Annenberg Classroom - Speak Outs - Should states place limits on local Internet access networks?

Speak Outs

Speak Out

Should states place limits on local Internet access networks?

If you live in a city or suburb, chances are you have a fast Internet connection – probably from a company like Time Warner or Comcast.

If you live in a more sparsely populated rural area, these companies might not be able to reach your region with their high-speed connections or decided it wasn’t worthwhile to invest in high-speed infrastructure for these areas. You might have to get your Internet from their lower-speed services. Or maybe they don’t offer service in your area at all.

The federal government is trying to fix this by pushing for expanded broadband Internet service across the country. In the 2009 economic stimulus bill, $7.2 billion was set aside to help Internet coverage grow. Some small towns are taking advantage of this by investing in creating their own Internet services – ensuring fast connections in areas where the big companies underserve residents or don’t serve them at all.

But some states are pushing back.

Last month, the North Carolina House of Representatives passed the Level Playing Field / Local Government Competition bill. If it passes the Senate and is signed into law by Gov. Beverly Perdue, the bill would make local Internet companies run by public money subject to the same regulations as private national corporations. It has received the backing of those corporations. A similar bill is being considered in South Carolina.

What is this public / private difference? Think about it like a utility. These small towns that felt left behind in the digital era want to treat the Internet the same as any other public service – like phone service, or electricity or gas or water. But companies like Time Warner argue that since local governments don’t have to pay the same taxes as the corporations, they have an unfair advantage. The companies also say that profits from local energy or gas services can be shifted to a local Internet service, allowing it to offer service at a lower price.

A statement from Time Warner said: “The bill is intended to create a level playing field so if local governments want to provide commercial retail services in direct competition with private business, they can't use their considerable advantages unfairly.”

But those on the municipal side see this as the cable companies’ attempts to smother their competition at the local level.

“It is a monopolistic bill from the word go,” said Rep. Bill Faison (D., Caswell) in an interview with WRAL TV. "We still have people who are largely underserved throughout many areas in our state." They counter that it is unfair to make a small town pay taxes at the same level as a national corporation – and that imposing that requirement would pretty much keep any local public Internet network from getting off the ground. The town of Morresville passed a resolution urging the House and Senate not to pass the bill, which, it says, “greatly hinder[s] local governments from providing needed communications services, including public safety networks, and especially advanced high-speed broadband services, in unserved and underserved areas.”

What do you think?

Should states place limits on cities’ creating local Internet access services? Are companies like Time Warner and Comcast correct that cities have an unfair advantage if they go into the Internet business? What do you think is the upside to treating the Internet as a utility, like gas or electric? What are the downsides? Join the discussion!

Join the Discussion

Your First Name:
Your Teacher/School:
Your City/State:
Your Comment: limited to 2000 characters including spaces

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs

Comments

5/10/2012
Porterville CA

Anthony
Smith/Monache
I believe that the state or anyone should not be allowed to put a limit on internet access. I dont think that houses should have internet as a utility beacuase not all people can afford it but also all people should be able to have access to internet if they wanted.

5/7/2012
Porterville/CA

Mario
Smith/Monache
States shouldn't put a limit in internet service. Internet as a utility is not necessary. Depending on the situation, it is a "want" not a absolutely "need". Public internet access should be offered by who ever is hosting it, like a hotel or restaurant. If someone other than the government is paying, then there shouldn't be a problem. As long as money is coming, then there should be no problem.

10/19/2011
Sidney, Montana

Marcus
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I don't think states should limit a cities' local Internet access services because it is unfair to a small town that doesn't get as much advantages as a larger town. If the government treats the Internet as a utility, it will help out the education of many students and leave them with better lives. Some downsides are that the small towns taxes won't really help pay for them though. But every town should have an equal opportunity.

5/26/2011
Irving/ Texas

Kenneth
H. Bradley/ Nimitz
Cities shoudl not have the right to do anything with the Internet. Having the freedom to view what ever you want to view on a computer or handheld is what the Internet about. There should not be any reason that restricts means of communications on a city level. The cities are clearly over--stepping their boundries by trying to restrict sites on the internet from being accessed by the public.

5/24/2011
Irving/Tx

David B.
Bradley/Nimitz
States should not limit the interent. People from rural areas are being isolated from the rest of the technological world. They could be using internet to communicate with the rest of their family all over the country, gather information on everyday problems and even try to increase their fortune with stocks and trades. Come on internet providers, stop being cheap and upgrade.

