According to a brand new report released today and authored by IPI senior fellow Barry M. Aarons, municipal broadband has been plagued by failure nearly every time it has been attempted, and at great cost to taxpayers.

When municipal broadband networks fail, it is the taxpayers who must pay for the loss. And municipal broadband systems have been expensive government failures in cities including, but not limited to, Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland and Orlando.

"When the marketplace drives the investment, the results are far superior to any instance when government tries to force a market," said Aarons.

said by fireflier :

Their CEO either has hard-on for a serious raise or internally they're seriously screwed and ready to collapse. I can't think of to much else that explains this kind of desperation.

said by TKJunkMail :

And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook.

said by major marco :

What's the difference? The taxpayers you're so worried about are already on the hook for about $700B and counting in bullshit bank bailouts.

said by TKJunkMail :

The reason for support of a law like this is that TWC and other private ISPs don't want to see public companies with taxpayer subsidized lower prices that don't reflect the real underlying costs.

That is a distortion of the free enterprise system and tries to hide TRUE costs inside of public budgets that encompass many different services(cross subsidization). In effect, public officials create a very large slush fund where they can hide their politically appointed cronies and where finding where that money came from is difficult, if not impossible.

And if the public broadband venture fails and is unable to payoff the bonds that are used to build out the system, then the taxpayers are left on the hook.

»www.bizjournals.com/dallas/prnew···/DC80943
Doc on the failures and the costs to taxpayers:
»www.ipi.org/IPI%5CIPIPublication···nElement

said by me1212 :

Would it prevent me from starting an ISPs there if I wanted to.

If it is just the Gov I can understand, but if it is stopping an individual from starting an ISP I am 100% against it and dont even know if that(stopping a normal person from starting an ISP) is legal.

said by ztmike :

Blah blah..seriously that's all I read from you just now. Aren't you a stock exchange trader for cable isps? What does your argument have ANYTHING to do with what Time Warner is doing lately? NOTHING, that's what.

said by TKJunkMail :

And that is why a bill like this in NC is needed.

said by Matt :

Those cited muni-broadband failures were WiFi failures Tk. Almost every "cable in the ground" muni deployment has so far been a resounding success -- even with the lawsuits thrown at them.

said by TKJunkMail :

It is government subsidized ISPs that would be restricted. And it doesn't prevent them. It only makes sure the municipal broadband ventures are NOT subsidized by taxes from other services.