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.

Filed Under: broadband, colorado, municipal broadband

FCC Falsely Declares Community Broadband An 'Ominous' Attack On Free Speech

from the bullshit-factory dept

Absent any hard data to support their claims, you may have noted that the Trump FCC often just makes up some shit.

Like that time FCC boss Ajit Pai tried to claim that net neutrality somehow aids dictators. Or that time Pai's office just made up a DDOS attack to try and downplay massive public backlash to his historically unpopular policies. There's often no real-world data that can defend blindly kissing the rings of widely-loathed telecom monopolies, so bullshit tends to be the weapon of choice when Pai's FCC embraces whatever handout to Comcast and friends is on the menu this week.

The latest case in point: during a speech at the ISP-backed and scientifically-sounding Media Institute, FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly took a moment to broadly declare that community owned and operated broadband providers are an "ominous" threat to free speech:

"I would be remiss if my address omitted a discussion of a lesser-known, but particularly ominous, threat to the First Amendment in the age of the Internet: state-owned and operated broadband networks."

We've long noted how community broadband networks are often an organic response to the expensive, slow, or just-plain unavailable service that's the direct product of a broken telecom market and regulatory capture. While you'll occasionally see some deployment duds if the business models aren't well crafted, studies have shown such networks (there's 750 and counting now in the States) offer cheaper, faster service than many incumbents. This direct threat to incumbent revenues is a major reason why ISP lobbyists have passed protectionist laws in more than 21 states trying to block your town's ability to even consider the option.

If you thought O'Rielly would provide hard evidence of these networks' "ominous" affront to free speech, you'd be mistaken. The closest O'Rielly gets to evidence is a 2015 white paper crafted for an ISP-funded think tank claiming that because these ISPs' TOS include routine language restricting harassment and hate speech (language every private ISP also includes in their TOS and AUP), community-run ISPs' are more likely to censor user speech:

"The closest O’Rielly gets to supporting evidence appears to be a 2015 white paper written by Professor Enrique Armijo for the ISP-funded Free State Foundation. That paper similarly alleges that standard telecom sector language intended to police “threatening, abusive or hateful” language somehow implies community-run ISPs are more likely to curtail user speech."

Of course the implication is that government-run networks must be bad because hey, it's the government. Forgotten in this false narrative is the fact that on the local level, the government is obviously you and I, and these networks are a direct, democratic response to decades of frustration at the obvious failures of the telecom market. And if you talk to folks that actually have some expertise on this subject (like I did over at Motherboard), they'll tell you that because these ISPs actually have a vested interest in the communities they serve, they're far more responsive to user complaints:

"Municipal broadband experts say the argument has no basis in fact.

"There is no history of municipal networks censoring anyone's speech,” Christopher Mitchell, a community broadband expert and Director of the Institute for Local Reliance, told Motherboard.

“In our experience, the Terms of Service from municipal ISPs have been similar to or better than those of for-profit ISPs in terms of benefiting subscribers,” he added. “And when concerns have been raised about related issues...the municipal ISPs have listened to public sentiments far more than any large cable or telephone company has."

O'Rielly also fails to mention that incumbent ISPs like Comcast routinely argue that absolutely everything the public demands of it (from expanding broadband to adhering to net neutrality) violate its First Amendment rights (an argument new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already supported). Whereas municipally-run ISPs likely won't be allowed to tap dance around First Amendment lawsuits as government-linked entities mandated to avoid speech regulation.

But the biggest irony here is that one of the ISPs targeted by O'Rielly for non-existent free speech violations is EPB broadband in Chattanooga, which was just ranked by Consumer Reports as one of the best ISPs in the nation in terms of value, speed, and service quality. Comcast tried to unsuccessfully sue EPB out of existence. And as long as we're getting vexed about your rights, both AT&T and Comcast also lobbied legislators to pass a law in Tennessee restricting voter-approved broadband networks like these from expanding, even if voters approve it at the ballot box.

Ultimately, Chattanooga's service forced these ISPs to do the one thing they had been hoping to avoid: compete on both service speed and price. That's not to say local-government owned broadband should be the only solution embraced, but it's obviously one of several ways you can actually prod lumbering, pampered mono/duopolies to actually give a damn.

