2024-12-08-ITIF-政府拥有的宽带网络没有在公平的竞争环境中竞争（英）_16页_261kb

Government-Owned Broadband Networks Are Not Competing on a Level Playing Field

Ellis Scherer (December 2024)

Introduction
Most local governments lack the competence and economies of scale needed to deliver broadband effectively, compared to private ISPs. Favoring government-owned networks (GONs) due to this misconception can lead to wasted societal resources, unfair competition, and unsustainable outcomes. Evaluating GONs and private ISPs on a level playing field is crucial for the BEAD program.

Key Findings:

1. Inefficiency: The ITIF study of 20 GONs found they are generally less efficient than private ISPs, often operating at a financial loss. They struggle with scale, lack expertise, and have higher costs per customer.
2. Level Playing Field Issue: GONs compete unfairly due to receiving preferential treatment not granted to private ISPs.
3. Sources of Unfair Advantage:
   • Regulatory Advantages: Some GONs control necessary infrastructure (e.g., utility poles) or face fewer regulatory hurdles (e.g., ROW access fees) allowing easier deployment.
   • Funding Disparities: GONs often receive capital grants, tax exemptions, or cross-subsidization from municipal utilities, funds unavailable to private ISPs. This distorts the market and leads to inefficient resource allocation.
   • Overbuilding/Duplication: Some GONs build networks in areas already served by private providers, leading to wasted resources.
   • Selective Deployment: GONs may only deploy in high-density areas or choose profitable routes, neglecting less-return areas.
4. Resource Waste: Favoring GONs leads to inefficient spending of scarce societal resources, diverting funds away from potentially more productive uses. The unlevel playing field artificially props up inefficient networks.
5. Policy Recommendations:
   • States should be cautious about using BEAD funding to sustain inefficient GONs.
   • Policy should favor fair competition, treating GONs and private ISPs equally (same regulations, subsidies, funding sources).
   • Funding allocation should prioritize efficiency (national societal perspective) over simple broadband maximization or political favoritism.

Summary: While GONs are sometimes considered for areas lacking private sector investment, evidence shows they typically lack the efficiency of private ISPs and gain unfair advantages due to favorable regulations and funding. This hinders competition, wastes resources, and is often unsustainable. US broadband policy should focus on creating a level playing field and supporting private market competition rather than artificially supporting suboptimal government networks.

Key Takeaways Reiteration:

• GONs vs. Private ISPs: GONs are less efficient due to lack of experience and scale, leading to losses for 82% (16/20) of studied GONs.
• Uneven Playing Field: GONs benefit from regulatory exemptions (ROW fees, infrastructure access), special funding sources (grants, tax exemptions), and lack transparency.
• Resource Waste & Unfairness: These advantages cause inefficient GONs to waste societal funds and gain an unfair competitive edge.
• Funding Caution: States must be careful with BEAD funding to avoid disproportionately supporting unsustainable GONs. Policy should promote competition, not bail out inefficient providers.
• Conclusion: GONs could compete, but they often perform worse than private alternatives. The benefits of broadband deployment come with high resource costs; favoring less efficient users harms the economy.