Wi-Fi in Wilkes-Barre, PA

Glenn Fleishman points to an article in the Times-Ledger in Wilkes-Barre, PA about a municipality that wants to provide a city-wide Wi-Fi network. Pennsylvania is one of the dozen or so states that has enacted a law banning such networks, unless certain requirements are met, such as the permission of the incumbent telco provider. Interestingly, Mayor Tom Leighton is gung-ho on the idea of a city-wide Wi-Fi network, and perhaps rightly so, though he may be fighting an uphill battle due to the State Law.

There are two important things that I feel need to be clarified in the article, which does a decent job of painting the two sides of the issue. First, there is the the issue of competition:

In Philadelphia, communications giants Verizon and Comcast have already set up lots of broadband infrastructure in certain parts of the city, and had argued that shouldn’t be allowed to knock them out of the business.

Overwhelmingly, municipal network service is not intended as a replacement for existing broadband, at least for the majority of residents. Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner have little to really worry about, especially since they offer service that is (a) faster than municipal wireless, and (b) has more features like content (this is the reason why content companies own media outlets, after all), network protection, backup dial-up access, etc.

Municipal networks also target markets and areas that are ignored or overpriced by large telco and cable companies. As I have written about in the past, even New York City, one of the most connected locations on Earth, has entire segments of the City where broadband infrastructure is poor and non-existent.

Second, there is the telco’s expectation about not having competition. Imaging Verizon saying that some other company shouldn’t build a broadband infrastructure because they “have already set up lots of broadband infrastructure in certain parts of the city, and [some other company] shouldn’t be allowed to knock them out of the business.” Well, who gave them preferential treatment? Who says that Verizon has a right to be the exclusive provider of telecom and broadband infrastructure?

The truth of the matter is that Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner all don’t like competition of any kind. This is not surprising. However, if they provided a useful service, and were responsive to market changes, they wouldn’t have much of a problem with competition. Furthermore, most communities have provided huge subsidies and tax breaks to these companies specifically to “help” them build their infrastructure. Often, this money comes with the requirement to build out infrastructure in all areas of a city or town. Often, telcos and cable companies fail to deliver on their requirements, but take the money nonetheless.

The problem is that they have built themselves up in such a way that they view any competition, municipal or otherwise, as a death sentence.
We as consumers should welcome competition, especially in telecom infrastructure. In fact, it has been shown that even the thread of municipal networks results in better, faster, and cheaper broadband service for everyone.

It is one of the responsibilities of responsible government to help service its residents. If Verizon and Comcast don’t provide service to a portion of a municipality’s area, then the municipality should have the right to secure the service in those areas in any way it sees fit. I certainly don’t know exactly where the internet service has issues in urban Philly, but I’m sure that the Philly government does.

So in the end, any real restriction, state or nationally sponsored, that removes municipal service from the picture, is doing nothing more than supporting the monopoly or duopoly that is currently failing these cities.