State & Local Governments

Ensure Community Networks are not Preempted

At a minimum, communities must be allowed to invest in their own networks. No community should be hamstrung by federal or state laws that prevent it from building a network when the community decides existing options are inferior and harming their vitality. Forcing some communities to beg for connectivity is degrading and un-American. If a community wants to build it themselves, they should have that right.


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

55 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Downvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Downvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 5 ]


  1. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Sure, but at the same time, localities should not be competing with the private sector. There should be some middle ground.

  2. Comment
    christopher ( Idea Submitter )

    Buses compete with taxis, libraries with book stores, public education with private, ups and fedex with the post office, police with private security firms, public golf courses with private, public pools with private. Such a blanket statement makes a better soundbite than public policy.

    In rural areas, there are often publicly owned liquor stores and lumber yards because the private sector wasn't interested. These areas would all be worse off if we firmly zoned off private sector activities and public.

    When something is essential for a community, policies that force the community to beg others to build it for them - especially when the private sector is emphatically not interested - is folly.

  3. Comment

    If a locality wants to offer wireless broadband, more power to 'em! there's nothing sacred about the private sector, given how slow they've been to invest in broadband, their outrageous rates, and thier plans to wreck net neutrality.

  4. Comment

    I agree with this recommendation and would add that the National Broadband Plan should recommend that the federal government support and co-fund state and municipal broadband initiatives to encourage the build-out and support of next-generation broadband networks. Eliminate state and local impediments to state-, municipal-, and community- funded deployment of broadband.

  5. Comment

    But if it were up to my community, we would never see broadband where i live, so i think it is going to take the government to get broadband to me.

    I have been living here for 11 years... their should have been broadband here where i live a long time ago, people are starting to settle for satellite internet, which i wont settle for because they limit you too much and theirs a lot you can not to with it because it is not real broadband.

    I hope after this goes through, it does not take long for us to get something fast out here, and preferably something that does not limit me to 5 gigs in a month.

  6. Comment

    If there is a standard for interoperability, then may the best service provider win! If a local community is willing to put up a broadband effort, then so much the better. It (the local effort) will very likely have a focus on service to the most people possible rather than purely service as a function of profitability. Any tie-in to a national broadband "grid" would be facilitated by the standard. Actual contruction of the local infrastructure would in all likelihood be a contracted effort with private firms. Not every community could, or would want to, do this. But service must NOT be sacrificed to profit. I don't see a problem.