Getting it right and then bending it wrong:
When different governments are free to pursue different approaches to solving public problems, we all gain from the resulting increase in information about what works best. Furthermore, to the extent that governments continue their differing approaches because their citizens have different values, the resulting diversity allows households and businesses to sort themselves accordingly, choosing communities whose policies best fit their own needs and preferences.
I can’t offer similar praise to the commissioners of the FCC, however. They didn’t strike down state laws that blocked one private provider from competing with another. Instead, they struck down laws designed to keep localities from abusing their own governmental powers — their tax exemptions, access to low-cost capital, and eminent domain — to deliver a commercial service in competition with private firms. Surely states are the proper level of government to ensure that such abuses don’t occur.
You can't have it both ways, John. You can't have a dynamic community approach to solving problems and making your city competitive with other cities, while being shackled by an overbearing state government riddled with lobbyists writing their own legislation. You want to talk about outrageous attacks on the free market system? How about corporations writing their own laws and having government "proxies" put their thumbprint on it in return for a nice campaign donation? The bottom line is, if a municipality decides to provide broadband to its residents, and the formula (rates + local taxes) doesn't work to their benefit, those residents can express their disapproval at the voting booth. The crucible of public opinion is much harsher on the local level than at the state level, which is just one more reason why a paternalistic General Assembly runs counter to Democratic principles.