5/24/2011
Irving/TX

Alen G.
Bradley/Nimitz
Leaving the control of internet access to each individual city would afford many more people access most everywhere. Then again, Time Warner Cable(TWC) and Comcast are justified in saying that cities would have an unfair advantage, as most people would be drawn to their own cities' internet, which would be probably less costly, and both companies would lose a great deal of business. However, in our economy, competition isn't something to be frowned upon, but rather desired; and should therefore not be an argument against cities' owning internet access. In our time, the internet has become so prevalent that it could easily be considered an every day utility. To consider it a utility would probably provide a more general, cheaper price as it would be afforded to all of the public.

5/24/2011
Irving/TX

Dennis N.
Bradley/Nimitz
Internet is now considered an everday needed utility which means that there should be a strong support for public internet. Time Warner and Comcast are correct about having an unfair advantage if the local government goes into the local internet service but people are in major need of it. Researching, studying, and emailing are just a few things that people do everyday. So, in order to compete with the government, major internet companies should either lower their prices or provide internet access in the areas that are in need of it.

5/24/2011
Irving/TX

Stephanie S
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that internet service has to be available for everybody because is something that we use for everything and don't need any limits on it,we all need it to make our life easier in some aspects. what Time Warner cable and Comcast are kinda right too, but in this world everything is business and interest, its going to be unfair to a small town to pay the high taxes but its going to worth it in the end and for the companies that's why they have to figure out a way the people its going to be interested in them.

5/23/2011
Irving/Texas

Aaron M
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that states should support general public internet. If a citizen wants better internet, they can pay a private corporation for the access. However, if they just want to use it to do minor things, such as research, email and other general "public library" access. Private companies should provide free, basic level internet in order to compete with the states.

5/23/2011
Irving/ Tx

LaTisha V.
Bradley/ Nimitz
It should not be the states concern on whether they should put limits on cities creating local internet access services, this choice should be given to the cities. Though Time Warner and Comcast have a point that cities have an unfair advantage if they go into the internet business, but these companies aren't being of any help to these cities. If these internet companies are not going to provide quality internet service to these small cities, I think that it is perfectly fine for these cities to take matters into their own hands. Being that the internet is a major source for important information, it is very important that everyone has access to high-speed internet.

5/13/2011
Irving, TX

Andrea C
Bradley/Nimitz
As proven in recent years, the internet has become a staple of everyday life. People sign on to check email, talk with friends around the world, shop, and even to tackle assignments for their jobs. I cannot imagine being in the position where I couldn't use my laptop or cell phone to log onto the world wide web. It's very odd to me that in this age there are still people without these capabilities. I don't think it's fair for one company to come in and completely monopolize the industry. If the people in these rural towns really want Internet access they should be able to receive it, under terms that are reasonable and fair.

5/13/2011
Philadelphia PA

Jasmine P.
Ms. Agnew/Overbrook H.S.
I think wireless internet access should not have a limit. Because kids need a connection to do their homework. So people in little towns shouldn't have to pay a big price for internet connection. I think that the internet connection shouldn't have locks on them, because people need the wi-fi access.

5/10/2011
Irving, TX

Kimberly O.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that Internet Servers should allow service whereever the customer lives. Because if they turn them down, that is one less customer for them. The internet servers should at least consider expanding their limits on service, for other people that can't get internet. It has come to these small town people making their own internet server so they can have internet because no services will help them. That just isn't right.

5/9/2011
Phila PA

Quinton D
Mr.Frank/northeast highschool
I don't think they should put a limit on internet access because in today's times the internet is needed for mostly everything. The internet is used for a lot of things from paying bills to buying gifts. The internet is also used for communication. People use it to connect with old friends or distant relatives. The internet is also used for teens to look up information for projects and homework. I don't see the purpose of cutting off the internet. A lot of people rely on it and cutting it off in some areas is just going to makes life difficult for them.

5/9/2011
Irving/TX

Mirna L.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that having internet access is becoming more and more a necessity in our every day lives and it is not fair for those people who don't even have the option of paying to have internet. I don't think that states should place limits on small cities trying to provide internet access to its citizens. If big companies like Time Warner Cable or Comcast don't want to invest in smaller cities, then they should let the governments provide internet access. Making small governments pay the same taxes as these big corporations hinders the governments ability to be successful internet providers.

5/3/2011
Irving/TX

Hector G
Bradley/Nimitz
State governments shouldn't have the power to deny small cities the right to internet access. The big business shouldn't try to monopolize the little corporations and leave small towns out in the dark. If the big corporations do not think it is worth bringing internet access to small cities and if they have the ability to "self sustain" their own cost then what arguments can the big businesses really make. Treating the internet access like a utility would be beneficial to small cities although not being profitable enough for the corporations. This actually sets a level playing field; it is as if the corporations do not make any money then they do not really care if internet is available to any body.

