Colorado Voters Shoot Down Comcast's Shitty, Protectionist State Broadband Law
from the Comcast-knows-what's-best-for-you dept
For years we've noted how large ISPs like Comcast quite literally write and buy protectionist state laws preventing towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (or striking public/private partnerships). These ISPs don't want to spend money to improve or expand service into lower ROI areas, but they don't want towns and cities to either -- since many of these networks operate on an open access model encouraging a little something known as competition. As such it's much cheaper to buy a state law and a lawmaker who'll support it -- than to actually try and give a damn.
And while roughly twenty three states have passed such laws, Colorado's SB 152, co-crafted by Comcast and Centurylink in 2005, was notably unique in that it let local towns and cities hold local referendums on whether they'd like to ignore it. And over the last few years, an overwhelming number of Colorado towns and cities have voted to do so, preferring to decide local infrastructure issues for themselves instead of having lobbyists for Comcast dictate what they can or can't do in their own communities, with their own tax dollars.
Yet another vote on this front was held this week in Colorado Springs. Note that the vote only opened the door to letting city voters consider building such a network, yet Comcast and Centurylink broke local spending records in their attempts to scuttle the ballot initiative. That included numerous misleading videos trying to convince locals that if they voted yes on ignoring the protectionist state laws, the city would struggle to pave roads and develop affordable housing.
According to the Coloradoan, none of these efforts worked:
"Voters on Tuesday approved a city proposal that would permit the City Council to establish a telecommunications utility to provide broadband services. Unofficial, partial returns as of 12:42 a.m. showed the measure passing with 57.15 percent of the vote. Ballot Question 2B does not require the council to create the utility. It gives council flexibility in setting up a business model for providing high-speed internet, including entering into a partnership with a private company."
Again, this doesn't mean Fort Collins will build a network. But it should be obvious why large duopolies like Comcast (which is actually seeing a growing monopoly in more regions than ever) want to prevent towns from even discussing the idea. Actual competition would put an end to Comcast's long-standing ability to charge more and more money (including usage caps and overage fees) for what's quite literally the worst customer service in America. And as telcos in countless markets refuse to upgrade aging DSL lines, Comcast's power is only growing.
Like net neutrality, for years Comcast successfully framed municipal broadband as a partisan debate to sow discord and stall these efforts. But disdain for Comcast's abysmal service obliterates such partisan divides, and over time people have realized that more creative, government-involved approaches are necessary if we want to compensate for a broken market and improve the country's mediocre broadband. If Comcast doesn't like the idea of towns and cities getting into the broadband business, there remains an ingenious solution to the "problem": provide better, cheaper, and faster service.
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: colorado, competition, municipal broadband, states rights
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just wait until Google Fibber hits town!
the network that's then sold to Google for $1.
It'll be dawn of a new age. The 4th Reich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wait until Google Fibber hits town!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wait until Google Fibber hits town!
That's a no brainer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wait until Google Fibber hits town!
I can complain to my local politician about the government service. The private business doesn't care if I complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just wait until Google Fibber hits town!
I can pay millions for the government to supply the service or tens of millions in fees for a private business to pinky-promise that they will supply the same service at some point. Probably.
You left out a few words there. Being paid for the job does not actually mean that it will be done, as the companies in question have made quite clear in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
which city?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which city?
These are the cities that voted to opt out of SB 152
Eagle County: 85 percent
Boulder County: 82 percent
Alamosa: 71 percent
Avon: 83 percent
Dillon: 74 percent
Eagle: 85 percent
Fort Lupton: 66 percent
Georgetown: 76 percent
Greeley: 61 percent
Gypsum: 85 percent
Idaho Springs: 70 percent
Kremmling: 88 percent
Louisville: 82 percent
Manitou Springs: 84 percent
Minturn: 81 percent
Monte Vista: 61 percent
Silverthorne: 85 percent
Snowmass Village: 90 percent
Vail: 85 percent
Colorado Springs voted in April to opt out. They voted yesterday to invest in city owned broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which city?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the sad part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sad part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the sad part
The reply by Seam above suggests it doesn't work that well. Most cities did remove the restrictions by a landslide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the sad part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the sad part
That was 57% in favor of starting the work, in Fort Collins. They overturned the restriction in 2015 with 83% of the vote, and all other votes around that time had similar results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the sad part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast goofed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matter of scale
Taking more money and/or reducing value for millions while giving to dozens is much more likely to leave you with lined pockets than the other way round.
The Supreme Court has ruled bribery to be a First Amendment activity, so of course it is the most effective as well as legal way to secure profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a list of these 21 states?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a list of these 21 states?
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-co mpetition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a list of these 21 states?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can suggest it but to outright say something you know is a lie as fact is illegal here.
Does the US have any standards left when it comes to truth in advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]