Fast, affordable Internet access for all.
jim baller
Content tagged with "jim baller"
Jim Baller Returns for Vol 3 of Muni Network History - Community Broadband Bits Episode #67
Jim Baller on the History of Municipal Networks, Part II on Community Broadband Bits Podcast
Jim Baller Discusses Municipal Broadband History - Community Broadband Bits Episode #57
National League Of Cities Webinar on Local Broadband Solutions June 13
The National League of Cities will be presenting a free webinar on June 13 on local broadband solutions. The event, titled Local Broadband Initiatives: Finding a Model That Works for You, is scheduled at 2 p.m. EDT.
The speaker line up includes three leaders in policy, law, and implementation:
- Jim Baller, President, Baller Herbst Law Group, Washington, DC
- Joanne Hovis, President, CTC Technology and Energy, Kensington, MD and President, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, Kensington, MD
- Deborah Acosta, Chief Innovation Officer, City of San Leandro, CA
NLC describes the discussion as:
Broadband, or high-speed internet, service providers can take many forms, ranging from national franchises to local providers to city/county governments to a combination of public and private partners working together. This webinar will give participants a better understanding of what the landscape of local broadband initiatives looks like in terms of public-private models, how and where local governments fit into these partnerships, and how they are financing and leveraging these initiatives to get the most benefit for their communities.
You can register for free.
Discussing the FCC's Gigabit Challenge
National Association of Counties Covers South Carolina Laws to Restrict Community Broadband
The National Association of Counties (NACo) gave us permission to reprint an article they recently wrote in their County News publication. NACo advocates for county governments on federal policy that impacts local decsion and local control. NACo is based in Washington, D.C.
In the article, author Charles Taylor discusses the perils of Oconee and Orangeburg Counties in South Carolina, both involved in broadband projects supported by stimulus funds. Because of a new law passed this past summer, those projects are in danger and the possibility of future projects is all but extinguished.
Rural counties' broadband projects face uncertainty
The success of two South Carolina counties’ plans to provide broadband access to rural areas could be in jeopardy because of a new state law that severely restricts public broadband projects. It also essentially bans new ones.
Oconee and Orangeburg counties received more than $27 million in federal stimulus funds in 2010 for rural broadband projects.
A South Carolina law, enacted in July, requires local governments that offer broadband Internet services to charge rates similar to those of private companies, even if the government could provide the service at a lower cost and the area is not served by commercial providers.
“It effectively prohibits municipalities from operating their own broadband systems through a series of regulatory and reporting requirements,” said Catharine Rice, president of the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA). “These practically guarantee municipalities could never find financing because the requirements would render even a private sector broadband company inoperable.”
Policy In-Depth: Debate over Muni Broadband Competing With Private Sector
On June 1, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation held an oxford-style debate over the proposition: "Governments should neither subsidize nor operate broadband networks to compete with commercial ones."
Jim Baller and I spoke against the proposition while Rob Atkinson and Jeff Eisenach defended it during the 2 hour, 15 minute session. I was unable to be in DC and thus participated by the magic of modern telecommunications.
This is a long but valuable and unique discussion. We left talking points behind, actually responded to the points raised by the other side, and presented both sides of this debate in a reasonable manner. In short, this is exactly the kind of discussion we would elected officials to consider before legislating on the matter. But it very rarely happens -- nothing even remotely close to it occured in North Carolina when Time Warner Cable pushed its bill through the Legislature to enact a de facto ban on muni networks in the state.
You can watch it here.
Mitchell and Baller Defend Community Networks in ITIF Debate on June 1
Sign up for a live webcast (or if you are in DC, please attend) of Jim Baller and Christopher Mitchell engaging in an Oxford-style debate on the subject of community broadband with Rob D. Atkinson and Jeff Eisenach on June 1 at 9:00 EDT.
The statement to be debated is: "Governments Should Neither Subsidize nor Operate Broadband Networks to Compete with Commercial Ones." Guess which side Jim and I will take?
Jim Baller Discusses Muni Broadband on TelecomTV
OneCommunity: An Important Model for America’s Broadband Revival
The Baller Herbst Law Group filed an extensive report with the FCC detailing important information about OneCommunity - a fascinating nonprofit organization connecting many communities with fiber and wireless connectivity in Ohio. OneCommunity works with a variety of public and private sector partners to expand access to last mile and middle mile connectivity. Because they fall within our broad definition of putting public needs first, I wanted to highlight this report.
OneCommunity’s roots go back to 2001. At the time, Case Western Reserve University (Case) had a robust fiber-optic communications system and considerable networking expertise, but the rest of Cleveland lacked advanced communications capability. Case’s president, Edward Hundert, and its chief information officer, Lev Gonick, believed that broadband connections to the Internet promised to be a major factor in the local economy’s long-term health; that broadband could transform Northern Ohio from a manufacturing-based to an information-based economy; and that Case could play a profoundly beneficial role in enhancing Cleveland’s broadband future. As a result, Hundert and Gonick reached out to several of Cleveland’s leading government, educational, cultural, philanthropic, and other non-profit organizations and persuaded them to join Case in founding a new entity called “OneCleveland” that would provide gigabit connectivity to participating organizations and pave the way for widespread and free wireless service.
OneCleveland expanded far outside the City and changed its name to OneCommunity. It has already tallied an impressive list of achievements:
In the Northern Ohio region, OneCommunity facilitated public and private arrangements for the deployment of a gigabit-capacity fiber-optic community network, soon spanning 22 counties and now serving over 200 subscriber entities and 1,500 schools, hospitals, clinics, government, and public safety locations. Over one million citizens are affected by the organizations that OneCommunity serves through the network.
The network is open and carrier neutral, but so much more. Read the paper -- and appendixes -- for more information. PS : I should note that I disagree with the conclusion: