Georgia Bill Would Prohibit Subsidies For Municpal Broadband 321
McGruber writes "The Associated Press has the news that Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers is sponsoring a bill that 'would prevent public broadband providers from paying for communication networks with tax or government revenue.' Senator Rogers claims that 'The private sector is handling this exceptionally well.' Local government officials disagree. Georgia Municipal Association spokeswoman Amy Henderson says 'When cities were getting involved in broadband, it was because private industry would not come there. Without that technology, they were economically disadvantaged. We feel like it is an option cities should have.'"
This doesn't make logical sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand the purpose of something like this. The state is telling the counties and cities, "Hey, you're just not allowed to spend your share of tax revenues on X." I'd love to see the campaign donor list for this dude.
If the private sector is doing so well, why tell them that they have one less idea to compete against? If anything, that *discourages* private companies from making services better. Sounds like a perfect case of trying to fix something that doesn't appear to be broken.
Oh, what a crock... (Score:4, Interesting)
Go ask the people of Wilson, North Carolina how well private interests provided high speed to them. [zeropaid.com]
Then ask the people of Monticello, Minnesota
These state-sponsored monopolies have gone on long enough. If the 'private market' market will not meet the demand, what else are people supposed to do? Just deal with shit-tier internet at exorbitant prices? Bullshit on that...the major ISPs are no worse than the MAFIAA or the Cartels.
Don't AT&T etc get goverment breaks already (Score:5, Interesting)
If this bill passes I would expect an immediately ordered audit of all current providers to prove that they in no way used any public money to fund their infrastrucure. If they did then the public should be asking for the money back.
--The "private market" has already used billions of dollars of federal tax money to build out their networks. So basically what this law is saying is that it was okay for the incumbent operators to take tax money, but bar any new competition from doing the same.--
So if the bill passes the current providers should be asked to pay it all back with interest.
Just get something along those lines added to the bill and watch it disappear real fast.
Re:It ends up being a boon doggle (Score:5, Interesting)
That could well be true, however, why do you need a state law saying municipalities CAN'T do broadband (or whatever)? What Georgia needs is home rule [wikipedia.org] legislation. Keep the state government out of things the local government can and should do.
As has been pointed out, it's rather unlikely that the legislation has been crafted 'in the best interests' of the cities. Who's the winner here?
Re:Doublethink (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doublethink (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a danger in doing that.
If they were successful in un-coupling themselves from any designation as a public entity, then claiming they and their equipment is purely private? They lose public rights-of-way for any stretch of their network that crosses private property (including easements in some cases). That means any property owner with a cable or fiber crossing his or her property can charge rent or cut the thing, and local governments can get real evil and charge massive rent to the private ISPs for easement
(e.g. "Dear Comcast: You recently lost public utility easement rights. You now owe me $3k/month rental fee. As an alternative, you have 90 days to re-route your cable and to repair any and all damages at your expense, and with proper approval and permits by all relevant city authorities. Failure to perform either act means that I rent a bobcat to dig up and dispose of the existing fiber found on my property for non-payment").
Re:It ends up being a boon doggle (Score:5, Interesting)
Another idea is to treat the Nets the same way the roads are treated
- Government owns and maintains the fiber (say 50 per bundle)
- Verizon, Apple, Microsoft, et cetera lease one fiber each
- The customer connects to whichever fiber/company they like best
It would be like a return to the old Dialup days when you could sign-on to whatever ISP you wanted.
Re:Doublethink (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. Saying they own it without paying back all the benefits they received in the past would be like me financing a car, and saying I own it without paying back the loan.
Re:It ends up being a boon doggle (Score:4, Interesting)
All this doesn't really matter. The point is not whether municipal broadband is successful or not. It's not even about broadband at all!
The point is whether municipalities can use regular democratic procedures - you know, all that stuff about electing representatives and all - to decide where their local taxes go and what they fund. And when state overrides them (or fed overrides state), especially on matters where such an override is clearly done in the interests of certain businesses, it is bad in and of itself, regardless of what the potential problems such tax-supported service would be. Problematic or not, it should be up to the tax-paying residents to decide if they want to keep it or nuke it.