Michael Hiltzik

[Commentary] Hopes that Google would establish a nationwide model for fiber Internet service were dashed, when the company suddenly declared a “pause” in its plans to lay fiber in as many as 18 municipalities. The disappointed suitors will have to wait for this strategy to play out or move ahead on their own. They would be well advised to keep an eye on San Francisco. That city is contemplating what would be the largest and most ambitious public broadband system in the country, with the ultimate goal of running fiber into every home and public building.

San Francisco has some advantages other communities lack. It’s geographically compact and densely populated, with a technophile citizenry. But the city of 865,000 residents is facing a daunting challenge. No city of comparable size has deployed a system of fiber to every building. The technical and physical obstacles to laying fiber citywide could sink the project at birth. The cost, which could come close to $1 billion, could raise public and political opposition. Existing Internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T can be expected to fight the project through lobbying and lawsuits. Still, this is a city sensitive to its digital inadequacies. As of 2014, the legislative analyst reported, only 2.6% of San Francisco residents had gigabit-per-second access, the gold standard for broadband connectivity. To this day, service in a city closely identified with high technology is spotty and often atrocious.

[Commentary] Cable and telecommunications companies chalked up their biggest victory yet — in a courtroom, not a legislative chamber. The 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals shut down an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to foster the spread of municipal broadband. The FCC, arguing that the public interest was served by more competition in the broadband market, had tried to overturn state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina blocking the creation or expansion of municipal systems.

But what’s intriguing about the ruling is that it accepted the FCC’s reasoning that competition from municipal systems works well. The restrictions imposed by Tennessee and North Carolina were “onerous,” agreed Judge John M. Rogers, writing for the court. Thanks to this week’s appeals court ruling, supporters of community broadband will have to continue their work without the assistance of the FCC. But by providing lousy service, the cable and telecommunications industries may make their job easier.

[Commentary] Fans of network neutrality -- the idea that Internet service providers shouldn't be able to block, slow, or favor some content providers over others -- should show Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler a little love.

Obviously, that's not because Chairman Wheeler's open Internet proposal, scheduled for presentation to his fellow Federal Communications Commission members, upholds the net neutrality principle. It doesn't; by condoning "paid prioritization," through which some content providers can pay to get better access to users than others, it does immense violence to the principle.

No, Chairman Wheeler deserves some love because his ham-handed way of putting out his plan has placed what might otherwise be an obscure proposal followed mainly by techies on a much bigger burner. Chairman Wheeler has responded to the public uproar generated by his plan to back off it, a wee bit. It's still bad for the Internet.

The upcoming vote wouldn't implement Chairman Wheeler's proposal, but open it up for public comment. But it would be a major step in the wrong direction.

There is no question that allowing such arrangements would be a major retreat for the FCC. The agency would be placed in the position of ruling on commercial deals that already had been put in place, and trying to unwind those it didn't like, based on very murky standards. This would be like trying to dismantle a skyscraper after it's been built.