« September 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
October 21, 2005
The Definition of Insanity
We all know the famous quote from Ben Franklin.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I've started to think recently that this sums up the strategic thinking by incumbent providers who oppose municipal involvement in broadband. How could such powerful companies, with almost infinite resources be so totally ineffective at responding to this trend? As their board members, executive teams, lawyers and business people sit around conference room tables discussing how to respond to these disruptive forces, how could they possibly walk out of those meetings agreeing on the tactics that we've seen in the market? Consider, for example the tactics that have been used so far, and what the results have been.
Tactic 1: Impose barriers to entry for municipal governments through state legislation. Result; 12 out of 15 state bills introduced over the past year defeated, or at least modified to be viewed as "workable" by proponents of local choice.
Tactic 2: Elevate the legislative battle to introduce congressional bill(s) to eliminate local choice. Result: Pete Sessions bill got discredited and other bills got mired in comprehensive telecom reform packages that most experts agree will take years to sort out.
Tactic 3: Fund reports from so-called Think Tanks to produce tons of negative spin on the viability of policy, business planning and technology decisions being made by local governments. Result: The latest report, a 250-page beauty from Balhoff and Rowe, lands with a big thud, barely getting a mention, and cities continue moving forward unaffected. Community leaders know what a "sock puppet" is, and so do their constituents.
Tactic 4: Fight for and win battles in the Supreme Court and the FCC to maintain closed facilities, theoretically locking out potential competition from CLECs, ISPs, etc. Result: A groundswell of open service provider business models emerge, led by local governments who want to promote competition and consumer choice, and fulfilled by ISPs aggressively seeking to partner with these local governments.
I'll stop there, but I didn't even get to other tactics like lawsuits, local lobbying and a constant stream of editorials in local print, which has been equally ineffective. With the intensity of this debate, and the attention being paid to these projects, all these tactics do is energize other communities and raise the awareness of all communities' need to consider their own broadband policies. The Pennsylvania HB 30 battle last year is viewed by every expert I talk to as having done more to spark new municipal broadband projects nationwide than it did to eliminate "unfair competition" in PA. Heck, communities throughout Pennsylvania are, as we speak, preparing for the November 7 Senate hearing on extending the grandfather date for that bill.
So, let's assume the reader agrees with my assessment that these tactics have failed. What tactics could be employed? Well, the answer starts with reconsidering the goal that incumbents are trying to achieve. The goal has been defined up to this point as "shutting down local government involvement in broadband initiatives." A better goal (if I were a shareholder in one of these companies) would be "to minimize the disruption caused by these trends." That's a subtle, but very important distinction. The latter goal would suggest a whole new set of tactics; embracing these projects; responding to some of the RFPs flowing out of cities; viewing municipal Wi-Fi and WiMAX as a valuable over-built technology to existing DSL and cable assets.
So, what will happen if these powerful opponents continue to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Well, Ben Franklin also had another great quote, which is almost poetic when viewed from his home town of Philadelphia.
A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges.
Posted by Greg at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)
October 04, 2005
Open Letter to Congress Regarding Barton-Dingell Legislation
Dear Members of the House Commerce Committee:
On behalf of Civitium LLC, a technology consulting firm based in Georgia, I am writing to discuss the upcoming House Commerce Committee hearing on bipartisan draft legislation introduced by Congressmen Barton and Dingell.
Civitium advises communities interested in deploying metro-scale wireless broadband networks, and our current clients include the most high profile initiatives in the US. Currently, we are engaged by the cities of Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Portland, Miami Beach, and New Haven. Our firm has seen first hand how wireless broadband can be applied to strengthen economic development, promote digital inclusion, and streamline the cost of government.
Unfortunately, a number of states have prohibited communities from deploying wireless broadband networks. While private providers should be assured a level playing field for competition, local leaders need to have the local choice to assess their community’s broadband needs and respond appropriately.
In Section 409 of the proposed Barton Dingell bill, communities are allowed to deploy wireless broadband networks to meet the needs of their citizens and any existing state level prohibitions are overridden. As a conservative leader in Congress, we hope that you will support giving local leaders the authority they need to meet their community’s unique needs.
While most of the proposed legislation will strengthen communities and provide a framework to meet the President’s goal of universal broadband in 2007, Section 409(c) concerns cross-subsidization and we believe this subsection should be removed. While most communities do not find it politically expedient to form a public broadband utility and cross-subsidize it with tax dollars, many rural communities must decide between cross-subsidization for broadband or no broadband access at all. In this Information Age, communities should be able to provide the necessary infrastructure for global competition.
Please support local choice for community leaders and support the beneficial portions of Section 409 of the proposed Barton-Dingell bill.
Posted by Matt at 09:33 PM | Comments (0)