FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly is a staunch critic of government projects to build and operate broadband networks, saying their overbuilding of private providers, “creates market inefficiencies, distorts competitive outcomes, encourages regulatory favoritism towards state-owned networks, and can be a waste of taxpayer money.” He recently said some municipalities precondition access to their networks on acceptance of vague speech codes, “creating an ominous threat to the First Amendment.”
In a new blog post, O’Rielly says he’s experienced “hysterical outrage” to those comments, and wants to set the record straight, and expand upon First Amendment threats posed by muni broadband speech codes. “Critics responded by pointing out that private ISPs condition network use on practically identical terms of service, and that I was biased in singling out municipal providers,” writes O’Rielly, which he calls nonsense.
Pointing out that “everyone else is doing it too,” is no justification for abridging the First Amendment, according to the Commissioner. “Muni broadband is necessary to ensure that all internet content is treated equally and agnostically. But there is nothing neutral about a user policy that threatens content-based censorship. Muni broadband does not ‘promote’ First Amendment values,” he writes.
In response, Next Century Cities, which supports municipalities seeking broadband, say such broadband networks are an opportunity, not a threat. “Local governments have invested in municipal broadband networks to improve internet access for everyone, advance educational outcomes, support public safety, and ensure a healthy business climate,” said Next Century Cities Executive Director Deb Socia. “Local governments rarely choose to pursue municipal broadband as a first option, but are willing to take risks and make meaningful investments to address connectivity gaps in their communities when necessary.”
“If Commissioner O’Rielly and the FCC were more focused on fixing known problems with broadband internet access across the U.S., the responsibility would not fall on cities to take action,” stated Socia. She noted that local officials are accountable to their constituency. “If they are not adhering to the expectations of that community, they will be held accountable on election day.” Comments? Email Us.
December 17, 2018
Reader Interactions