If you thought dirty tricks were reserved for presidential politics, you should try wiring your town with fiber optic cable. As several communities prepare to vote on such home-grown broadband networks today, they face disinformation campaigns, bogus think tank studies, and an uphill battle against deep pocketed corporate adversaries who'll go to any lengths to avoid competition.

Several years ago a community effort in Illinois to build a triple-play fiber network failed, primarily because voters there were concerned that the project would result in higher taxes. They believed that not based on any fiscal reality, but because SBC and Comcast spent a considerable sum on disinformation campaigns that used push polls (which we exclusively received a copy of) with questions like: "Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?"

Fast forward to 2004, and the the community group behind the effort (Fiber for our future) switched from public to private funding to alleviate those concerns in a second effort. SBC and Comcast have tripled their ad output this time, Comcast going so far as to send locals Hallmark cards just to let them know they care.

This sudden good-neighbor vibe stems from the fact that Comcast and SBC both know that once a decent municipal alternative emerges, they've got legitimate competition and will be forced to lower rates. Competition harms the bottom line; it also forces them to work harder to improve their product and keep you happy - or lose you. There is no scientific mystery here.

Yet corporate funded front-groups have spent the week espousing the imaginary evils of small towns wiring themselves for broadband. Tom Giovanetti is president of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a "non-partisan" group founded by lifelong Republican Dick Armey to toe the industry line on everything from regulation to fighting open-source software (they've frequently been accused of slamming open-source while being funded by Microsoft).

Reading Giovanetti's piece in the Chicago Sun Times, you'd think municipal broadband was as morally reckless as using puppies for pavement. In his article, Tom says what he's indirectly paid to say: namely that deregulation will cure cancer and wash dishes, and that municipal broadband operations are as financially sound as Vegas Roulette.

The IPI is just one of several organizations who are indirectly paid to say what corporations are afraid to. These are the types of organizations from which this election's 527 groups received their inspiration. You feign objectivity, and spew rhetoric while (insert company) remains polite and friendly in the public eye.

Concerned about upcoming community votes, another "Non-Partisan" pro-industry think tank named the Heartland Institute also came out firing at the behest of their corporate masters. Their report makes such claims as:

Virtually everyone who wants broadband services can get Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service from their telephone company or cable modem service from their cable company.

Which is news to the rural users in our forums who battle tooth and nail to get their cable company to run coaxial up their road or their local telco to greenlight their central office for DSL.

Most broadband platforms operate at speeds dramatically faster than two years ago, making superfluous the "fiber to the home" (FTTH) networks envisioned by advocates of municipalization.

So 3Mbps (if you're lucky) is fast enough for HDTV over IP? Fiber being "superfluous" is probably news to hundreds of companies that believe fiber is the very cornerstone of America's broadband future.

Consultants often try to sell the idea of building municipal broadband networks by claiming they are essential to economic development efforts, but they invariably present no evidence of a link between broadband and economic growth.

Gentlemen meet the Strategic Networks Group of Ottawa, who issued a recent report on the Township of South Dundas, which spent $975,000 to build and maintain a fiber network. As a result the town witnessed 62.5 new jobs, $2.1 million in commercial expansion in the region, and $105,000 in increased regional revenues and cost-savings.

Another example? Municipally operated Click! network's entry into the municipal arena: they run in the black (despite Comcast ads claiming otherwise), and their entry into the Portland, Washington market has created the lowest cable rates in the nation. How about the success of Scottsburg, Indiana? Schools there save $6000 per month in telecommunications costs alone.

A well managed plan is a well managed plan. Funded by bake sales or bonds, who are you (or Tom Giovanetti) to suggest a community can't try? The bottom line: there are far more success stories than failures, and corporations wouldn't oppose these operations if they - as they claim - collapse under their own weight. They'd save the ad money and just let them burn.

This is not complicated. A well planned and properly funded muni-network is not going to turn Podunk, Nebraska into SOHO. But it is a way for communities to wire the dark corners of America the incumbents refuse to serve, or regions with sub-par service. If they service those communities properly, muni-operations don't emerge. Instead of improving their service, incumbent providers have resorted to despicable tactics and legal efforts to completely ban community based broadband nationally.

Consumers in those markets are being pitched choreographed garbage by mega-corporations who feign concern for what's right, but are motivated by pure greed. Consumers facing votes in such markets should ask questions and inform themselves; not be swayed by well funded industry shills, greeting cards, or fiscal fear-mongering.