And of course that's the real problem in O'Rielly's mind: that locals would dare impede on Comcast's god-given right to buy itself a geographical monopoly over an essential service, nickel-and-diming consumers until they grew so frustrated they're forced to get into the broadband business themselves.

Of course ISPs could prevent this by simply offering better, faster, and cheaper service. But it's far easier and cheaper to try and buy laws restricting consumer rights, and to have your favorite public official mindlessly demonize something that is, at the end of the day, a legitimate, organic public response to a broadband competition and availability problem ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast would prefer regulators ignore.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, first amendment, free speech, government, mike o'rielly, muni broadband, municipal broadband

More Colorado Towns Vote Down A Comcast State Law Hamstringing Broadband Competition

from the roll-your-own dept

For years we've discussed how incumbent ISPs like Comcast have spent millions of dollars quite literally writing and buying shitty, protectionist laws in more than twenty states. These laws either ban or heavily 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 get to 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.

ISPs and beholden lawmakers shoveled these bills through state legislature without much challenge. But as deployments like Google Fiber began highlighting how these laws actually harm efforts to improve competition (especially restrictions on public/private partnerships, essential in lower ROI areas), passing such legislation has become more challenging. In some states, that has forced companies like AT&T to try and hide competition-killing provisions in unrelated traffic or other bills.

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. With frustration mounting over sub-standard broadband and awful customer service, more than 86 cities and towns and more than 30 counties have already overturned the law as it applies to their localities.

While votes this week are still being counted (warning: adblock blocker) dozens more colorado towns are expected to follow suit this week. That includes Fort Collins, which this week voted to approve $142 million in revenue bonds to help build its own broadband network (an idea Comcast lobbyists tried to ban the city from even discussing). Six additional towns considered ballots to ignore the state law this week, and the vote totals so far aren't even close (locals tell me yes 1568 to 347 in Firestone, Yes 634 to 69 in Frisco).

Locals, shockingly, are increasingly tired of broadband monopolies:

"If an area doesn’t have reliable, good broadband access and availability, that area is not going to thrive,” said Jud Hollingsworth, a town trustee with Lake City, a mountain town of several hundred residents that is among the most remote in Colorado. “Residents here are saying if they could have some competition in that area, they would welcome that."

Across the state in Limon, town manager Dave Stone said residents in his eastern plains community have been less than pleased with the internet service they get now.

“We continually hear from people who have difficulty getting the broadband service they need,” he said. “They certainly feel there’s a need for competition in town."

Again, ISP lobbyists (and the fauxcademics, consultants and think tankers paid to parrot ISP positions) have tried to argue that municipal broadband is a vile socialist cabal that threatens private industry and always results in failure. But that's not only patently untrue, it obfuscates the fact that these towns and cities are only exploring this option after the telecom sector failed for more than a decade to offer fast, affordable service thanks to monopoly power and regulatory capture.

Comfy with their regional monopolies propped up by cash-compromised lawmakers, ISPs have refused to upgrade towns and cities they don't feel will be profitable enough, quickly enough. The Trump FCC's nonsensical "solutions" to these long-standing issues (killing privacy protections and net neutrality) have only made the problem worse, which, in turn, has only made the idea of community-owned and operated broadband networks more appealing than ever:

"(Colorado Broadband Office Executive Director Tony) Neal-Graves said some municipal leaders in Colorado were “spooked” by the FCC’s December ruling and want to make sure they have more than just one choice of internet provider, no matter where they might be located in the state."

Much like the state-level backlash on net neutrality, it's another example of how cocksure ISP lobbyists didn't quite think things through before waging their state-to-state war on competition, common sense, and public welfare.

Filed Under: colorado, competition, municipal broadband
Companies: centruylink, comcast

Harvard Study Shows Community-Owned ISPs Offer Lower, More Transparent Prices

from the when-in-doubt,-ban-it dept

We've routinely noted how countless communities have been forced to explore building their own broadband networks thanks to limited competition in the market. As most of you have experienced first hand, this lack of competition routinely results in higher prices, slower speeds, worse customer service, and massive broadband deployment gaps. And thanks to telecom industry regulatory capture (taken to an entirely new level during the Trump administration), countless well-heeled lawmakers make it a personal mission to keep things that way.

