Talk:Municipal broadband

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The New Orleans network was bought? I can't confirm; in fact, the following widely cited article says just the opposite. DanConnolly (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup: The current articel is tinged with ad-like wordings, but not strongly enough to warrant a {{NPOV}} tag. 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The cons section discusses market distortions by government intervening in the marketplace. This is true, but it works both ways. The pros section needs to cover the fact that broadband service is essentially a natural monopoly and a public utility and therefore it makes sense to have tight government regulation or public ownership. Essentially, I'm concerned that the article currently is slightly biased against municipal broadband (although the criticisms certainly should not be removed because they are valid, just the pros section needs to be beefed up). (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Minneapolis[edit]

How can we have an article about Municipal broadband and not include Wireless Minneapolis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, why is there an entire subsection on Bristol, VA? Since there's already a link to an article on Cities with Municipal Wireless Networks, shouldn't that section be removed? dweinberger 12:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talkcontribs)

Copy Editing[edit]

This article is current in the list of backlogged articles needing copy editing from back in December, 2007. I'm new to the whole copy edit task so please bear with me and keep me honest. If I get something wrong please just let me know. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To do (feel free to add to this list):

  1. Clean up citations for existing references.
  2. Make a first pass for simple phrasing, grammar, punctuation, etc.
  3. Find additional references for missing information or rework as needed.
  4. Expand content to bring it up to date.

--GoRight (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal and Regulatory Framework[edit]

Possible sources:

The 'Cons' Section seems like propoganda[edit]

The Cons section does not provide any references and just poses a barrage of leading questions. If there is going to be a cons section it should be thoroughly researched and cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this motion. There are no citations in the "Disadvantages" section of this article. The language currently used in this section is also very opinionated and highly charged. Some additional discussion of "Municipal Network economics" and the "Implications of classifying/regulating broadband as a utility" might help sort out the issues related to this dispute.

There might also be some discussion of the multi-state lobby group called ALEC. Their members include most of the incumbent telecommunications players and they are the group responsible for drafting much of the state-level legislative initiatives aimed at prohibiting municipalities from building out their own networks. A number of documents from ALEC leaked online, exposing their efforts to stop municipal broadband. JFN (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

longmont colorado[edit]

There is no discussion of the ISP fights against muni broadband. For example the fights they had in longmont colorado to overcome legal restrictions against broadband and the cable company lobbying against it:

I added a brief blurb to the controversies section and several citations to support. (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC) (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

pov check[edit]

Most of the controversies section is uncited and seems dubious. I nominated the article for a POV check. "Technical issues" with muni broadband? (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I added some cited material at the top. I'd argue we cite or remove the uncited material at the bottom. (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I ended up just deleted that section - it's been there for years and there doesn't seem to be any movement on making it sourced. I think it's better to not have the bloat there, and if anyone wants to find sources and restore it we'll all be grateful. Aerothorn (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)