New Protectionist Virginia Law Would Keep Residents From Better Broadband

from the state-legislatures-for-sale dept

For years now we've noted how incumbent ISPs have written and purchased protectionist state laws in roughly twenty states. These laws were quietly passed by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other large ISPs as a response to communities that began considering building their own broadband networks. Granted these efforts only emerged because these communities were frustrated by the lack of competition, poor service, and high prices (aka market failure). Instead of shoring up service and competing, these ISPs found it more economical to simply buy legislation overriding local community rights.

Virginia is just the latest state to happily do the bidding of incumbent telecom giants with a new proposal that would hamstring towns and cities with all manner of restrictions should they decide to build their own networks, or strike a public/private partnership to that same end.

House lawmaker Kathy Byron has crafted the "Virginia Broadband Deployment Act" after receiving healthy campaign contributions from ISPs like Verizon and AT&T. But her proposal actually restricts broadband deployment -- or public/private partnerships like Google Fiber -- by preventing towns and cities from building networks if incumbent ISPs offer speeds of just 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up across 90% of their footprints:

...a locality wouldn't be allowed to offer Internet service if an existing network already provides 10Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds to 90 percent of potential customers. That speed threshold is low enough that it can be met by old DSL lines in areas that haven't received more modern cable and fiber networks.

Of course, because expensive, last-generation DSL and pricey satellite broadband service already likely meet that metric in Virginia, this is effectively a ban on all community broadband -- without the bill's authors having to overtly admit that's what they're doing. But in addition to that restriction, the law would saddle any new municipal broadband project with all manner of logistical caveats, while giving ISPs ample ammunition to sue and cajole any effort that makes it past this first hurdle:

Moreover, the legislation would give private ISPs grounds to challenge municipal broadband projects in court. Local governments seeking to offer broadband would have to file various documents with the state Broadband Advisory Council at least 120 days before construction and "an annual certification by July 1 of each year that any expansion to or changes in its projects or system since the preceding July 1 still qualify as broadband expansion services."

"Any person who believes that any part of such filings is incomplete, incorrect, or false and who is in the business of providing Internet services within the locality shall have standing to bring an action in the circuit court for the locality to seek to require the locality to either comply with the substantive and procedural content of the filings required by this section, or cease to provide services, and no bond shall be required for injunctive relief against the locality," the legislation says.

Many municipal broadband providers are sued right out of the gate by incumbent broadband providers. After the lawsuits inevitably raise project costs and delay timelines, those same ISPs come in and use these struggles as proof positive that community broadband is the pinnacle of dysfunction. Not too surprisingly, Virginia's bill is being heavily promoted by the Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association, which, like most telecom lobbying arms, implies they're just nobly trying to protect taxpayers from themselves:

The VCTA believes that the General Assembly should debate and establish a state policy to determine if local governments should be risking public dollars to build duplicative networks competing with the private sector that it also regulates, taxes and serves as the gatekeeper to the rights of way used to deploy broadband.

This idea that all municipal broadband deployments are automatically failures -- and that taxpayers need protection from themselves -- is a fairly standard argument from telecom industry lobbyists. But municipal broadband deployments are just business plans, and like any business plans -- some are good -- and some aren't. As such, poorly planned networks fail, and well-designed proposals succeed. But there's nothing automatically calamitous about community broadband; it's simply an organic local response to market failure in the broadband space.

These bills have been successful in large part because ISP lobbyists have managed to frame municipal broadband as a partisan issue, intentionally sowing division. But the majority of such networks are built in Conservative cities and states and have broad, bipartisan consumer support (hating Comcast is pretty damn near universal). The reality remains that if ISPs really wanted to kill municipal broadband, they simply have to do a better job. But again, it's much more efficient to buy state laws protecting your stranglehold over a failing market, than to actually stand up and deliver the kind of better service broadband consumers have been demanding for fifteen years.