Needless to say, the threat posed by angry users building or supporting their own networks is a major reason ISPs have lobbied (read: literally bought and written) laws in twenty-one states banning towns and cities from pursuing this option. In some states, towns and cities are even banned from striking public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution available to the traditional broadband duopoly logjam.

Not too surprisingly, a new study out of Harvard details just what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) are afraid of.

The study found that averaged over a four year period, service offered by community ISPs tends to be significantly cheaper that broadband service made available from privately-owned alternatives. In some areas, the researchers couldn't directly compare community-owned broadband with private service, either because the private ISP in question couldn't even offer the FCC definition of broadband (25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream), or because ISPs went to great lengths to prevent users from seeing their actual prices. But in 23 out of 27 cases, the community option provided lower prices:

"When considering entry-level broadband service—the least-expensive plan that provides at least 25/3 Mbps service—23 out of 27 community-owned FTTH providers we studied charged the lowest prices in their community when considering the annual average cost of service over a four-year period, taking into account installation and equipment costs and averaging any initial teaser rates with later, higher, rates."

What's more, the study found that the community options tended to offer prices that were more upfront with the end user, and less reliant on misleading promos or hidden fees:

"While community-owned FTTH providers’ pricing is generally clear and unchanging, private providers almost always offer initial "teaser" prices and then raise the monthly price sharply. This price hike in the communities we studied ranged between $10 (20 percent) and $30 (42.8 percent) after 12 months, both imposed by Comcast, but in different communities. Only one community-owned FTTH provider employed this marketing practice for a data-only plan."

It's worth noting the study was only able to directly compare stand alone broadband prices, since ISPs often obfuscate broadband pricing via the use of bundles and promotions. Often these bundles "promise savings" to users to combine broadband with TV and phone service, though in reality users are routinely and severely financially penalized for ordering just standalone broadband service. Even then, the study is quick to point out how ISPs go to great lengths to make direct price comparisons "extraordinarily difficult":

"In general we found that making comprehensive pricing comparisons among U.S. Internet service plans is extraordinarily difficult. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not disseminate pricing data or track broadband availability by address. Additionally, service offerings follow no standard speed tiers or definitions (such as the specifics of video or phone service bundles)."

ISPs also routinely lobby the government to ensure the FCC doesn't collect and share pricing data, lest somebody figure out the connection between limited competition and high prices. That lobbying influence is one of the major reasons this country spent $300 million on a broadband availability map that not only over-states broadband availability and speeds, but fails completely to even mention pricing. ISPs and lawmakers paid to love them will often focus on empty promises to "expand broadband availability," intentionally ignoring the role competition and pricing plays in that equation.

Again, these towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with the services being provided by the likes of Comcast. And again, Comcast could quickly nip these efforts in the bud by offering better, cheaper service. But time after time it's clear that Comcast, AT&T, and other incumbent ISPs would prefer to instead file lawsuits, spread disinformation, and buy laws banning communities from making their own decisions on local infrastructure. Whatever it takes to avoid having to directly compete.

Filed Under: broadband, community owned broadband, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, transparency

FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality

from the misdirection dept

The FCC and its large ISP allies are trying to change the subject in the wake of their hugely unpopular attack on net neutrality. With net neutrality having such broad, bipartisan support, the FCC is trying to shift the conversation away from net neutrality (which remember, is just a symptom of a lack of broadband competition), toward a largely-hollow focus on expanding broadband to rural areas. The apparent goal: to convince partisans that net neutrality is only a concern among out of touch Hollywood elites, and the FCC is hard at work on the real problem: deploying broadband to forgotten America.

This attempted pivot was exemplified in a statement last week by FCC boss Ajit Pai, when he tried to argue his attack on net neutrality was already magically paying dividends for broadband expansion:

"The draft report indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order. However, the draft report also discussed how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis."

As we've noted repeatedly, the idea that net neutrality stifled sector investment is a lie, and the claim that axing popular consumer protections somehow "encouraged competition" is laughable.

