Why can't we get along?

Last week's column from Telephony's Broadband Reality sparked more than a few responses from both sides of the aisle. My assertion that incumbent service providers should try to cooperate with municipalities that want to build broadband networks drew fire from a couple of readers, but generated many more supportive e-mails and quite a few requests for more information on the whole notion of municipally owned broadband networks.

I think each of these opinions has some merit, and, like many journalists, I'm always willing to let my audience do my writing for me.

In the interest of fairness, I'll start with my harshest critic. Mark S. thinks I'm too tough on the Bell companies.

"Four years ago SBC bought Ameritech and immediately developed a plan to provide broadband services to millions of their customers" he wrote. "This was called Project Pronto and SBC was planning to invest $6 billion to build it. Our enlightened regulators wanted SBC to give away these services to so-called competitors--they were being told they would have to sell these services at a ridiculous discount which wouldn't allow SBC to recoup the investment, let alone make a profit. I believe if the incumbents wouldn't have had the regulatory boat anchor attached, this country would now be leading the world in broadband access rather than lagging behind some Third World countries.

"I know it doesn't seem to be the cool thing to do for your magazine to be on the big incumbents' side, but your opinion article doesn't bother mentioning that the municipalities and state and federal regulators have caused this situation to exist in our country by encouraging 'fake' competition that didn't do anything to encourage investment but did keep prices down," he continued. "There is a difference between real competition and what we've been calling competition these past four years. SBC has actually been competing with themselves because SBC provides the service, does the maintenance, sells to a CLEC at a discounted price and then has to compete against its own discounted prices. This is not how good old fashioned capitalism is supposed to work!

"My point is simply this, SBC wants to provide the services these municipalities are talking about installing themselves, and I believe they would and will when regulatory changes and clarification finally occur," Mark S. concludes. "Your article would better serve your readers if it made mention of some of these facts I've spoken of and that our state and federal governments have made this bed we are all sleeping in. They need to get OUT of bed."

The problem, according to more than one reader, is that the incumbents really don't want to provide the services themselves. Here's one town manager's view:

"I'd really rather not go through the hassle of building our own network," Steven T. said. "It's making my job a lot harder. We're only looking into doing this because our incumbents--the telephone company and the cable company--refuse to even consider bringing fiber to our town. We're not even a blip on their radar screen. So we're in danger of seeing our high school and our only hospital 'consolidated' into county facilities. But I've been warned that as soon as we authorize bonds to pay for this, they'll be jumping down our throats, claiming it's unfair. What's unfair is seeing our town, and a lot of others, being bypassed."

What's particularly disturbing to me is that the adversarial nature of this debate could be unnecessary. Reader Charles M. suggests that entrepreneurs can play a roll in helping cities and towns get up to speed.

"Not only should incumbents, but so too should the legion of entrepreneurs help municipalities of all sizes jump on board," he writes. "There is clearly demand from the cities and towns for broadband coverage; these cities have real world needs to solve. Private enterprise is probably best suited to deliver on those needs through a cooperative relationship with the city."

Finally, a few readers wrote passionately about their belief that municipal networks, whether fiber or wireless, stand the best chance of bringing broadband to those in poorer neighborhoods. This is where I think cooperation is imperative. For understandable reasons, a privately held company such as a telco or cable company, cannot spend millions building networks into neighborhoods where there is no reasonable expectation that they will ever earn the money back, much less make a profit. But that doesn't mean that such areas should be ignored. Whether the federal government redefines Universal Service in such a way to include broadband access or local governments take it on themselves, there is a public obligation here.

Or as one reader (whose identity I'm protecting because his company is a vendor to the incumbents) put it: "Time for our other big-city mayors to step up to the plate, look [the incumbent telcos] in the eye, and say, 'Listen, thanks for the campaign contributions and that fabulous pork roast at the ranch, but frankly, it's not always about you--sometimes it's about the kids, and the poor, and the disabled--and that's why we're doing this, and why we're expecting you to get on board.' It wouldn't hurt to at least try...."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Email me at cwilson3@primediabusiness.com.