It looks like Palo Alto should move quickly on expanding its publicly owned fiber-based I-NET - as the city renegotiates the cable franchise with Comcast, the private cable company is trying to rip-off taxpayers with exorbitant prices for community anchor tenants. California is one of several states to recently take negotiating power on cable television franchises away from communities and grant it to the state. Historically, communities negotiated a free or reduced rate for connectivity to schools, public safety buildings and other key community anchors in return for access to community Right-of-Way - an essential permission necessary to build a cable network. However, as these agreements come up for review, the regulatory landscape is significantly different than it was when they were negotiated in the past. Federal and state decisions have limited the power of communities to gain concessions from cable companies as they continue to raise prices and post large profits. 

In response, many communities have embarked on smart efforts to build their own fiber-optic networks connecting key institutions. These networks often save money while greatly increasing available bandwidth, allowing local governments to be more efficient and use cutting-edge applications. In some communities, these Institutional Networks have formed the backbone of next-generation networks that extend full fiber-to-the-home network access to businesses and citizens. Palo Alto has not yet connected all the necessary buildings with its network and still depends on Comcast for bandwidth to those areas. Communities should beware - network ownership means power. The network owner can decide what price to charge schools - prices that must be paid with tax dollars. Communities building their own networks have slashed these prices and reduced pressure on the tax base. They don't have to worry as much when cable franchise negotiations are up again - like Palo Alto is now.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

• A columnist explains why Missouri hired broadband network consultant Jim Baller to aid in expanding broadband across the state.

  That won’t be easy. Fewer than two-dozen cable and telephone companies control more than 95 percent of the country’s residential broadband market. In the past decade, the “incumbents” have shut out competitors by restricting the use of their existing infrastructure and by suing any municipality or public utility that has tried to build its own network.

  This piece offers some good history for those relatively new to community broadband.

• Mike Masnick over at TechDirt recently asked (ironically) "But Wait, Wasn't Muni-Fiber Supposed To Take Away Incentive For Private Fiber?"

  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.

  This article otherwise rehashes the Monticello post we recently ran.

• In Maine, Fletcher Kittredge makes the case for a public-private partnership to bring affordable middle-mile access around the state. These ultra-fast connections would not connect directly to home users, but will be open to providers creating those last-mile networks. In the meantime, it will strengthen community institutions like the University of Maine system. This is a project that should be funded by the stimulus program.

Alcatel-Lucent has created a terrific video (I saw it at Fiberevolution.com) for Australia regarding their proposed National Broadband Network. Australia is the latest of many countries poised to surpass the U.S. while we decide whether to take control of our future or let Comcast and AT&T control it. I recommend the video, and not just for the accent. Most of the video applies equally to the U.S. in terms of what pressures we face and a possible future. For those unfamiliar, the NBN will be a massive collaborative project between the public and private sector in Australia, resulting in an impressive open access broadband network. We need more videos like this in order to explain to everyday Americans why this infrastructure is so important and we cannot leave it to a few monopolistic companies to build.

Alcatel-Lucent has created a terrific video (I saw it at Fiberevolution.com) for Australia regarding their proposed National Broadband Network. Australia is the latest of many countries poised to surpass the U.S. while we decide whether to take control of our future or let Comcast and AT&T control it. I recommend the video, and not just for the accent. Most of the video applies equally to the U.S. in terms of what pressures we face and a possible future. For those unfamiliar, the NBN will be a massive collaborative project between the public and private sector in Australia, resulting in an impressive open access broadband network. We need more videos like this in order to explain to everyday Americans why this infrastructure is so important and we cannot leave it to a few monopolistic companies to build.

Alcatel-Lucent has created a terrific video (I saw it at Fiberevolution.com) for Australia regarding their proposed National Broadband Network. Australia is the latest of many countries poised to surpass the U.S. while we decide whether to take control of our future or let Comcast and AT&T control it. I recommend the video, and not just for the accent. Most of the video applies equally to the U.S. in terms of what pressures we face and a possible future. For those unfamiliar, the NBN will be a massive collaborative project between the public and private sector in Australia, resulting in an impressive open access broadband network. We need more videos like this in order to explain to everyday Americans why this infrastructure is so important and we cannot leave it to a few monopolistic companies to build.