Pai has long paid entirely-empty lip service to the task of "closing the digital divide," despite the fact that most of his policies have made this particular problem notably worse. From propping up business broadband and prison phone monopolies to killing attempts to bring competition to the cable box, Pai has made it clear his top priority is the protection of incumbent ISP revenues from anything even vaguely resembling disruption. While he's busy prattling on about his dedication to the digital divide, he's busy dismantling broadband programs for the poor and killing policies like net neutrality, driving up costs for everyone in the internet ecosystem just to please a handful of extremely unpopular telecom giants.

Of course you're not supposed to notice this chasm between rhetoric and reality when Pai pops up on Twitter to pat himself and his recently-formed "Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee" for their unparalleled contributions to closing the digital divide:

In his speech before the FCC's shiny new broadband advisory panel (which has been widely criticized as being a who's who of telecom industry lobbyists, executives, and other policy cronies), Pai again doubles down on his supposed dedication to closing the digital divide:

"First, the BDAC’s work is critical to my top policy priority as FCC Chairman—closing the digital divide. I’ve long said that every American who wants to participate in the digital economy should be able to do so. And the plain reality is that if you live in rural America, you are much less likely to have highspeed Internet access than if you live in a city. If you live in a low-income neighborhood, you are less likely to have high-speed Internet access than if you live in a wealthier area."

Yes, what better way to fix the broadband market then by letting uncompetitive duopolies like Comcast effectively dictate both federal and state telecom policy from stem to stern? It's worth noting that the ambiguous quest to "close the digital divide" has always received endless lip service from politicians and regulators from both parties, many of whom are comically incapable of admitting that a lack of competition is what's actually driving this problem. Limited competition also drives privacy and net neutrality violations, but fixing the core problem would require standing up to deep-pocketed telecom campaign contributors.

One creative way to finally drive more accountability and competition (especially in low ROI rural markets) is community broadband or public/private partnerships. But as we've long noted, Pai has consistently supported letting ISPs like AT&T and Comcast literally write state laws banning your town or city from even considering the option, even in instances where private ISPs won't deploy service. It's ironic then, when one of Pai's fellow FCC Commissioners points out that the broadband advisory panel's "findings" covertly malign such community-run alternatives:

The section in question (pdf) argues that community broadband is nice and all, but it should never exist without what's effectively the express permission of private ISPs:

"If, and only if, the Rural municipality receives no reasonable and credible proposal from a private Communications Provider to build a Broadband network and otherwise determines that none of the first three options in Article 12(b) are viable and if, and only if, the Rural municipality makes a positive determination of costs, feasibility, sustainability, and that the action is in the interest of the general public may the Rural municipality invest in a Fully Public Funded and Operated Network and/or engage in Public-Led Contracting.

This kind of language, which gives the incumbent ISP the right of first refusal to offer or upgrade service in spotty coverage areas, is commonly used in ISP-written state protectionist laws. The problem is that these promises to build are routinely never followed up on, letting ISPs first deny the right of a community run ISP (or public/private partnership) to even exist, then avoid anything even resembling accountability as it turns a blind eye to its deployment promises. This is a major reason why we've shelled out countless billions to private ISPs like Verizon for fiber networks that are never fully built.

Private ISPs not only want the right of first refusal, but they often enjoy putting all manner of funding and referendum requirements on the ability to build community broadband networks, knowing full well that ISP lawyers and lobbyists can often derail these projects in the cradle -- whether with lawsuits or disinformation. Again, the goal is to ban your town and city from being able to explore creative alternatives to the status quo, without making it look like that's what they're doing.

Pai's focus on the digital divide is a choreographed effort by the industry to distract the public from the fact they're being sold down river exclusively to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon's benefit. You'll note this breathless new adoration for rural broadband runs hand in hand with not-coincidentally-timed op/eds popping up everywhere by ISP lobbying groups like US Telecom, who are thrilled by the reduction in real oversight but the expansion of taxpayer subsidies:

"This isn’t the first time that a White House has declared the deployment of rural broadband a national priority. What is yet to be determined is the concrete action — via congressional legislation, an improved regulatory environment and federal funding to critical programs — they will follow through on to ensure that every American has access to broadband, no matter where they live."