Filed Under: competition, muni broadband, municipal broadband, virginia

FCC Gives Up On Municipal Broadband Fight

from the knocked-out-in-the-first-round dept

While over-shadowed by the net neutrality vote the same day, the FCC's decision last year to protect municipal broadband was potentially more important. For more than fifteen years incumbent ISPs have quite literally been allowed to buy state laws that hinder communities from improving their broadband networks, or even in some instances from striking public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. These protectionist laws, passed in nineteen different states, are a huge reason why you currently only have the choice of one shitty cable provider and one shitty telco for broadband service (if you're lucky).

The FCC originally believed it could use its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely broadband deployment" to strike down the most restrictive portions of these laws. But as we noted earlier this month, an appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have this authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. And in speaking with the New York Times this week, the agency stated for the first time publicly that this is a fight it won't be pursuing further:

"The F.C.C. does not plan to appeal the federal court’s decision “after determining that doing so would not be the best use of commission resources,” Mark Wigfield, a spokesman for the agency, said in a statement. That means municipalities that want to keep expanding their municipal broadband networks will have to fight to overturn state laws on their own."

Easier said than done. Telecom incumbents, like so many large players, have an absolute chokehold over state legislatures. So much so that ISPs like AT&T continue to have success passing new laws of this type despite growing, significant bipartisan public opposition to them. For years ISPs quickly passed these laws by framing this as a partisan issue of government "competing with the free market." But as Comcast and AT&T consumers get an ongoing master class in how broken and not free the telecom market is, members of both parties have grown increasingly hostile toward protectionism of this type.

What happens now? In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Tom Wheeler proclaimed that he would happy to testify on the behalf of municipal broadband ISPs and their supporters, should they try to push this issue further:

"Should states seek to repeal their anti-competitive broadband statutes, I will be happy to testify on behalf of better broadband and consumer choice. Should states seek to limit the right of people to act for better broadband, I will be happy to testify on behalf of consumer choice."

Some members of Congress are pushing a law that would repeal state laws that curtail local broadband rights, but it has virtually no chance of passing in a Senate equally beholden to AT&T, Charter, Verizon and Comcast campaign contributions. A group of 42 mayors and local government officials have also fired off a letter (pdf) to muni-broadband deployments in North Carolina and Tennessee, expressing "solidarity" in the face of the FCC's court loss:

"While our paths vary, we are united by our commitment to competition and the right of self-determination for all our communities, free from interference," states the letter. "The recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was a disappointing reminder that the ability of local communities to make our own internet decisions remains at risk."

So despite the court loss, there is a critical mass of people, activists, and small providers trying to do something about ISPs writing protectionist state law. But without some federal help and laser-like focus, their ability to magically fix the pay-to-play state legislative process remains a tall order.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, muni broadband, municipal broadband

Tennessee Study Shows State Remains A Broadband Backwater Thanks To AT&T Lobbyists, Clueless Politicians, And Protectionist State Law

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept

We've talked at great lengths about how AT&T's gruesomely cozy relationship with many state legislatures has severely damaged broadband expansion and adoption across huge swaths of the country. That's particularly true in Tennessee, one of nineteen states where AT&T lobbyists have literally written protectionist state laws defending AT&T's monopoly from broadband competition. AT&T's goal has been to stop the rise of public/private partnerships, which have only emerged as a direct response to AT&T's apathy.

AT&T lobbyists have been happily getting such laws passed for fifteen years with little attention by the media. That began to change with the rise of efforts like Google Fiber, which more clearly illustrated how public/private partnerships have become essential in bringing broadband competition to countless areas incumbent ISPs deem "not profitable enough" to care about. Last year, the FCC finally woke up from its own long slumber on the subject, stating it would be preempting measures in two such state laws (in North Carolina and Tennessee) that hindered municipal broadband efforts from expanding.

Tennessee's response? To sue the FCC -- claiming that state rights were being violated (letting AT&T write bad state law? Perfectly ok, though).

