3 Out Of 4 Americans Support Community Broadband, Yet 19 States Still Ban Or Hinder Such Networks
from the getting-out-of-our-own-way dept
For years a growing number of US towns and cities have been forced into the broadband business thanks to US telecom market failure. Frustrated by high prices, lack of competition, spotty coverage, and terrible customer service, some 750 US towns and cities have explored some kind of community broadband option. And while the telecom industry routinely likes to insist these efforts always end in disaster, that's never actually been true. While there certainly are bad business plans and bad leaders, studies routinely show that such services not only see far better customer satisfaction scores than large private ISPs, they frequently offer better service at lower, more transparent pricing than many private providers.
Undaunted, big ISPs like AT&T and Comcast have waged a multi-pronged, several decades attack on such efforts. One, by writing and buying protectionist laws in dozens of states either hamstringing or banning cities from building their own networks, often in cases where private ISPs refuse to expand service. Two, by funding economists, consultants, and think tankers (usually via proxy organizations) happy to try and claim that community broadband is always a taxpayer boondoggle -- unnecessary because private sector US broadband just that wonderful.
Of course if you ask actual American consumers, they generally support towns and cities building better, faster broadband networks if they've been historically underserved. And they most certainly don't approve of Comcast buying state laws that eliminate their voting right to make local infrastructure decisions for themselves. A recent Consumer Reports survey found that three out of four Americans support community broadband efforts:
"Three out of four Americans feel that municipal/community broadband should be allowed because it would ensure that broadband access is treated like other vital infrastructure such as highways, bridges, water systems, and electrical grids, allowing all Americans to have equal access to it."
The survey also found that the subject somewhat splits along partisan lines, despite not technically being a partisan issue (more on that in a second):
"A larger percentage of Democrats (85%) than Independents (74%) and Republicans (63%) say municipal/community broadband should be allowed."
Here's where I'll note that wanting to maintain your local voting rights to make infrastructure decisions for yourselves isn't really a partisan issue. Wanting better broadband isn't a partisan issue. A disdain for regional monopolies like Comcast isn't partisan. Most community broadband networks have been built in conservative cities (the most popular being Chattanooga). The subject is often only partisan because regional monopoly lobbyists and policy folks like to frame it that way in policy conversations to sow dissent, stall consensus, and undermine anything that challenges their regional monopoly power.
ISPs could easily derail the movement by offering better, cheaper, faster broadband in more markets. But the reality is they've found it easier and cheaper to throw campaign contributions at state and federal lawmakers, letting them effectively buy laws banning meaningful challenges to their dominance. As a result, 83 million Americans currently live under a broadband monopoly, and in a long line of states, cities and towns have their hands tied when it comes to actually doing something about it.
Having tracked the US telecom sector for a while, most of the exciting progress in the space is happening on the local level. There's a massive grass roots coalition of utilities, co-ops, governments, small ISPs, local businesses, and public/private partnerships doing most of the heavy lifting in this space. And it remains aggressively idiotic that state leaders continue to block such efforts, often under the misleading claim of "market freedom," simply because AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast don't like a challenge or competition.
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, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, state laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wouldn't just say it's misleading; I'd say it's Orwellian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orwellian1984
yep, our current government enforced broadband monopolies have absolutely no relation to market freedom
why does anybody trust these state and federal politicians to handle anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Three out of four Americans feel that municipal/community broadband should be allowed because it would ensure that broadband access is treated like other vital infrastructure such as highways, bridges, water systems, and electrical grids, allowing all Americans to have equal access to it." - don't let that pesky democracy fool you, corporate profit is more important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 out of 4 Americans
that 3 out of 4 Americans headline is bogus.
the referenced Consumer Reports survey actually comes from a Chicago NORC "AmericaSpeaks" Panel Survey outfit.
the Panel-Survey methodology has no statistical validity and is not a representative sampling of Americans, despite its bold claims to the contrary.
(3 out of 4 Americans can't even define the word Broadband)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 out of 4 Americans
And 10 out of 10 shills are also trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 out of 4 Americans can smell astroturf scum a mile away
Just out of morbid curiosity hun. DO you get paid by the post or by the word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 out of 4 Americans can smell astroturf scum a mile awa
I remember when Richard Bennett at least had the courtesy to log in, now he doesn't even bother with the threadbare pretense of not being a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 3 out of 4 Americans can smell astroturf scum a mile
That can only mean we broke that fragile little ego of his like a stale pretzel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 out of 4 Americans can smell astroturf scum a
You might be right. He hasn't shown his Pai-stained face on Ars Technica for a while either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So?
You wouldn't need the states to proactively ban community broadband if 0 out of 4 Americans were interested in it. You only need laws against things people actually want to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously that kind of statistic means nothing in a capitalist dictatorship like the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well past time to throw benefit of the doubt away
And it remains aggressively idiotic that state leaders continue to block such efforts, often under the misleading claim of "market freedom," simply because AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast don't like a challenge or competition.
The word you're looking for isn't 'idiotic' it's 'corrupt'. The politicians involved know full well what they are doing they just don't care because it pays better to sell out their constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
those in charge of the 19 prohibiting states are obviously being paid more by the incumbent suppliers to keep them in charge! try kicking these fuckers off the various committees etc and start again with some un-bribed and sensible members!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is an un-bribed committee member going to recover their campaign expenses? You don't pull in a few millions just from the (tax-paid) salary unless you rely on soup kitchen dinners and sleep in the streets for several years.
The U.S. system is not intended to work with un-bribed and sensible representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisan
The Republican platform is 1) abortion 2) guns 3) whatever the Democrats oppose. So as soon as a prominent Democrat endorses local control of infrastructure, Republicans are against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Also slamming your hand in a door is bad, don't do that.'
Democrats really need to have fun exploiting that petty spite and make 'Not repeatedly punching yourself in the crotch' a party platform, I have absolutely no doubt that a higher-than-zero number of republicans would take that 'challenge'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]