At least once a week in my 48 months of public service, I was told by someone that the purpose of the Commission was to create a "level playing field." No one meant it. The proponents of this view wanted someone else to be burred under their "level" field. And I never believed our job was "leveling." Should a jury declare a defendant neither guilty nor innocent, but only express a neutral view?
Breaking the Broadband Monopoly
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance is pleased to release this comprehensive report on the practices and philosophy of publicly owned networks. Breaking the Broadband Monopoly explains how public ownership of networks differs from private, evaluates existing publicly owned networks, details the obstacles to public ownership, offers lesson learned, and wrestles with the appeal and difficulty of the open access approach.
Download Breaking the Broadband Monopoly [pdf]
Across the country, hundreds of local governments, public power utilities, non-profits, and cooperatives have built successful and sometimes pioneering telecommunication networks that put community needs first.
These communities are following in the footsteps of the publicly owned power networks put in place a century before. We watch history repeating itself as these new networks are built for the same reasons: Incumbents refusing to provide service or charging high rates for poor service.
Cities like Lafayette, Louisiana, and Monticello, Minnesota, offer the fastest speeds at the lowest rates in the entire country. Kutztown’s network in Pennsylvania has saved the community millions of dollars. Oklahoma City’s massive wireless mesh has helped modernize its municipal agencies. Cities in Utah have created a true broadband market with many independent service providers competing for subscribers. From DC to Santa Monica, communities have connected schools and municipal facilities, radically increasing broadband capacity without increasing telecom budgets.
These pioneering cities have had to struggle against many obstacles, often created by incumbents seeking to prevent the only real threat of competition they face. Eighteen states have passed laws that discourage publicly owned networks. When lawsuits by entrenched incumbents don’t thwart a publicly owned system, they cross-subsidize from non-competitive markets to temporarily reduce rates in an attempt to starve the infant public network of subscribers.
Despite these obstacles, more and more cities are building these networks and learning how to operate in the challenging new era in which all media is online and a high speed tele-communications network is as much a part of the essential infrastructure of a modern economy as electricity was 100 years ago.
Communities that have invested in these networks have seen tremendous benefits. Even small communities have generated millions of dollars in cumulative savings from reduced rates – caused by competition. Major employers have cited broadband networks as a deciding factor in choosing a new site and existing businesses have prospered in a more competitive environment.
Residents who subscribe to the network see the benefits of a network that puts service first; they talk to a neighbor when something goes wrong, not an offshore call center. At the municipal fiber network in Wilson, North Carolina, they talk of the “strangle effect.” If you have problems with their network, you can find someone locally to strangle. Because public entities are directly accountable to citizens, they have a stronger interest in providing good services, upgrading infrastructure, etc., than private companies who are structured to maximize profits, not community benefits. Residents who remain with private providers still get the benefits of competition, including reduced rates and increased incumbent investment.
Some publicly owned networks have decided to greatly increase competition by adopting an “open access” approach where independent service providers can use the network on equal terms. Public ownership and open access give residents and businesses the option of choosing among many providers, forcing providers to compete on the basis of service quality and price rather than simply on a historic monopoly boundary.
Perhaps the greatest benefit communities have gained from owning their telecommunications networks is self-determination. Recent court rulings enable private network owners to set their own rules, including increased charges for accessing some sites – much like a cable bill charges more for some programming. The rules are made far from where the customer resides and the criteria used to design such rules maximizes benefit to the private firm, not the community.
There is no one model for community broadband. Communities vary greatly in their needs, assets, desires, and culture, not to mention a regulatory environment that varies from state to state. This report presents case studies, evaluates existing networks, offers lessons learned, and highlights the most important issues facing both communities and policy makers at all levels. Public ownership offers the best prospect for building the networks we need to succeed in the 21st century.
Publicly Owned Networks Spur Competition And Offer Fastest Speeds at Lowest Prices, Says New Report
“Publicly owned fiber networks have proven globally competitive – they offer the single best hope for communities that need to stay competitive in the digital age,” says Christopher Mitchell, Director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) Telecommunications as Commons Initiative and author of a newly released ILSR report Breaking the Broadband Monopoly.
The comprehensive study offers details on many successful publicly owned broadband networks and draws lessons from their experience.
Lafayette, Louisiana, and Monticello, Minnesota, the report notes, built citywide fiber-to-the-home networks offering a symmetrical 10 Mbps (million bits per second) package for less than $30/month. These packages offer the best broadband value of any connection in the U.S.
The report explores the ways publicly owned networks have created true competition for citizens by breaking the stranglehold of cable and telephone oligopolies. As Mitchell, a national expert on community networks says, “Public ownership offers the only realistic option communities have to create competition in broadband services. Communities with these networks pay lower prices and have faster services.”
“Breaking the Broadband Monopoly” is the most comprehensive and up-to-date report on public ownership, combining case studies and a discussion of lessons learned with an in-depth analysis of the many obstacles to public ownership created by state and federal policies.
“That so many barriers to public ownership exist is sobering,” says Mitchell. “But it is uplifting to see the growing number of communities who are overcoming these hurdles and establishing the most impressive broadband networks in the country.” The report is available as a free download.
About ILSR and the New Rules Project:
Since 1974, ILSR has worked with citizen groups, governments and private businesses in developing practices that extract the maximum value from local resources. A program of ILSR, the New Rules Project focuses on local, state and national policies that enable that goal.