4/27/2011
Irving/ TX

Josh A.
Bradley/ Nimitz
I do not believe that the state government should limit internet access for locally run ISPs. In fact, I do not think that these local governments should even enter the industry. What stops these local governments from censoring parts of the internet that the government deems "inappropriate." I wholeheartedly believe that where ever Internet access is provided,no government limits should be placed on it, whether it be in location or content. We, as a country, should not step closer to the heavily constricted internet of China. As long as the local governments or state governments do not impose restriction in location and content, then I believe that local government run internet should be allowed to exist.

4/13/2011
Irving/ Texas

Baldemar Martinez
Bradly/ Nimitz High School
Companies have to learn that in morality if you want to sell a product in the United States, you must sell it to all the people and meet their demands; and ,their companie's opinions will always usually will be terminated by the majority of the people/representatives/senators . One thing the internet companies can do is place a fee for first time installation of their product and anymore requirement for them needing to return to the costumiers home, or place of business. A company employ should not have to drive 50 miles away from their station of business to instal internet to a far away community where they can develop loosing profit. It is also not their problem that their costumer decides to live far away. The reasonable part to this is to pass a legislation with a agreement that a costumer with a distance of this far must pay a n extra fee for the gas the company must waste to travel to a place of far distance from their community. At the same time the company can abuse of this to make more profit, so a recommendation of dating of how many people from the town desire internet installed should be recorded, and must be filed to the IRS to make sure there is a split in the bill for the group of people in the town who are desiring assistance from the internet company that same day. In this matter the business and the consumer benefit.

4/13/2011
Havre/MT

Ryan
Campbell/North Star
CONTINUED; Isn’t it obvious that money is the main issue in this set up? Time Warner & Comcast are afraid of losing just a little bit of money from independent internet service providers so they take this argument all the way to court to try to have rural/small towns banned from gaining access to the internet. If Time Warner & Comcast thought about it, they could easily gain more money themselves from these small communities. They could send up people who knew how to set up access points and all that great stuff and boom no more court case, small towns/rural area folk have their internet, and Time Warner & Comcast get their money! It all works out for both sides in the end with this plan does it not? Unfortunately Time/Comcast doesn’t believe in wasting it’s time with small areas because no one there is driving around in a lambo with money falling out of their asses. It’s really a shame that these corporations who have enough money already are trying to in a way censor the internet from a small half of the public. They should have every right to internet access in this country if everyone else is allowed on it. That’s nothing but a new form of discrimination if you ask me.

4/13/2011
Havre/MT

Ryan
Campbell/North Star
What does the www in www.whateveryouwannacallthisfillin.com actually mean? World Wide Web meaning it's open to everyone with internet access 24 hours a day 7 days a week meaning no one is truly banned from the internet. I believe that states should not be able to regulate internet access to their own citizens. If our Government took this step to limit internet access to rural people or small towns, our internet could end up like North Koreas for example, now this is a little different from what was said in the Speak out description but over there the internet is strictly censored. All websites are ran and monitored by the government 24/7 they all have something to do with Kim Jong Ill, 4% of the population which turns out to be only about a few hundred thousand have access to it, only two websites are listed under domain names, blogging is not accepted, and whatever is uploaded must first be approved of by the government. Is this how the American internet system should be run? Censored and controlled by the federal government? The people living in rural areas should have a right to internet access if the people in big cities do as well. Who gave the right to Comcast to run the internet anyways? Their a well-funded company so it gives them the right to say if an internet set up in a small town is publically/privately funded? The internet should be free to anyone who uses it until it comes time to pay their bills. Just like what the description said; having the internet in your home is basically just having another utility bill. Why should Time Warner and Comcast even care if small cities are setting up their own internet connections? So what let em’ maybe their town is running low on money and their own internet set up could help boost their economy. Cliché as it is to say, to me it sounds like Time Warner & Comcast are just money hungry corporations who think that if no one is going to use their internet service, then no one should be able to use the internet...

4/8/2011
greencastle, pennsylvania

April Seville
Greencastle-Antrim High School
I don’t think that there should be a limit on the internet access. The reason why is because the internet is what students use to help them with their school work and also teachers use it for the grades in school to post them up for parents to look at them. They have internet almost everywhere and if they want to move it out then it would be stupid because people pay for the internet that they use. According to the federal government they are trying to fix and expand the broadband internet service across the country. They have set aside $7.2 billion back to the internet expand. So I don’t think that they should be a limit on the internet access if you pay for it.

4/6/2011
anchorage/alaska

seouquia
koester/wendlermiddle
I think that we should not place limits on local internet access because we should spread knowledge, by any means necessary,we aready have to many ignorant people in the USA,and if this slows us in the learning process then we should fix this as soon as possible

4/6/2011
Schuylerville

Sebastian
Schuylerville
I do not think we should place limits on local internet access because it is a right of people to have it. If internet was so important to these rural people, they would just have to move to more urban areas for extra internet access. This is solely ridiculous.