Yesterday, USTelecom’s Walter McCormick, along with the heads of several other associations, sent a letter to the leadership of the House Telecom & Internet Subcommittee about Chairman Markey’s (D – Mass.) “Wireless Consumer Protection and Community Broadband Empowerment Act of 2008” (PDF). Title II of the bill, “Community Broadband Empowerment,” would keep states and localities from passing laws preventing broadband service provision by public entities, including municipalities.
In opposing that provision, the letter states:
[F]ederal municipal broadband legislation would chill private investment in existing and future broadband networks. This ultimately leads to less, not more, broadband deployment as the investment risk for private entities is unnecessarily increased and private capital is displaced with public funds, needlessly burdening taxpayers. Additionally, federal municipal broadband legislation encourages cherry picking the easier to serve areas within town limits, diminishing the feasibility of broadband service in the more costly to serve outlying areas.
As the letter points out, municipal broadband projects around the country—San Francisco, Houston, New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia—are being abandoned, privatized, or substantially scaled back; that’s an expensive lesson for a municipality to learn. The letter also notes that 14 states already regulate the ability of municipalities to provide broadband with public funds.
The goal of wider availability of broadband is certainly a good one, but recent history has shown that municipal broadband projects just might not be the best way to go, especially as networking technologies continue to evolve. Congress should continue to work with broadband providers to improve deployment and availability through things like the RUS broadband loan program and public-private partnerships such as ConnectKentucky.