70% Support Letting Cities Build Their Own Broadband Networks, So Why Are We Still Passing State Laws Banning It?

from the state-government-for-sale dept

For years we've noted how more than twenty states have passed laws -- often quite literally written by ISP lobbyists -- that prevent towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (either alone, or with a private partner). Even in instances where, as is often the case, the incumbent broadband provider refuses to upgrade them. ISP lobbyists (and the lawmakers that love them) usually try to defend these protectionist laws by first demonizing municipal broadband as some kind of vile socialist cabal, then pretending new state laws are necessary to protect local communities from themselves.

In reality, municipal broadband is an organic, grassroots reaction to broadband market failure. And buying laws that restrict local communities' rights to decide local infrastructure matters for themselves is little more than regulatory capture. Like net neutrality and privacy rights, municipal broadband actually has broad, bipartisan support -- and most municipal broadband networks are built in Conservative markets with local voter support. But by framing the issue in a partisan way (government run amok!), ISP lobbyists have been able to sow dissent and stall progress that could challenge their status quo.

A new survey of 4,000 consumers by the Pew Research Project once again drives that point home, highlighting that 70% of Americans support letting towns and cities build their own broadband networks -- if they're not getting decent service by the regional incumbent:

"A substantial majority of the public (70%) believes local governments should be able to build their own broadband networks if existing services in the area are either too expensive or not good enough, according to the survey, conducted March 13-27. Just 27% of U.S. adults say these so-called municipal broadband networks should not be allowed. (A number of state laws currently prevent cities from building their own high-speed networks, and several U.S. senators recently introduced a bill that would ban these restrictions.)"

That said, partisan lines are far more stark when it comes to support for subsidizing broadband to low-income areas:

"At the same time, fewer than half of Americans (44%) think the government should provide subsidies to help lower-income Americans pay for high-speed internet at home. A larger share (54%) says high-speed home internet service is affordable enough that nearly every household should be able to buy service on its own."

Partisan battle lines are also quite notable when it comes to asking consumers if they think broadband is essential versus just kind of important (in part because if you admit broadband is "essential," then you need to do something about it -- and that might cost taxpayer dollars):

"Republicans and Democrats tend to agree that broadband is important, but Democrats are more likely to say it is essential: 58% of Democrats and Democratic leaners describe broadband in this way, compared with 38% of Republicans and Republican leaners. A similar split is evident by race and ethnicity, with blacks (55%) and Hispanics (61%) more likely than whites (45%) to say that high-speed access at home is essential."

That dissent is certainly understandable, given how easy it has been for companies like Verizon to nab billions in tax breaks and subsidies for jobs half-completed. There's also a laundry list of states like West Virginia, where regional incumbents received millions in well-intentioned subsidies -- only to turn around and waste that money on projects that helped virtually nobody. While some skepticism is warranted, there are countless instances where broadband subsidies did precisely what they were designed to do -- without much (if any) fanfare.

But again, it's interesting how municipal broadband tends to smash through these well-worn partisan grooves many of us dig into the earth. In large part because if there's one thing that we can all agree on -- it's that companies like Comcast and AT&T kind of suck, and dealing with their utterly abysmal customer support is a unifying, albeit miserable, experience. So then, too, is sticking it to these giant, lumbering, apathetic, and uncompetitive sector giants, and building a local, more accountable network operator where the money -- and employment -- actually remains in the local community.

The problem usually winds up being how to pay for it. Consumers may support the idea of municipal broadband and want to protect their right to vote for or against it, but many don't want to pay for it. That's why we're seeing more public/private partnerships between cities and companies like Google or Tucows/Ting. The problem, again: state laws bought by large ISPs often ban or hamstring public/private partnerships as well to help keep local competition at bay.

Despite the broad support for municipal broadband, states continue to sell state telecom law to the highest bidder. AT&T convinced Missouri to pass a law earlier this year expanding restrictions on municipal broadband -- after the telco failed to bury a restricting provision into a state traffic bill. Virginia tried to similarly expand its ban on municipal broadband, but lawmakers there were forced to retreat after they took a notable beating from the press and public.