Of course this "concrete action" involves not only removing all meaningful FCC consumer protections (you're welcome, heartland America) but gutting both state and federal oversight of some of the least-liked, least-competitive companies in America. But the real goal has nothing to do with rural America, which the lion's share of these folks couldn't care less about. The real goal is to distract you from the government's recent handouts to the telecom sector's largest and most powerful players, and to dress up mindless deregulation and cronyism as an unwavering dedication to America's heartland.

Oh, and just as more and more criticism is being raised about this committee, it appears that the few non-telco industry reps who were on the committee as fig leafs are realizing they made a huge mistake. San Jose's mayor Sam Liccardo has just resigned from the panel and not pulled any punches in his explanation for why.

"It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public. The apparent goal is to create a set of rules that will provide industry with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband to underserved residents."

So, while Pai pats himself on the back for "closing the digital divide," actual people dealing with the digital divide are quitting his little consortium and pointing out that his dedication to actually fixing this problem is decidedly hollow. Whatever it takes to help the public forget he sold them out on net neutrality just to make AT&T, Verizon and Comcast happy.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, crony capitalism, digital divide, fcc, municipal broadband, net neutrality, rural broadband

New Bill Would Prevent Comcast-Loyal States From Blocking Broadband Competition

from the when-Comcast-writes-the-law dept

We've long noted how state legislatures are so corrupt, they often quite literally let entrenched telecom operators write horrible, protectionist laws that hamstring competition. That's why there's now 21 states where companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have successfully lobbied for laws banning towns and cities from building their own broadband networks, even in instances where the incumbent refuses to. In many states, these laws even ban public/private partnerships, often the only creative solution for better broadband in low ROI markets.

FCC efforts to pre-empt states from engaging in this kind of protectionism have been shot down by the courts, and voters continue to elect lawmakers whose top priority is protecting entrenched telecom duopolies, ensuring this cycle of pay-to-play dysfunction continues.

Occasionally lawmakers propose bills attempting to shake up this cronyism, but the ISP-stranglehold over lawmakers usually ensure they go nowhere. Case in point: Rep. Anna Eshoo has introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2018 (HR 4814), which would not only ban states from passing rules prohibiting community broadband, but would ensure that any community broadband networks that get built don't get preferential treatment by regulators if they compete with private-sector ISPs. As bill co-sponsor Mike Doyle notes, these networks are often the only way many towns and cities get decent service:

"All too often, communities around the country struggle to get service from private providers, and where people can get service all too often it’s too slow and costs too much,” Doyle said in a statement. “Communities that build out their own broadband networks offer competitive options that not only bring service to the unserved, but also promote competition in underserved areas."

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast's stranglehold over state and federal lawmakers ensures this effort will likely be killed in committee, just like the two previous efforts to pass such a law were (one by Eshoo last year, and another by Senator Cory Booker in 2016). Like net neutrality, having access to better, cheaper broadband has stupidly become a "partisan" issue thanks to ISPs eager to sow discord on the subject. And when it comes to municipal broadband, ISPs do so by framing the concept as automatic taxpayer boondoggles (actual residents tend to disagree).

Ignored in that argument is the fact that these towns and cities aren't getting into the broadband business because they think it's fun, they're doing so after decades of disgust at available private options. Also ignored is the fact that making local infrastructure decisions should be left up to the communities themselves, not competition-phobic Comcast executives sitting half a world away. If ISPs wanted to stop community broadband, they could offer better, cheaper service. Instead, lawsuits, disinformation, and protectionist state laws tend to be their option of choice.

Unfortunately for these ISPs, the attack on net neutrality is only driving more interest than ever in locally owned and operated creative alternatives to the broken status quo. And as the Trump administration rushes to remove all federal and state oversight of these uncompetitive duopolies, the resulting shit show will only make such options more appealing than ever to under-served communities.

Filed Under: anna eshoo, broadband, competition, mike doyle, municipal broadband, states rights

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.

