In Chicago, 90% of voters agreed the internet should be a public utility
qz.com
qz.com
Illinois limits ballots to three referendum questions, and questions chosen by higher-up political entities have precedence over smaller, more local ones. The three questions on the ballot for Chicago are chosen by the Cook County Board of Commissioners. (For these purposes, Cook County is equivalent to the city of Chicago plus a couple neighboring suburbs.)
Background established and into personal opinion: The question is in fact deliberately vague. The Board's goal is not to ask three divisive questions getting at the heart of urgent political matters. It is to fill the ballot with three questions to preclude local, less connected authorities from putting inconvenient, compelling questions on the ballot. Here's a 2018 court case reaffirming that (Calumet City is in Cook County): https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opini...
These questions are deliberately worthless and it's a waste of time to analyze them for policy guidance.
If you're curious, the other two questions this cycle were: * In creating its City-wide plan for continued growth and sustainability, should the City of Chicago place equal focus on the goals of resiliency, equity, and diversity? * Should the State of Illinois restrict the sale or possession of firearms that have been defined as assault weapons or of magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition?
Wow.
Economic one first: Capital investment in publicly owned utilities lags that of private-sector utilities because the former are typically local/regional monopolies.
That can lead to moderate problems when the utility in question is something like municipal water -- maybe grandma's meter breaks and she never gets a bill in 10 years or city workers struggle to meet updated standards as the equipment ages out.
But with something that evolves as fast an internet use? You're likely committing future generations to using last-gen (or worse) tech because upgrades are expensive and there's no local competition to nudge the provider to upgrade.
The other argument is simple politics: If the city owns/controls the pipes, there will be a contingent of voters that want to control content (say, pornography) and a contingent of politicians ready to accommodate them. All of which flies wholly in the face of First Amendment protections covering how the government can('t) regulate speech.
The combination of cries from the public and very limited options will make this a political briar patch after a few cities stub their toes on high-profile cases.
Well, yes. Internet as a public utility is one possible interpretative outcome. Another is subsidizing broadband connections.
“Should the City of Chicago act to ensure that all the City’s community areas have access to broadband Internet?”
It’s just a non-binding ballot measure to gauge public opinion.
The way you’ve responded to this in context to the ballot measure jumps, no, leaps to an alarmist conclusion. there are lots of obvious “government doesn’t own the ISP” ways to ensure community access to broadband Internet.
These could include regulation placed upon ISPs that cap or tie rates to household income, regulate rates for service areas with no competing providers, tie rates to speed and latency to prevent price gouging for outdated technology, or add availability requirements (e.g. ISPs not being allowed to only build fiber out to affluent neighborhoods). They could even be as simple as regulations surrounding making billing more transparent or setting up a website to help people find and compare ISPs in their area.
Just some ideas.
Regardless, the ballot measure doesn’t even go that far to discuss those options. It literally just asks if broadband should be accessible to everyone. Again, it’s simply a voter opinion poll.
Personally I don't think the reasoning Pacifica holds up to the changing landscape for over the air radio and TV anymore, but that's not here or there.
It's strange to me that many of the same people who are concerned with room 641a are people asking to cut out the private entity, not the government. It's entirely possible that I simply don't know some aspect that would make other government entities less susceptible to this kind of strong-arming, but the DMV here sells change-of-address data, so I remain skeptical.