As that lawsuit is being hammered out in the courts, Tennessee state leaders have been forced to respond to an increasingly annoyed citizenry; one that's slowly woken up to AT&T's role in keeping Tennessee a broadband backwater. Part of this effort by Tennessee leaders has been to fund a new study taking a closer look at the state of broadband in Tennessee. And while some thought the study would be used to obfuscate state broadband problems, the full survey has been released and it doesn't pull any punches (pdf).

The study ranked Tennessee 40th in terms of overall broadband investment and availability, and found that 13% of households (or 834,545 Tennesseans) lack access to any high-speed broadband internet service whatsoever. The study found that the vast majority of Tennessee residents still get internet access through slower services like DSL, wireless or dial-up connections, either because that's all that's available, or because they couldn't afford faster options. The bright spot in the Tennessee report? The ultra-fast services being offered by the state-owned utility in Chattanooga (EPB):And while the study does yeoman's work avoiding specifically citing AT&T's campaign-cash stranglehold over state leaders like Marsha Blackburn as a massive reason why Tennessee broadband remains mired in mediocrity, it doesn't shy away from pointing out that the state's decision to try and blockade public/private partnerships -- when they're the primary driver of broadband improvement everywhere else in the country -- isn't very smart:

"In States where there are no restrictions, administrative burdens or regulatory limitations for any entity to build telecommunications infrastructure and offer services, there is more competition and more broadband investment, especially in rural parts of the state. Municipalities and electric cooperatives who have a vested interest in the vitality of their local communities are investing in broadband infrastructure because it is a key driver to economic development."

But this shouldn't really be new information for state leaders who prioritize AT&T campaign contributions over the welfare of countless Tennessee residents and smaller businesses. They've just chosen to ignore reports like this one, because they've convinced themselves that selling state laws to the highest bidder is ok -- because they're engaged in a noble fight against government intrusion into the private sector. AT&T, as you might expect, clung tightly to this narrative when asked about the study by the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

"...a spokesman for AT&T called the consultant's report "disappointing," because it appears to favor more government involvement in private business. "It largely ignores private sector investment and focuses heavily on proposals that grow government with little reference to the associated costs and risks to taxpayers," spokesman Joe Burgan said."

In reality, AT&T and other incumbent broadband providers simply adore bloated, dysfunctional government -- just as long as it's doing what AT&T wants. It's when government starts to heed the will of the people that you'll usually find AT&T crying like a petulant child. Tennessee politicians, too, showed they're not making much progress in opening their minds to the reality that improved broadband may mean some layer of local government involvement when the private sector fails state residents:

"Norris, who said he remains wary about municipal broadband based on the failure of Networx in his district near Memphis, said he hopes the push for more broadband is not an excuse for bigger government. Sen. Mark Green, R-Clarksville, vice chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, also expressed concern about allowing government-owned utilities like EPB to compete with private firms such as AT&T or Comcast. "We want to look closely at this study, but in general, I am not for government and business competing in the marketplace," he said.

Again, though: AT&T and Comcast aren't competing, and Senators like Green are letting large ISPs literally write laws ensuring they never have to. And these local governments aren't getting into the broadband business because it's fun or because they're villains trying to ruin your ideological good time -- they're doing it because they've been saddled with awful broadband thanks to regulatory capture perpetuated by the same folks complaining about dysfunctional government.

Dysfunctional government fighting municipal broadband under the pretense of caring about stopping dysfunctional government is, for lack of a more scientific term, a massive disingenuous circle jerk. One that perpetuates distraction from the real issues of the day by intentionally inciting partisan discord.

All told the study found that Tennessee could easily deliver speeds of 25 Mbps to every business and consumer in the state for somewhere between $819.5 million and $1.7 billion. And while that's not a small number, you can be absolutely guaranteed that significantly more than that has been spent by AT&T (and unfortunately taxpayers) over the last fifteen years to ensure real, vibrant broadband competition never materializes.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, lobbyists, muni broadband, protectionism, tennessee
Companies: at&t

AT&T Buries Language In Missouri Traffic Bill To Hinder Broadband Competition

from the the-best-lawmakers-money-can-buy dept

Prompted by AT&T, Missouri passed a state law in 1997 that hamstrings towns and cities looking to build local networks to shore up broadband coverage gaps. Since then, AT&T has made repeated attempts to expand those restrictions further, fearing a growing rise in public/private partnerships from the likes of Google Fiber, Ting, or the countless towns and cities tired of AT&T's pricey, slow broadband service. After a failed attempt last year, AT&T this year introduced protectionist bill HB 2078, shortly after shoveling $62,000 in campaign contributions to state leaders.

