Esme Vos has uncovered (and has available for download) the model bill for state legislatures to ban municipal broadband: The inestimable Vos has emerged as a firebrand for fighting back the rhetoric of incumbent teleopolies that have put out the meme that there are unfair tax breaks and unfair advantages that a municipal operation has over private enterprise. This ignores the subsidies provided--estimated at over $700 per person in Pennsylvania over the last 10 years of a failed Verizon development plan, non-refundable--and "taxes" that telcos and cable companies are often able to collect for their own coffers.
Vos now posts the bill that someone--she'd like to know the individual--wrote to distribute to various legislatures under the guise of competition. Competition means not taking money from taxpayers, charging them by overpriced tariffs defended to the death, collecting and keeping funds intended for rural or impoverished citizens to have universal access, and fighting for the right to squeeze the pipes to prevent interesting competitive services from rising.
Competition does mean building neutral infrastructure paid for by access fees that allow all comers to compete on a level playing field to let the market determine the best use of resources.
It's strange how businesses that hate regulation in theory love how it supports their business models. Also strange how many folks who claim to want real markets only really want big businesses to be able to dictate to their markets what things cost.
I looked at the innards of the Word doc that Esme posted, but the only secret information it contains is about her computer, not any previous computers. On Monday morning, she posted the list of board members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the group behind the model legislation.
Update: Sascha Meinrath calls astroturf on three organizations, including ALEC, that are behind anti-municipal telco/cable/telecom service bills, pointing out that their boards' members are mostly made up of folks that more likely have their own companies' interests at heart despite the mission statements.
Glenn,
I think a lot of people would agree with your complaint that taxes levied to support business is probably not a great idea. However your proposed solution, to levy MORE taxes to compete with business, makes no sense at all. That would result in citizens "paying" (paying for one and subsidizing the other) for two wireless systems instead of one.
If you want to increase competition why not propose repealing the tax-subsidy for existing telcos to remove part of the incumbent advantage? That would level the playing field for new entrants.
Additionally, can you think of ANY government-run service program that delivers a universal service better than private enterprise? I do not know of any. The few attempts that spring to mind; public telcos and the US Mail all indicate the reverse. Given the history of large government service programs what makes you think that adding a new tax for a public WiFi (WiMax, pick your flavor) would result in a rosy, soft-focus, world of universal wireless? Odds are the program would result in spotty coverage, high taxes, indifferent customer service, and wouldn't even fully roll out until 2020. Think Big Dig in Boston, but wireless.
Double-super-bonus if you can guess what would happen the first time some EMFphobic buffoon sued the city because the "uncontrolled emissions" from a city wireless tower "interfered with the government chip in his head" and the Sierra Club backed him up.
:)