This is an item in our Local Government Toolkit.
Residents you represent may want faster or more reliable internet service than they currently have. One option that sometimes comes up is municipal broadband—where the internet infrastructure or service is funded by the municipality rather than by private companies.
While increasing the number of the internet options is a worthy goal, the frequent failures of municipal broadband projects should caution local officials to carefully evaluate whether such efforts are worth pursuing. A major issue with municipal broadband is that all taxpayers are required to fund it, even though not all residents will benefit. For instance, those who choose other providers—like 5G home wireless, satellite, or existing copper or fiber services—are still obligated to pay for the municipal network’s installation and upkeep.
Ultimately, if a company wants to provide internet service, then those companies should raise the funds and build the infrastructure. Forcing residents to cover cost overruns or lower-than-expected adoption rates is not the best scenario.
Though many people want faster or cheaper internet, using taxpayer money to subsidize a specific type of internet service raises both philosophical and practical concerns. If current providers are benefiting from subsidies, government-granted advantages, or monopolies, those should be eliminated too. Ideally, if a provider is willing to invest in building the infrastructure without government support, that would be a better solution. For these reasons, we recommend leaving internet service to the private market and avoiding municipal broadband projects.
Are you a local elected official and interested in chatting with us more about this topic? Please reach out to us at localgovt@libertas.institute—we’d love to chat!
Resources:
Op-eds and Articles:
- More Questions Than Answers for Herriman’s Broadband Proposal
- Utah’s UTOPIA: Necessary Infrastructure or an Illegitimate Pseudo-Market?
