Colorado Voters Continue To Opt Out Of State's Protectionist, ISP-Written Broadband Law
from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept
For years we've discussed how ISPs like Comcast have spent millions of dollars quite literally buying shitty, protectionist laws in 21 states. Said laws either ban or significantly hamstring towns and cities from building their own broadband networks, or in some cases from even engaging in public/private partnerships. It's a scenario where ISPs get to have their cake and eat it too; they often refuse to upgrade their networks in under-served areas (particularly true among telcos offering DSL), but also get to write shitty laws preventing these under-served towns from doing anything about it.
This dance of dysfunction has been particularly interesting in Colorado, however. While lobbyists for Comcast and CenturyLink managed to convince state leaders to pass such a law (SB 152) in 2005, the legislation contains a provision that lets individual Colorado towns and cities ignore the measure with a simple referendum, something telecom lobbyists have certainly come to regret. Not surprisingly, with frustration mounting over sub-standard broadband and awful customer service, more than a hundred Colorado cities have voted to exempt themselves from the state law over the last few years.
That happened again during the recent midterm elections, when eighteen additional communities voted to opt out of the restrictive, protectionist law. According to the Institute For Local Self Reliance (which helps communities help themselves to improve local connectivity) the votes weren't even close in most of these towns and cities, with voter approval rates like 73%, 80%, and 90%. With this week's votes, the group notes that more than 60% of Colorado communities have taken back their rights to make their own decisions on infrastructure for themselves:
"Within Colorado’s 64 counties, a total of 40 have brought the opt out question to their voters; all referendums passed. Now, 62.5 percent of counties in the state are free of SB 152, leaving only 37.5 percent or 24 counties subject to the harmful law."
The stark voter approval again highlights how issues like better broadband and net neutrality aren't actually partisan in the real world. ISP policy folks just like to pretend otherwise to sow division, hamstring consent, and stall meaningful reform. In reality, most everybody wants cheaper, better broadband. And some basic oversight preventing telecom monopolies from abusing their power to harm consumers and competitors. And the right to declare, via democratic vote, that you'd like your town or city to explore alternative options when the private market fails.
People are constantly looking for a place to begin when addressing the nation's broadband dysfunction, and the 21 states ISPs conned into eroding local citizen rights are a wonderful place to start. The ISLR maintains a handy map that highlights precisely which states have passed such laws at ISP lobbyist behest. While municipal broadband shouldn't be seen as a panacea, letting communities explore public or public/private networks as alternatives to a broken status quo is an organic way to apply a lit bit of pressure on an industry that all-too-frequently finds real competition to be an entirely alien affair.
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: broadband, colorado, municipal broadband
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, only one thing to do really...
Pass an 'amendment' to the original law, 'clarifying' that communities are not in fact allowed to opt out of the state-wide protectionist law. I mean really, companies like Comcast clearly know what's best for those communities, and as such they're only trying to save them from themselves with laws ensuring that only the major companies are allowed to offer service(theoretically, at some point in the future).
As more and more communities opt out I expect that the major ISP's will get more and more desperate to shut the process down, as if one state does it then it would be all too easy for other states to follow suit, and we just can't have that now can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
While I understand your post was tongue in cheek I think we must most emphatically emphasize that we can, they can't, with they being the ISP monopolies and we being everybody else who isn't an investor in those ISP monopolies (or someone the ISP monopolies invest in, like politicians).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
They have 1 corner stone..
"If we F'ed up, we can always change it back", Which is REALLY a bad way to think/do things..
We would get punished if we Messed up this way..
"I can do this until I get Caught." is not a great idea for those not in control..
Oops I got caught...is not a solution..We need to look and solve the problems BEFORE they happen. not change our minds after the fact.(esp when we already have the Facts)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
An interesting one happened in Canada a few years back where the Federal government wanted to move to a federal sales tax; some areas said "over my dead body" -- then a politician got elected on the "over my dead body" platform and it turned out they'd been secretly working in the background to implement the tax. The province got a MASSIVE number of signatures required to kill the legislation, and it got dropped, despite politicians doing the "but we CAN'T change it back now!"
Just leave that as a reminder that there is no such thing as "too big/intertwined to fail." The people in a democracy can always call a vote of non confidence and rescind a law or politician, if they want to badly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
Only if there's a mechanism to do so. I think that's a feature of the parliamentary system. In the US, at the federal level there is no provision to recall officials. Some states have such laws and some do not, and there is a lack of clarity on whether a state can pass a law allowing its citizens to recall their members of Congress.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_recall
Similarly, there is no national ballot initiative system. Some states have them for state issues and some do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
Also, our state assembly bill process is designed to slow roll changes in such a way that it can't be "slipped" it under the table or quickly.
TL;DNR - State assembly can't pass a law overriding this for the home rule cities, and our assembly system is built to avoid allowing crap bills through (at least quickly).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, only one thing to do really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The got two things right
I meant that in a snarky kind of way, but really if you think about it, they are really one and the same. The State is forward/progressive/liberal enough (BYOL, bring your own label) to allow individuals the ability to choose what they feel is best for themselves. That is the kind of politics I like; when the government gets out of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The got two things right
Ah yes, it's great when the government gets out of the way and allows...[checks notes] the government to build and run its own ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The got two things right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The got two things right
Not sure the two are similar as they have different problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The got two things right
Perhaps by land area, but the vast majority of people living in the state have cell service. Personally I don't think that would be a good use of public funds. If you want cellular service, then live somewhere where there's cellular service. If you want to live somewhere remote and mountainous, understand that that decision has consequences. Ensuring everyone or nearly everyone has access to landline phone and broadband is great, but I don't think a statewide cellular initiative is necessary or warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The got two things right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The got two things right
You dont have to persecute or prosecute them for it..
As long as you dont bother/hurt other persons, FINE..
In Idaho, it depends on the Country you are in, and Which cop is on duty..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The got two things right
go have fun with this..
http://keepidaho.org/#
Its going all over ROKU, and idaho..
I love Percentages without a BASE NUMBER...
And some of the locations they use, are silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Market is not We Say So
The way I see it, no company should legally be allowed to force anyone into having no alternatives to doing business with them, that is not how the free market is meant to function. That is how a feudal economy works. And Comcast et. al. are not kings, and neither is Trump, no matter how much they bluster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market is not We Say So
Business does what business gets away with, you can whine all you want but it does not affect them at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Market is not We Say So
The way I see it, no company should legally be allowed to force anyone into having no alternatives to doing business with them, that is not how the free market is meant to function. That is how a feudal economy works. And Comcast et. al. are not kings, and neither is Trump, no matter how much they bluster."
Exactly how I feel about allowing the government to force me to pay for municipal ISP.
Do not take away my rights to choose, DO NOT force me to pay for municipal ISP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]