by Mike Masnick
Fri, Oct 30th 2009 3:58pm
Over the past few years, there have been numerous lawsuits by telcos against various municipalities that have decided to launch municipal fiber broadband projects. Most of these lawsuits have failed -- but the main argument from the telcos is that it's unfair to have to compete against the government, and it would take away incentives for the telcos to actually invest in infrastructure to provide for those towns. Of course, that doesn't make much sense. That would mean that any competition would decrease incentives to invest. One of the nastier legal battles took place in Monticello, Minnesota, where the local telco TDS fought hard (and lost) its battle to stop muni-fiber from showing up. But, now, suddenly TDS is announcing its own fiber broadband, giving people 50 Mbps service for $50/month. What's the likelihood that TDS would have done this if it didn't have competition from muni-fiber? The reason municipalities look to muni-fiber is because there isn't enough competition and the telcos aren't investing in infrastructure (or really serving customer needs). So the end result here is that by introducing more competition, consumers and citizens are better served. So what's the problem with it again?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Altice Promises Massive New Fiber Network, Again Proving Net Neutrality Didn't Stifle Broadband Investment
- T-Mobile Applauds Likely Death Of Net Neutrality Under Trump
- FCC Warns AT&T, Verizon They're Violating Net Neutrality With Zero Rating Schemes
- Comcast Loses Just $5.50 Per Month When You Cut The Cord Thanks To Its Growing Broadband Monopoly
- Once Again, Telco Told That It Can't Stop Muni Fiber