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...
- Ted Cruz Pushing Bill Protecting Large ISPs From Competition
- EU Regulators Can Barely Contain Their Desire To Attack Google And Facebook, Believing It Will Help Local Competitors
- The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes
- Nervous About Regulatory Action, Comcast Bumps Usage Caps To One Terabyte Per Month
- Once Again, Telco Told That It Can't Stop Muni Fiber