AT&T's bills vary in scope across the twenty-odd states in which they've been passed. Some ban community broadband altogether. Some saddle towns and private partners with additional restrictions so combating the incumbent duopoly is financially impossible. Others, like HB2078, employ language that forces towns to hold time-consuming public referendums, at which point AT&T can bury the proposal with a wave of negative PR and lawyers.

All of them have tried to sow partisan discord under the pretense of AT&T just being concerned about taxpayers funding the bill for such projects. But the laws serve just one purpose: protect AT&T's stranglehold over an uncompetitive broadband market. That's obviously a much easier sale in states willing to quite literally let AT&T write state law in exchange for cash donation.

The problem for AT&T is that as Google Fiber and other similar efforts have shown a light on the benefits of public/private partnerships to shore up lagging broadband markets, AT&T's behavior has become increasingly unpopular among both political parties. So when HB2078 stalled after passing through the Missouri House committees on Utility Infrastructure and the Select Committee on Utilities earlier this year, AT&T lobbyists got decidedly more clever. They convinced Missouri House Representative Lyndall Fraker to bury the language of HB2078 into an unrelated bill dealing with Missouri traffic issues:

"The bill seems to have lost momentum since mid-March but its sponsor, Rep. Lyndall Fraker, is taking another approach to make sure his bill gets passed, come hell or high water. Session ends May 13th, so he is now banking on procedural tricks, rather than the substance of his legislation. On May 2nd, when a bill relating to traffic citations, SB 765, came before the body, Fracker proposed to amend it with language from HB 2078. Some of the amended language is even more destructive than the original proposal in HB 2078."

As Ars Technica notes, whether the bill can get conference committee approval now that the public has noticed what AT&T and Fraker attempted to do isn't clear. Though should AT&T succeed, it would only help cement Missouri as a broadband backwater, keeping consumers from fleeing to alternative broadband options as AT&T prepares to impose major new usage caps and overage fees across the majority of the ISP's markets later this month.

Filed Under: broadband, lobbyists, missouri, muni broadband
Companies: at&t

Ted Cruz Pushing Bill Protecting Large ISPs From Competition

from the defenders-of-the-status-quo dept

We've long noted how ISPs have convinced (read: paid) more than twenty states to pass protectionist broadband laws that prohibit towns and cities from improving their own broadband infrastructure. The bills not only saddle community broadband with onerous restrictions to make them less viable, they often even block towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships with companies to improve broadband. Last year, the FCC voted to take aim at two such laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, arguing the laws do little but protect the status quo, hindering the development of alternative broadband delivery options.

Pressured by ISPs, both states quickly rushed to sue the FCC, saying that the agency was violating "states rights" (ignoring the rights violated by letting ISPs write awful state law). The FCC, in contrast, says its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely" broadband deployment under the Communications Act gives it full legal authority to take aim at such restrictions.

Enter Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, who is now pushing amendments alongside Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer that would make a few changes to the FCC Process Reform Act. According to an early version of the proposal provided to industry trade magazines, the bill would tie the FCC's hands when it comes to trying to eliminate state broadband protectionism:

"FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says those laws are pushed by incumbents to prevent price and service competition and the FCC has stepped in to preempt state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina. The FCC is currently in a court battle over that decision. The amendment, according to the amendment list obtained by Multichannel News/B&C, "Prohibits the FCC form preventing states from implementing laws relating to provision of broadband Internet access service by state and local governments."