As we've long noted, one surefire way to prevent towns and cities from getting into the broadband business is to provide cheaper, better service. But it has long been significantly easier to just buy a state lawmaker and protectionist law to protect the dysfunctional status quo. And like so many issues facing America, until we at least marginally address money's influence on politics -- and/or drive a higher turnout during state elections, little if any of this is going to change.

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

San Francisco Ponders The Largest Community Broadband Network Ever Built

from the if-you-build-it-they-will-come dept

Despite being considered one of the technology capitals of the country, San Francisco and the Bay Area continue to suffer from a lack of broadband options -- just like the rest of us sorry sods. If they're lucky, most locals there still only have the option of one of two large ISPs: AT&T and Comcast. Both companies have a long, proud history of fighting competition tooth and nail, often by quite literally writing shitty state telecom law that ensures the status quo remains intact. Attempts to break through this logjam and bring faster, better broadband service to the city have seen decidedly mixed results.

Like most areas, ultra-fast next-generation broadband in particular is notably lacking. Some estimates suggest that just 2.6% of San Francisco residents have access to gigabit broadband service. Sonic CEO Dane Jasper, whose company is also busy deploying gigabit services to the Bay Area, tells me he believes those figures are stale and gigabit penetration rates in the city are closer to 17%. And while Google Fiber had tinkered with the idea of bringing fiber to the city, the company's pivot to wireless has left that added avenue of competition up in the air.

Last week, numerous Mayors and city officials in California and Arizona penned a letter to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, complaining that not only is AT&T not upgrading many DSL customers to fiber, they're not adequately maintaining existing copper (now that AT&T's primary focus appears to be media, and acquiring Time Warner):

"All too many Californians and Nevadans have waited far too long for AT&T to build the high-speed broadband infrastructure promised to them," the officials said in a letter to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. "Not only is AT&T failing to provide access to 21st-century high-speed connections to many communities, but it is also not maintaining the copper lines that are vital to landline phone access, 911 and emergency services and basic Internet service."

For most of the last fifteen years, bubbling under the surface of this dysfunction, a growing number of cities have decided to bypass broadband's duopoly and just build next-generation, citywide broadband networks from scratch. That effort received renewed attention this week in San Francisco when the city announced it was convening a panel of "business, privacy and academic experts" to debate and discuss just what such a network would look like. On that panel will be Harvard Law School Professor Susan Crawford, who has been consistently at the forefront of criticizing this country's broken broadband market.

The panel has been tasked with how best to build a network capable of delivering gigabit speeds at more reasonable prices:

In the coming months, the San Francisco Municipal Fiber Blue Ribbon Panel will conduct research and provide recommendations on the most efficient and effective ways to blanket the city with broadband, an effort that could cost up to $1 billion.

If it becomes reality, San Francisco would be the largest city in the country to implement citywide high-speed Internet. City officials are currently targeting speeds of 1 gigabit per second. The average Internet speed in the U.S. is 31 megabits per second according to the most recent data published by the Federal Communications Commission, so this could be about 30 times faster.

The problem is convincing people to pay for it. Seattle has spent the better part of the last fifteen years pondering its own network after being historically disappointed by ISPs like Comcast and CenturyLink. But locals have consistently shied away from funding such a massive project -- especially given the city's current focus on shoring up mass transit ahead of an ongoing population boom. Incumbent ISP lobbying also consistently tangles these efforts with disinformation and legal shenanigans, usually adding additional costs as the cities have to deal with lawsuits and other pay-to-play regulatory headaches.

We've long noted how while municipal broadband is often demonized, it's a perfectly organic reaction to market failure -- and if companies truly want to keep towns and cities from getting into the broadband business, the solution should be fairly obvious: provide better, cheaper broadband.

