« Rule of Law v. Rule of Da Man - I vote for Rule of Law | Weblog | Time to Challenge Some Bad Thinking about the Role of Government »

When Big Government Thinks Big, Big Things Get Built

Category: 

Infrastructure is under the microscope, in particular, government's role in infrastructure, in an OpEd piece in today's New York Times. It's about time, is all I can say.

In today's society, we so disregard infrastructure, it's as if we assume that infrastructure is like so many mushrooms after a good rain, just popping up all over from out of nowhere. Au contraire. By definition, infrastructure must be planned for, financed, built, and then maintained, if it is to be the effective foundation of an economy that it is intended to be. It's as boring as the day is long, and easily overlooked, but just go ahead and neglect it and see how it gets your attention.

The story of the 1930s public works programs is timely again, because much of America is falling apart. The deadly collapse of a Minnesota highway bridge in August shined a light on the poor state of the nation's bridges, many thousands of which are "structurally deficient" by federal standards. Georgia's failure to build enough reservoirs has contributed to a water crisis that could cripple metropolitan Atlanta. We should be thinking today about replicating some of the successes of the Depression-era programs. Public Works: When 'Big Government' Plays Its Role

I couldn't agree more. I've been talking about broadband as infrastructure for some time now, and I'm starting to hear some confirmation from other parts that it should be regarded as such. This article led me to reflect, a little.

For a few months back in 2005, I did my own little part to promote progress, working with various interested parties (Tropos, Patton Boggs, etc.) to help stem the tide of anti-municipal wireless legislation in state legislatures across the nation. I'd stress the little part out of deference to those who carried much heavier loads, but still, I was involved and in the thick of things. In the face of recent pullbacks in this industry, it almost seems quaint then to reflect that 2.5-3 years ago, large telecom and cable companies actually acted as if they were threatened by a rising tide of municipal wireless projects and pushed for laws to ban municipal ownership of communication infrastructure. It didn't work, for the most part, but the process was revealing in oh, so many ways.

The argument against government ownership rested largely in the philosophical proposition that private sector companies, even huge ones with dominate market power, should not have to compete against the same government entities that regulate them, or at least, grant them franchise rights - that would be inherently unfair and un-American. Oh, and also, government projects are by definition inefficient and its workers incompetent, and since telecom is a complex arena, getting the government involved would just muck it up. What's more, when we look at examples of municipal projects, they're messed up and there's a risk of losing big money on them. Finally, we were told that the private sector was already executing on a plan to deploy broadband, so we should all just be patient and calm down.

These guys pulled out the stops, using their powerful lobby influence and astroturfing in attempts to wage a war of public opinion. I have rich memories, really, of some of the arguments they waged. Ah, those were the days...

The argument in favor of government ownership of these networks decried the slow pace of private sector deployment; the lack of broadband infrastructure and our poor competitive position vis a vis other nations; and the high prices charged in a less than competitive market, with a consequence of leaving so many of our population out of the broadband equation - the fabled Digital Divide.

So here we are now, two years later, as these municipal projects continue, if at a little slower pace and with less ambitious goals than before, certainly with less press coverage, less sturm und drang, as it were. Yet the impact of these municipal wireless projects, both small in scope and small in number, remains well, small. As a nation we fall ever further behind when it comes to broadband infrastructure, and the Cable Telecom Broadband Duopoly continues in place. Can't we do, well, more?

Posted on November 13, 2007 at 09:01 PM

Comments

Post a comment