|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Municipal broadband article.|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
- EarthLink To Shut Down New Orleans' Municipal Wi-Fi, By W. David Gardner InformationWeek April 25, 2008 03:06 PM
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).
- 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 (talk • contribs)
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):
- Clean up citations for existing references.
- Make a first pass for simple phrasing, grammar, punctuation, etc.
- Find additional references for missing information or rework as needed.
- Expand content to bring it up to date.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
- The Wall Street Journal, Friday, August 17, 2001, A1, quoted in Kelly, “Old Snake Oil in New Bottles: Ideological Attacks on Local Public Enterprises in the Telecommunications Industry,” (APPA, Oct. 2001), p. 20. Old Snake Oil in New Bottles: Ideological Attacks on Local Public Enterprises in the Telecommunications Industry.
The 'Cons' Section seems like propoganda
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 184.108.40.206 (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)
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: http://gigaom.com/2011/10/19/what-a-fight-for-broadband-tells-us-about-democracy/
- I added a brief blurb to the controversies section and several citations to support.220.127.116.11 (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.18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)