The Washington Post's Jonathan Krim reports that some local governments are considering building high-speed data networks to service their constituents:

For the millions of people who cannot afford high-speed Internet access, some local officials think they've hit on the answer: Build government-owned networks to provide service at rates below what big telecommunications companies charge.

As someone who gained access to broadband Internet at home only a year ago, this sounds like a great idea!

From San Francisco to St. Cloud, Fla., an estimated 200 communities are toying with community-owned networks, sparking a battle with cable and telephone companies over how public, or private, access to the Internet should be.

The companies are lobbying furiously to block such plans, fearful that their businesses would be hurt. Their efforts most recently paid off Tuesday night in Pennsylvania, where a new law bans local governments from creating their own networks without first giving the primary local phone company the chance to provide service.

While I admittedly have a prejudice for business over government, this is starting to sound like a corporate giant is unfairly wielding its influence to bend government action to its will. Naturally, the anti-big business crowd is up in arms about this move.

For [consumer advocates], government has a long history of providing essential public services, such as national highways or electricity in rural areas.

"The Internet...is a true global public utility," said Jeffrey Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, an advocate for consumer rights online. "We should be trying to provide it for free."

Wait a minute. Free? A governmental body is going to provide a "free" service? Nope, sorry, there ain't no such thing. Now I'm reading the story in a different light. Consumer advocates typically want the government to spend my money on someone else, so let's look at this deal a bit more carefully.

At least, they argue, community networks should be able to give the large companies some competition.

Wha-wha-WHAT? Since when was a role of government to compete with businesses? What kind of warped mind thinks that way? I'm liking this idea less and less.

Harold J. Feld, associate director of the Media Access Project, a consumer-media advocacy group, said a phone or cable company could always come in and provide a wireless network, competing on price and service with any municipal offering.

"But who gets to decide what municipalities can do?" Feld said. "Will it be corporations?"

So let me see if I've got this straight: Mr Feld and his socialist comrades want the government to slip their hands into my pocket, forcibly extract my money, and use it to subsidize a service provided by businesses? To compete with businesses?

And then he throws out the red herring of corporate control of municipalities. Sorry, Mr Feld, your sleight-of-hand (known 'round these parts as "lying") won't wash.

Companies such as Verizon Communications Inc., which helped shape the Pennsylvania law, argue that telecommunications firms would have little incentive to build networks if they have to compete with government-subsidized service.

Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe noted that the company is under state mandate to deploy high-speed access to customers in all of its Pennsylvania territory by 2015.

"If we should be asked to do that, we should be able to make a business of it," he said, and not compete with governments that can borrow money to build out a system more cheaply and can tax residents to pay for the service.

Maybe I'm gullible, or maybe all that Rovian-mind-control during the election campaign has left me vulnerable to evil, corrupt business ploys, but this sounds reasonable to me.

I will grant that there's a problem with spreading broadband access to parts of the country. But the reason we've got broadband "holes" around the country is because the return on the investment required for universal coverage isn't enough to justify the effort. And that fact applies to government as much as it does to business.

Advocates for government-provided Internet service also ignore another fact: especially in the 21st Century, people choose where they live. There are many benefits to living out "in the sticks." There are prices to be paid for those benefits. You can't go around the corner to the store to pick up a dozen eggs. You're going to need to drill a well for your water, and build a septic system to get rid of it after you've used it.

Electricity is a much more vital need than broadband Internet access. So did the farmers and ranchers depend on government to build the infrastructure necessary to deliver electricity to their property? No, they established Rural Electric Cooperatives to pool their resources and work together to get what they needed. Maybe that's an example to follow with the Internet.

And I should point out that the motivation behind some of this effort to get governments involved in providing Internet service is because broadband Internet is too expensive for some folks. Guess what? So are new Hummers, Mercedes, million-dollar homes, vacations in Cannes, and many other things. Dialup service is affordable to just about everyone. It's not nearly as convenient as broadband, but when you don't have much money, you have to deal with what you got. Trust me on this point; I've got plenty of experience deciding how to spend what little money I had in my bank account.

Here's another bit of misdirection to encourage you to support government going into business:

"Just like roads and transportation were keys to our past, a digital infrastructure and wireless technology are keys to our future," Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street said in September when he announced the plan.

No, Mr. Mayor, it's not at all like roads. Roads have existed longer than the human race. They've always been "community property." Having a ubiquitous road system is beyond the capability of businesses, and until relatively recently, there was no feasible way to collect fees for their use. That's why highway infrastructure has developed as a governmental concern. Broadband Internet is nothing like that, other than its value to individuals and society. But just because something is valuable doesn't mean that governments should try to take them over.

Especially if it means they're going to be sticking their hands into my pocket — again.