Filed Under: munibroadband, municipal broadband, san francisco

Missouri The Latest State To Let Telecom Monopolies Write Awful, Protectionist State Law

from the protectionist-drivel dept

21 states have passed laws hamstringing the rights of local communities when it comes to improving broadband infrastructure. Usually dressed up as breathless concern about the taxpayer -- these bills have one purpose: protect the telecom mono/duopoly status quo -- and the campaign contributions it represents -- from the will of the people. Countless towns and cities have built their own next-generation networks, usually because nobody else would. But these bills, usually ghost written by ISPs for politicians with ALEC's help, either ban locals from making this decision for themselves, or saddle these operations with enough restrictions to make them untenable.

Missouri's just the latest state to either pass a new protectionist bill, or update old laws so they're more restrictive. Like many of these bills SB 186 does its best to impose all manner of restrictions on towns and cities looking to bring better broadband to under-served state communities. SB 186 is actually the third time in as many years that incumbent ISPs have tried to pass expanded community broadband restrictions. Last year, a similar Missouri bill got "unwanted" attention when AT&T got a lawmaker to try and bury it in an unrelated traffic proposal.

Like the last few iterations, SB 186 words itself in such a way to avoid the impression of an outright community broadband "ban," even if that's effectively what it is. Usually this is done by stating a community can't build and operate a broadband network if an existing provider already services the area, intentionally ignoring the fact that said "existing provider" is usually a fat and lazy telco trying to sell users 2002-era 3 Mbps DSL speeds at next-generation prices. SB 186 also saddles these operations with all manner of restrictions on how these networks can be funded, marketed, and expanded.

Often, the bills require a protracted additional public comment period, during which deep-pocketed lobbyists use push polls and other disinformation to convince locals that community broadband is one step up from devil worship, even if it's really just an organic reaction to telecom market failure. The history of these disinformation efforts goes back decades, with ISPs resorting to push polls with questions implying that taxpayer funds would be used for pornography, and government would ration your TV usage.

Should the networks actually get built, they'll then often face incumbent ISP lawsuits. When said lawsuits inevitably saddle these local efforts with delays and added costs, ISPs are quick to point to the problems they caused as proof positive that community broadband doesn't work. But community broadband is like any business plan: if the plan itself is sound, the network succeeds (as is the case in places like Chattanooga, Tennessee).

Historically, most of the twenty-one protectionist state laws have been passed quietly with minimal controversy, in large part thanks to an either misinformed or apathetic public. But as companies like Google and Ting have more recently attempted to disrupt the telecom market, reporters have highlighted not only the lack of broadband competition -- but the protectionist laws responsible for keeping things that way. Last month, Google, Netflix and Ting fired off a letter to Missouri lawmakers (pdf) highlighting the absurdity of such laws:

"SB 186 would amount to a virtual ban on local choice, harming both the public and private sectors, stifling economic growth, preventing the creation or retention of jobs around the State, particularly in rural areas, hampering work-force development, and diminishing the quality of life in Missouri.

In particular, SB 186 will hurt the private sector by derailing or unnecessarily complicating and delaying public-private partnerships, by interfering with the ability of private companies to make timely sales of equipment and services to public broadband providers, by denying private companies timely access to advanced networks over which they can offer business and residential customers an endless array of modern products and services, and by impairing economic and educational opportunities that contribute to a skilled workforce from which businesses across the state will benefit."

The companies also point out that, hey, maybe local infrastructure decisions should be left up to locals, not AT&T, Comcast, CenturyLink and other ISP lawyers and lobbyists with a vested interest in turf protection:

"These are fundamentally local decisions that should be made by the communities themselves, through the processes that their duly elected and accountable local officials ordinarily use for making comparable decisions. They should also be able to use their own resources as they deem appropriate to foster economic development, educational opportunity, public safety, and much more, without having to comply with the restrictive bottlenecks that SB 186 would impose."

