broadband battle

I'm a little late on this one, but several people pointed me to last Friday's point/counterpoint editorials in the Chronicle about whether San Francisco should develop a city-owned WiFi network.

Most readers of this site will be familiar with Adam Werbach (became president of the Sierra Club at the age of something like 13; was appointed to the Public Utilities Commission in the famous Daly Coup of '03) who argued the pro-WiFi position. Many of you may not be so familiar with Frank Rizzo, whose byline graced the anti-WiFi piece.

Rizzo is a Philadelphia City Council member who stumbled to prominence by opposing Philadelphia's citywide WiFi proposal. Despite being completely wrong, he's become the poster child for anti-municipal broadband forces. He trots out the same unsubstantiated arguments in letters to newspapers across the country. For example, let's compare the opening of his Chronicle editorial:

Today in San Francisco and elsewhere, city administrators are considering a broad, open-ended public works project: municipally owned and subsidized wireless (Wi-Fi) networks. The goal, say the bureaucrats, is to capitalize on advances in wireless technology to help bridge the digital divide.

with a similar editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune a couple weeks ago:

In Chicago and elsewhere, city administrators are considering a massive, open-ended public works project: municipally owned and subsidized wireless (Wi-Fi) networks. The goal, say the bureaucrats, is to capitalize on advances in wireless technology to build a local information nirvana that will help bridge the digital divide.

Sound familiar?

Councilman Rizzo goes on to suggest "a true national broadband policy." Presumably, he is also in favor of a true national sugarplum fairy policy, since it's about as likely as a national policy that actually achieves universal access to broadband internet connections. There is very little question that the people writing national telecommunications policy are not the ones who are interested in access before profit.

Speaking of which: Cutting out the middle man, Verizon's CEO weighed in against the idea of San Francisco providing internet access. "That could be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard," said Ivan Seidenberg. He then went on to show his concern for citizens having control over their telecommunications possibilities:

Seidenberg encouraged Congress to rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to decrease the role of the states. Phone companies frequently complain that it's difficult to offer national services while conforming to a patchwork of state and local regulations. In addition, some states have tried to regulate phone companies more aggressively than the Federal Communications Commission.

"The first thing we'd do is pre-empt the states," Seidenberg said. "That's priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3."

Just so we know whose welfare he is looking to guard...