Despite the technology's youth, the dynamics over its control are as old as the nation itself. Governments and private businesses have long quarrelled over who should control the build-out of highways, canals, railroads, the postal system and telephone networks. Often, what begins as a project of one side eventually falls into the hands of the other: The American railroad system was first constructed by private companies but is now controlled largely by the federal government, while the postal system is run by Washington but faces stiff competition from private couriers such as FedEx and UPS.
Philadelphia is an early high-profile litmus test for whether cities and broadband are a good mix. As is the goal with many municipal projects, the city hopes that its planned wireless broadband network will put it on the map as one of the most technologically advanced cities in the world.
In April, city officials unveiled an ambitious plan to blanket Philadelphia's 135-square-mile area with broadband Wi-Fi access. Officials hope the network will attract tourists and businesses, while providing affordable broadband access to underprivileged residents. The service could cost as little as $20 (£11) a month, which is cheaper than local phone company Verizon's rate of $30.
Not surprisingly, Verizon has fought fiercely against the plan. The Baby Bell — the name given to any of the group of firms created by the break-up of AT&T in the 1980s following an antitrust case — successfully helped shepherd a state bill that bans any city in Pennsylvania from pursuing similar projects without Verizon's input.
State activity
Verizon isn't the only one taking the legislative route. Other Bells and cable companies have thrown their weight behind similar state bills that bar municipalities from building networks. Twenty states have already passed, or are trying to push through, legislation that would impose heavy restrictions on communities creating their own networks in areas already served by Bells and cable companies.
Thirteen of those states — Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington — have passed bills restricting future public broadband projects, though existing initiatives are allowed to operate. The remaining eight have measures pending or have seen their bills fail to reach a vote.
The debate has become contentious, sparking heated opinions over how the nation can become a global leader in broadband. Critics of the state of US broadband penetration cite the nation's ranking below Japan, Korea and Norway, to name a few. But telecommunications giants say broadband adoption continues to skyrocket and that competition remains healthy.
The origins of the conflict date back to the late 1990s, when the Bells and cable giants were just beginning to dip their toes in the broadband stream. Cities eager for high-speed networks faced frustrating delays, particularly in rural centres where the phone and cable companies faced the prospects of heavy costs and slim returns.
