Ok, as promised, my opinion of community broadband.
First, lets get the definition out of the way. Community broadband is broadband which is created and run by a local, city government and paid for, usually, by a combination of taxes and advertising deals. It is usually delivered in the form of WiFi (wireless internet) hotspots throughout the city.
There are two arguments concerning community broadband.
The first argument states that community broadband is good for the people because it provides them with free broadband and spreads the newer technologies to people who might not get it otherwise.
The second argument is that community broadband represents a form of socialism that will ultimately be detrimental to the people by causing them to be subject to any government-based internet censorship and that the access is not actually free but only results in higher taxes. These people also argue that governments are also not efficient in updating utilities and networks and thus would only cause the people to become reliant on out-dated networks.
Both make excellent points.
On the one hand community broadband does offer an immediately free option for internet access. On the other it does increase property taxes. While this instance may seem equal, one must consider the fact that the local governments have no incentive to tax more than necessary to pay for the network, and part of the cost is being deferred by advertising. These two combined lower the tax to much less than what a commercial alternative could offer.
While it is true that community broadband will initially spread newer technology to people who couldn’t get it otherwise, governments are notorious about not updating to newer technology. And, of course, there is still the issue of censorship and socialism.
I propose a three part remedy which will keep all of community broadband’s good points without any of the bad.
First, bar the national government from interfering in the dealings of city owned ISPs. That kind of power consolidation is just going to lead to trouble.
Second, when a city owned ISP is created, it should be placed under the control of one man who will be elected during regular elections.
Third, a state should only be allowed to interfere with the workings of the city ISPs by a 3/4 vote of the elected ISP representatives.
These three steps ensure that the people will have a direct say in how their ISP is run, even more so than a commercial ISP. By making the person running the ISP subject to elections, the people are assured that there is less temptation to over tax people, impose censorship, or let the network become outdated. By barring the federal government from interfering the people are assured that only those who are more sensitive to their individual needs are in control. By requiring a 3/4 vote before the state acts, the people are assured that the state will be acting on the interests of the collective of communities instead of on the interests of the state.
Quite simply, this three point plan will offer the people the right to communicate and the freedom from tyranny.
Comments(3)