Filed Under: colorado, competition, municipal broadband, states rights
Companies: comcast

Maine The Latest State To Try And Let Giant Broadband Providers Write Shitty, Protectionist State Law

from the you're-not-helping dept

One of (several) reasons why American broadband is so uncompetitive is the fact that we continue to let giant broadband mono/duopolies quite literally write awful state telecom law. As we've long noted, more than twenty different states have passed laws making it difficult to impossible for towns and cities to improve their local broadband networks -- even in instances when the entrenched duopoly refuses to. Many of these laws even ban towns and cities from entering into public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. It's pure protectionism.

Maine is the 49th ranked state in broadband speed and coverage -- in large part due to rural markets. Despite countless years of subsidies, broadband providers consistently refuse to seriously upgrade these areas at any scale due to costs. And yet they refuse to let the towns do it themselves, either. State Representative Nate Wadsworth has introduced HP1040, aka "An Act To Encourage Broadband Development through Private Investment." Except like so many of these bills, the proposed law's name is a stark 180 from what the legislative measure actually does.

You see Wadsworth is a state chair for ALEC, the group most ISPs use to help them ghost write these protectionist bills. And Wadsworth's proposal, like countless others, imposes a laundry list of restrictions on any town or city that might dare try to do something about the fairly awful service state residents receive from the likes of Frontier Communications and Comcast. From limits to how money can be raised to requirements for repeated public referendums (at which point deep-pocketed ISPs outspend local advocates), communities suddenly face all manner of restrictions on what they can or can't do in their own backyards.

Page Clason, Member of the Islesboro Broadband Committee, described HP 1040 this way:

"I would say this proposed bill is puzzling because while suggested to promote investment of broadband in Maine it would do the opposite. Nothing in the bill provides stimulus, most everything in the bill provides increased hurdles and costs for communities needing the broadband investments. The only stimulus I can garner from such an approach would be that the largest providers would be further comforted that no other service providers would show up to do the builds that the dominating providers have not been supplying for the last few decades."

More often than not, backers of these bills claim they're only looking to protect taxpayers from fiscal mismanagement. But community broadband networks aren't by nature inherently dysfunctional (though they're often sold that way by municipal broadband opponents). They're like any other business plan: some are good, and some aren't. But the reality is that towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with local service. The "solution" to this organic backlash isn't letting giant duopolists write shitty law; the solution is more competition.

And laws banning municipal broadband -- and especially public/private partnerships -- accomplish the exact opposite of that. And while large ISPs (and their ocean of paid think tankers, economists, and other doller-per-holler professionals) have tried to make this a partisan issue -- the vast majority of municipal networks are built in Conservative areas with broad, bipartisan support. That's because there's one thing we can all agree on: nobody likes the local cable and broadband monopoly. And, as the local Maine newspapers make clear, consumers aren't half as dumb as many politicians think they are:

"I can guarantee you if this bill moves forward, they will hear from an awful lot of very angry people," (said one Maine resident). “Maine people are self-reliant, but island people are very self-reliant. When the boat stops at the end of the day, we take care of each other, and if somebody comes in from the outside and says we can’t take care of ourselves, that message won’t go over well."

The public is, however, inattentive -- and so state by state, large ISPs like Frontier, CenturyLink, AT&T and Comcast continue to push such bills through state legislatures. When they can't get a bill passed once, they'll try repeated times. When that doesn't work, they'll try to push these restrictions through via entirely unrelated legislation, like traffic bills. These same companies will then whine excessively about "overreach" when government does things they don't like, but remain dead quiet when they use that precise same government to protect the dysfunctional status quo.

Update: Lo and behold, the fierce public opposition has resulted in the bill being killed. Pressure appears to have been so intense, even the bill's sponsor, Nate Wadsworth, voted it down.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, maine, muni broadband, municipal broadband, nate wadsworth, protectionism

Tennessee Gives AT&T, Comcast Millions In New Taxpayer Subsidies, Yet Banned A City-Owned ISP From Expanding Broadband Without Taxpayer Aid

from the dysfunction-junction dept

If you want to understand what's wrong with the American broadband industry, you need look no further than Tennessee. The state is consistently ranked as one of the least connected, least competitive broadband markets in the country, thanks in large part to Comcast and AT&T's stranglehold over politicians like Marsha Blackburn. Lawmakers like Blackburn have let Comcast and AT&T lobbyists quite literally write protectionist state laws for the better part of a decade with an unwavering, singular focus: protecting incumbent revenues from competition and market evolution.

