestern University]

[Commentary] There may be good reasons a municipal utility or local agency shouldn't try its hand at broadband service, a market that's prohibitively expensive to enter. But that decision should be made by local officials, not state lawmakers.

Opponents of municipal broadband argue that many projects have been costly failures and that the ones that succeeded enjoy an unfair advantage over the cable and phone companies they're competing with. They're right about the spotty record, but that just proves any advantage a municipal utility may have isn't enough to guarantee that cities can compete effectively with entrenched cable and telephone companies. Regardless, the decision about whether a local agency should get into the broadband business should be left to the people who bear the risk -- local officials and the people who elect them.

A group is once again pushing the city of Seattle (WA) to set up municipal broadband service run by cities and regulated much like water or electricity.

"Seattle would be the biggest US city to do this," said Sabrina Roach, who is leading the effort. Her group is still forming and does not yet have a name, but they hope to encourage the city to build a broadband network to expand Internet access while improving speeds and lowering prices. They plan to rollout a campaign in the coming year and urge lawmakers to seriously consider the idea.

[Commentary] City-owned networks have been gaining popularity nationwide as a way to bridge the digital divide between rich and poor, foster competition with cable companies, and provide high-speed internet in underserved areas. But there's one big obstacle to all of this: the telecom industry and its friends in Congress.

Some Republicans have branded municipal broadband as a form of socialism, because it uses public funds to compete with the private sector. They also say that local governments aren't tech-savvy enough to build and maintain their own networks. Like many cities, San Francisco (CA) already has a robust fiber network in place to serve government offices. Rob Vinson, San Francisco’s Chief Marketing Officer, believes that the $1.7 million that the city has spent to outfit its network with public Wi-Fi (not including a $600,000 grant from Google) is totally worth it. "There's absolutely no downside being able to provide access to the Internet, whether you are parking your car or waiting for a MUNI bus," he says. "It's one of those fundamental things. We fill potholes, we clean the streets, and yes, now we provide Wi-Fi. And our citizens expect that."