This is far from the first effort of this kind. Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn pushed a similar measure last year. Usually, the measures try to sow partisan discord by claiming the FCC has just gone power mad, again hoping nobody notices giants like Comcast and AT&T performing state lawmaker puppetry in the periphery to the detriment of local communities.

Note these towns and cities aren't getting into the broadband industry because they think it's fun; they're exploring alternative options because the private sector has failed across huge swaths of the country. Unfortunately, large ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable quite literally control most state legislatures, ensuring things stay that way. ISPs could prevent these kinds of efforts by providing better, cheaper broadband -- though obviously lobbying our compromised state legislative systems is notably less expensive than deploying new fiber -- or lowering prices to compete.

The problem for Cruz is that while ISPs have historically tried to frame municipal broadband as a partisan debate to sow discord, that has been less effective over time as public/private efforts from the likes of Google Fiber or Tucows have highlighted the need for some bigger picture thinking. The majority of such networks are now being built in more Conservative leaning areas, and the idea of municipal broadband tends to have broad, bipartisan support. Apparently, disdain for duopoly apathy and high prices is one of the few things most Americans can agree on.

As such, rushing to defend giant telecom providers from competition doesn't seem like the brightest bet for somebody trying to win hearts and minds ahead of a national election.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, lobbying, muni broadband, states, ted cruz

Tennessee Makes It Clear Protecting AT&T And Comcast From Broadband Competition Is Its Top Priority

from the protectionism-ahoy dept

We've noted a few times that Tennessee is one of numerous states that have literally let incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast write state telecom law. Most notably, around 20 states have now blocked towns and cities from building their own broadband networks -- or striking public/private partnerships -- even in cases where the market has clearly failed. It's protectionism pure and simple, and when the FCC voted last year to try and gut these laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, ISP allies in Congress were quick to assail the FCC for "violating states rights" (to let incumbent ISPs dictate all telecom policy, apparently).

Tennessee's law prevents a popular Chattanooga-based utility-run ISP, EPB, from expanding its up to 10 Gbps offerings. Tennessee Rep. Kevin Brooks recently tried to pass a bill that would have dismantled the state's restriction, but his effort ran face-first into a lobbying wall constructed by companies like AT&T and Comcast. He then recently tried to strip down the measure so it simply let EPB expand near its headquarters and to one neighboring county, but that provision was also shot down 5-3, with one of the nay votes being that of Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive.

Needless to say, Brooks isn't particularly impressed with state lawmakers who continue to let AT&T and Comcast dictate state telecom policy while the state becomes one of the least connected in the nation thanks to cronyism:

"Residents and business people alike in northern Hamilton and portions of Bradley counties say they either have no service, lousy service or wireless service that makes it very expensive to upload and download documents for work and school. Asked who was lobbying against the bill, Brooks said, "the list of who was not would be shorter. I heard they hired 27 lawyers to fight."

...Brooks, R-Cleveland, and other proponents later blasted powerful investor-owned telecommunication providers such as AT&T and Comcast for the loss. And conceding defeat this year, they vowed to return in 2017. "It's a testament to the power of lobbying against this bill and not listening to our electorate...the voice of the people today was not heard. And that's unfortunate."

Incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast, meanwhile, continue to insist that nothing is wrong with the scattered, expensive broadband service they're currently providing the state. And, as we've seen in other states like Missouri, they continue to frame the issue as a partisan one to intentionally sow partisan division, distracting locals from what's actually happening. But again, there's bi-partisan support for leaving the right to improve local infrastructure in the hands of local voters, and not incumbent providers with a vested interest in keeping prices high and mediocrity the norm. And towns and cities wouldn't be exploring getting into the broadband business if they were genuinely satisfied with the current offerings.

For a while broadband efforts from the likes of Google Fiber and Tucows had been shining a spotlight on the need for public/private partnerships to fill in the broadband coverage gaps incumbents refuse to address. But recent votes in Missouri and Tennessee show that old telecom habits (like letting ISPs write awful protectionist law in exchange for campaign contributions) die hard.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, muni broadband, municipal broadband, tennessee