The negative impact of this pay-to-play legislature is non-negotiable. One state-run study last year ranked Tennessee 40th in terms of overall broadband investment and availability (pdf), 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.

Like twenty other states, Tennessee long ago passed a state law hamstringing towns and cities looking to improve regional broadband networks. As a result, popular municipal broadband providers like Chattanooga's utility-run ISP, EPB, have been banned from expanding its up to 10 Gbps offerings into any more markets. Attempts to repeal the law earlier this year went nowhere after mammoth pressure from incumbent ISP lobbyists. When that didn't work, one lawmaker tried to pass a compromise bill that would have allowed EPB to expand into just one neighboring county.

That proposal was shot down as well, one of the dissenting votes being that of Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive.

Tennessee residents have increasingly seen through Tennessee's unwavering fealty to some of the most despised brands in America. Some annoyed state residents have gone so far as to spend their own money to wire the state glacially, hilltop by hilltop. In a feeble attempt to try and placate those tired of expensive, slow broadband, Tennessee lawmakers recently passed HB 0529 or the "Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017." The centerpiece of the bill: throwing $45 million in additional subsidies at ISPs, the majority of which will be enjoyed by AT&T.

Motherboard correctly points out that the state banned EPB from expanding service to those same users without any cost to taxpayers, but was willing to throw additional subsidies at two giant companies with a mixed track record on putting government subsidies to work:

"To be clear: EPB wanted to build out its gigabit fiber network to many of these same communities using money it has on hand or private loans at no cost to taxpayers. It would then charge individual residents for internet service. Instead, Tennessee taxpayers will give $45 million in tax breaks and grants to giant companies just to get basic infrastructure built. They will then get the opportunity to pay these companies more money for worse internet than they would have gotten under EPB's proposal.

"Tennessee taxpayers may subsidize AT&T to build DSL service to Chattanooga's neighbors rather than letting [EPB] expand its fiber to neighbors at no cost to taxpayers," Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance said. "Tennessee will literally be paying AT&T to provide a service 1000 times slower than what Chattanooga could provide without subsidies."

Given the repeated billions that have been thrown at incumbents that then consistently find ways to wiggle out of the obligations, resistence to the "throw subsidies at giant ISPs with a long, documented history of anti-competitive behavior and hope that does the trick this time" model is understandable. Especially in a state like Tennessee, where holding giant companies accountable for misdirection of telecom funds has never been a priority.

Fortunately, this new bill does make it legal now for electric cooperatives to provide broadband internet access to some areas -- a concession to outraged locals and a small sign of progress. That said, these co-ops will still find themselves hamstrung by Tennessee's other, existing, protectionist laws, which impose all manner of reporting and financing restrictions on anybody not named AT&T or Comcast. Popular companies like EPB -- ranked recently by Consumer Reports as one of the best rated ISPs in the country -- still can't offer service outside of its traditional electric utility footprint under Tennessee state law.

It's ironic, in that ISP lobbyists and loyal lawmakers usually try to justify their state bans on community broadband by pretending they were solely interested in protecting state residents from additional taxpayer spending. Yet this is all pretense to justify protecting large incumbent broadband duopolists from having to actually compete. One lawmaker that's actually trying to eliminate the state's restrictions on community broadband perhaps put it more succinctly:

"What we have right now is not the free market, it's regulations protecting giant corporations, which is the exact definition of crony capitalism."

And yet Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn has been consistently and generously rewarded for the kind of "crony capitalism" she's relentlessly advocated for on the state level. She recently was tagged to replace Greg Walden as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Since that committee tackles most of the pressing internet-related issues, you can expect Tennessee's particular brand of AT&T and Comcast earlobe nibbling to manifest even more strongly on the federal level moving forward.

Filed Under: broadband, chattanooga, competition, marsha blackburn, municipal broadband, subsidies, tennessee
Companies: at&t, comcast, epb