Here it comes, the first roadblock in the internet, setup by the federal govt. And a violation of states rights. The govt has no power to control personal communications, certainly not to tell cities that they cant make laws prohibiting govts from running their own ISPs. And Obama wants to make YOU pay more taxes for it.
The result, much like with sewage, garbage, electricity, will be to drive private options out of business since govt can compete unfairly.
Obama pushes broadband plan, critics see
I see. Since the telecom companies couldn't stop it through the courts, they've paid politicians to legislate their competition away. Note that telecom companies can still compete in any market. What they want is to stop anyone else, including LOCAL govts (who don't have tons of money) from entering the fray and offering services.
What Obama seeks to do (which is merely ask the FCC to regulate this) is a good thing.
Lafayette, Louisiana did this. It provides the ONLY way for a citizen to get decent, reasonable cost internet. It's not cheap. And it's not the fastest. But it's something that gives customers a choice. AT&T and others sued the sh___ out of the city, ultimately losing.
What we have right now is a near monopoly on internet services. We have Time Warner/Comcast (when the merger is approved) and AT&T/DirecTV, with Verizon pulling up the rear. Verizon and TW/Comcast don't operate in the same areas. So any given area has two choices: TW/Comcast or Verizon, on the one hand, or one of those and AT&T on the other hand.
The cost to enter a market is prohibitive for companies, so these companies operate almost exclusively within given areas. Because of that, cost is exorbitant, service is slow and sloppy, and caps are increasingly used so that customers are charged internet usage like a utility. If you don't know what your bill is supposed to be, it's hard to catch fraudulent charges, something that AT&T does (I have personal experience with that, and it's being investigated by the govt for that currently).
A local govt makes a profit on the service, but is more concerned about its citizens getting service it pays for, unlike companies. Why shouldn't a local govt get a profit on a service that almost all its citizens use? The other companies can still offer their services. All they have to do is compete by offering good service at reasonable cost. Easy.
Here in Dallas, the city offers electricity. But we're unregulated, so we can also cost shop and sign contracts for lower rates. Deregulation. Which is what Republicans like, right? It works. We have both a government entity AND corporations competing for our business.
In my area we have Time Warner and AT&T. AT&T has a cap. AT&T includes fraudulent charges on its bills, which you must catch (if you can). You can't get wireless service from Time Warner unless you buy one of the most expensive speeds. There is no rational reason for that, except Time Warner wants to fleece you.
AT&T requires you to use its equipment, for which it charges you a monthly fee.
It's a racket. Telecom companies are the most hated in the country, for a reason.
It's getting to where people NEED the internet to conduct business and live a middle class or better life in many communities in our country. It's how you pay bills, communicate with your ins. co., buy insurance, shop, look up your utility and credit card and bank accounts, job hunt, remote in to your office e-mail, etc.
Lafayette, Louisiana was very brave and innovative to do what it did. It seems to be working well. There's no reason it shouldn't provide internet services to its citizens, just like it provides water and gas and electricity.