The Journal recently ran an editorial (Feb. 20) advocating for the right of local governments to provide broadband to its rural residents, and encouraging the state representatives to pass SB 42 so they no longer have to hold expensive special elections to bypass SB 152.
The editorial also states that “fast, reliable connectivity is essential to economic development.” It goes on further to state that because private industry will not provide this service, it is essential for local governments to step in and provide it to their citizens.
These statements beg for logical questions to be asked. First, is the cost and profitability of these ventures going to be magically changed when taxpayer funds are utilized versus that of private capital? Empirically and historically, government agencies are not well known for efficient allocation of resources and in most cases, because the incentives and constraints are changed, these type of ventures are best known for waste and fraud.
The Journal does correctly identify that the private sector will not provide this service because it fears lack of profitability and potential losses. Why then is it OK for public funds to be used for such follies?
Secondly, where is the proof that rural broadband will be a net economic benefit for all of those who pay the taxes? If Montezuma County were to expend $39 million or whatever the amount settled upon, does this mean that this amount, if kept in the hands of the citizenry, would be wasted and not used for investments in their businesses or for their own benefits as they see fit?
For those who promote this government intervention, I wonder if they have ever considered the concept of opportunity cost?
Lastly, I find it rich that the Journal would be concerned about costly special elections when I do not recall an editorial piece in the past when ballot initiatives were defeated only to be brought up a few years later.
Jim Mahlberg
Cortez