ISPs seriously worried about towns and cities getting into the broadband business could have pre-empted these efforts by offering better service at better prices. But given the pay-to-play nature of most state legislatures, it's much easier to just throw money at politicians, who'll happily throw the public interest -- and their state's economic welfare -- in the toilet to fund their next election campaign.

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

Huntsville, Alabama Is Suddenly Awash In Broadband Competition, Showing Why Comcast Is So Afraid Of Municipal Broadband

from the build-it-and-they-will-definitely-come dept

For years, we'ved noted how incumbent ISPs have waged a not-so-subtle war on towns and cities looking to escape from the high prices and abysmal service of the country's broadband duopoly (which is actually quietly becoming more of a cable monopoly without many noticing). Many of these cities have taken to either building fiber networks themselves -- or striking public/private partnerships with companies like Google Fiber or Ting/Tucows -- because the private sector has failed to deliver the service and connectivity they want at prices they can afford.

This kind of grassroots revolution is precisely why large ISPs like Charter, Comcast and AT&T have spent the last decade lobbying for (and in most instances directly writing) protectionist bills across twenty different states banning local citizens from making these kinds of decisions for themselves. If you want to see precisely why these regional monopolists are so afraid, you need look no further than Huntsville, Alabama.

City-owned Huntsville Utilities has been building a fiber broadband network that should service the lion's share of the city's homes and businesses over the next few years. What's more, the network will be open access -- meaning that ISPs can come in and compete with each other over the regional infrastructure. Google Fiber has already signed up to be one of at least three ISPs taking advantage of the build, and should begin offering service there by the middle of this year.

FCC data has long noted that the open access model provides consumers with better service at lower prices, thanks to the miracle of competition. Obviously that's a nightmare for large ISPs used to doing the bare minimum while charging captive subscribers the absolute maximum. As such, the federal government consistently has treated open access networks like a plague, given that regulators and lawmakers are consistently terrified of upsetting some of the biggest campaign contributors in the country. For what it's worth, Google Fiber also walked back its original promise to run its network under the open access model.

But you only need to look to what's happening in Huntsville to understand why ISPs have spent so much time and money demonizing municipal broadband. With competition looming, incumbent ISPs have miraculously wasted no time in finally delivering the speeds locals have been clamoring for. Comcast this week announced that it will soon bring its cable-based gigabit broadband service to Huntsville, the company breathlessly insisting this deployment reflects Comcast's unwavering dedication to being, well, awesome:

"This launch reflects Comcast’s ongoing commitment to offering the fastest speeds to the most homes and businesses in Huntsville,” said Comcast Regional senior VP Doug Guthrie, also in a statement. “Soon, customers will leverage a new gigabit internet service that will deliver a truly unparalleled online experience."

Yes, only coincidentally inspired by the kind of community broadband networks Comcast has spent billions trying to kill in places like Chattanooga and elsewhere. Another regional incumbent, Mediacom, this week also miraculously began offering gigabit broadband service it claims simply reflects its unwavering dedication to the consumer:

"Since 1996, Mediacom has invested over $8 billion of private capital in its national network to ensure that hard-working families throughout the smaller markets we serve receive the same advanced communications services as America’s largest cities,” said Mediacom’s Senior Manager of Area Operations, Lee Beck. “As a result of these investments, we are extremely proud to add the cities and towns we serve in the Huntsville area to Mediacom’s rapidly expanding list of true gigabit communities."

And while that's great and all, again there's no mention of why they're suddenly interested in actually giving Huntsville-area residents what they want. It's important to note that competition isn't just improving speeds and prices. Both Comcast and Mediacom have consistently (ab)used the lack of last-mile competition to impose arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees, which you can be sure will be nowhere to be found once they're forced to keep pace with uncapped ISPs like WOW! and Google Fiber riding over the Huntsville-area network.

