This Bill Could Stop Protectionist State Broadband Laws, But ISP Control Over Congress Means It Won't Pass
from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept
We've noted for years that one way incumbent broadband providers protect their duopoly kingdoms is by quite literally buying state laws that protect the status quo. These laws, passed in roughly twenty different states, prevent towns and cities from building their own broadband networks or in some instances from partnering with a private company like Google Fiber. Usually misleadingly presented by incumbent lobbyists and lawmakers as grounded in altruistic concern for taxpayer welfare, the laws are little more than pure protectionism designed to maintain the current level of broadband dysfunction -- for financial gain.Earlier this year, the FCC tried to use its Congressional mandate under the Communications Act to eliminate the restrictive portions of these laws in two states. But the FCC's effort was shot down as an overreach by the courts earlier this month, and the FCC has stated it has no intention of continuing the fight. That leaves the hope of ending these protectionist laws either in the hands of voters (most of whom don't have the slightest idea what's happening) or Congress (most of whom don't want the telecom campaign contributions to stop flowing).
Undaunted, Representative Anna Eshoo this week introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2016 in the House, which is intended to be a companion bill to the existing bill of the same name already introduced in the Senate by Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden. Both bills would ban states from passing any law that prohibits a city, municipality or public utility from providing "advanced telecommunications capabilities" to state communities. In a statement, Eshoo expressed her displeasure at the ongoing efforts to thwart alternative broadband options:
"I’m disappointed that a recent court ruling blocked the FCC’s efforts to allow local communities to decide for themselves how best to ensure that their residents have broadband access,” Eshoo said. “This legislation clears the way for local communities to make their own decisions instead of powerful special interests in state capitals."Which is all true, though both bills have virtually no chance at passing. Incumbent ISPs have been very successful in paying lawmakers to argue that any attempt to eliminate these protectionist laws is an "assault on states' rights," as argued by the likes of Marsha Blackburn. Of absolutely no concern to these critics is the fact that large companies are writing and buying the passage of state laws that ensure many states remain broadband backwaters solely to protect incumbent ISP revenues.
"Rather than restricting local communities in need of broadband, we should be empowering them to make the decisions they determine are in the best interests of their constituents. Too many Americans still lack access to quality, affordable broadband and community broadband projects are an important way to bring this critical service to more citizens."
On the bright side, the rise of alternative (though limited) options like Google Fiber -- and the FCC's fight -- have shined a very bright spotlight on a practice that has been ongoing for fifteen years with little to no public and press attention. As such, ISPs (and the politicians that love them) are having a much harder time than ever convincing locals that laws keeping them on expensive, sluggish broadband are in their collective best self-interest.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: competition, congress, fcc, municipal broadband
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
send the word to everyone you know and have them send a reply to their congressmen and women. If we give the impression that if they don't pass it then they won't see any other kickbacks, then maybe they'll finally quit this bull
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the county and townships rights trumping the state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about the county and townships rights trumping the state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of authority
Again, focusing on broadband laws at the state level will be a much better use of time because they're easier to pass and won't be struck down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about the county and townships rights trumping the state?
Also, I want fiber run to my tree-fort. Fort's rights, you blundering incorporated-jurisdiction bureaucrats!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of authority
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congress...
And we keep asking these asses to add more regulation... WHY?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It will pass
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It will pass
Easiest way to make this bill ass is to include it with another must ASS bill.
No need for thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Congress...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It will pass
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Congress...
Where does it end?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bribes and more bribes, but leaglised by the people accepting the bribes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of authority
Fun fact: sale of marijuana was regulated by the feds using this argument before nation wide bans popped up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bribes and more bribes, but leaglised by the people accepting the bribes.
The market ain't free and it can't be freed up by allowing corporate and government bad actors to continue to collude against us. Big business can actually be a force for good, but only when it's kept in check by regulations that enforce the right of other entities to compete with them. After that, if excellence creates a natural monopoly, I'm not bothered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]