ISPs and the consultants, think tankers, lobbyists, and politicians who love them have spent fifteen years demonizing municipal broadband as some kind of vile socialist evil straight from the maw of hell; usually focusing on claims that these networks are inevitable fiscal disasters that need to be thwarted before the big, bad government begins monitoring your porn consumption. The focus from these folks is that they're just worried about local taxpayers. Less of a concern, apparently, is the fact that we're quite literally letting giant companies write shitty state telecom law.

But claiming that municipal broadband is spend-crazy government run amok is a violent misread of what's actually happening in these towns and cities. Municipal broadband business plans are like any other business plan; some are good, some aren't. Ideally that should be up to the locals to decide, not billionaire CEOs and grumpy armchair partisans sitting half a world away in judgement. Municipal broadband isn't the devil, it's a genuine, grassroots, local reaction to market failure; one that can be avoided by ISPs doing one thing: actually delivering the kinds of services, prices and features locals have spent fifteen years clamoring for.

Filed Under: alabama, competition, huntsville, muni broadband, municipal broadband
Companies: comcast, google, huntsville utilities, mediacom

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

Colorado Voters Continue To Shoot Down Awful Comcast-Written Protectionist State Law

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

For some time now we've noted how one of the biggest reasons the broadband market remains uncompetitive is protectionist state law written by and lobbied for by incumbent ISPs. These laws take various forms, but usually they prevent towns or cities from building their own networks -- or partnering with private companies -- even in instances where the incumbent ISP refuses to service them. Nineteen such laws have been passed, and an FCC attempt to pre-empt these laws on a federal level was recently scrapped by the courts as over-reach, leaving the issue as problematic and unresolved as ever.

One ray of hope in an otherwise dismal and contentious election for technology comes out of Colorado, where numerous local Colorado communities voted to ignore SB 152, a 2005 state law lobbied for by Comcast and CenturyLink, which required communities jump through numerous, intentionally onerous hoops should they want to simply make decisions regarding their own, local infrastructure. Unlike most of these laws, SB 152 lets local communities issue a referendum to ask voters if they wish to reclaim the right to make these decisions.

As a result, each election season we've seen more and more local Colorado communities vote to tell incumbent ISPs they're tired of the dysfunctional broadband status quo. In this week's election, all 26 of the municipal broadband-related referendums on the ballot in Colorado communities, including Aspen, were approved by relatively wide margins:

"Results from ballot initiatives varied by modest degree but all left no doubt that the local electorate want out of SB 152. Breckenridge came in with 89 percent. Montezuma County, where local media expressed support of the opt out earlier this month, passed the measure with 70 percent of the vote. The community with the highest percentage of support for opting out of SB 152 was Black Hawk with 97 percent of votes cast. The lowest percentage of "yes" vote was Woodland Park in Teller County with 55 percent. The average "yes" vote was 76 percent.

...Before this election, 22 counties and 47 cities had already voted to shed themselves of SB 152. The majority of these communities did not gently reach out and pick up local authority - voters snatched it back with 70, 80, and 90 percent of votes cast. Clearly they want options beyond the national cable and DSL providers.

Historically, incumbent ISP lobbyists, think tankers, and other paid mouthpieces have tried to intentionally sow dissent by framing municipal broadband as a partisan issue. But time and time again we've noted how most of these city-owned networks are being built in Conservative markets, and being tired of shitty, uncompetitive broadband is certainly not a partisan concept. But ISPs have consistently been successful in having politicians claim they're only looking out for the taxpayer, while ignoring that letting giant, incumbent telecom operators write awful state law is a horrible idea.

That said, Colorado is an outlier in that most laws of this type don't really let towns and cities vote to ignore the rules. As a result, most of the states that these laws have been passed in (like Tennessee) have become broadband backwaters, where broadband service is as slow -- and expensive -- as ever before.

Filed Under: broadband, colorado, competition, municipal broadband

Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss

from the don't-build-it-and-they-won't-come dept

Back in February the FCC voted to use its Congressional mandate to ensure speedy broadband deployment to dismantle protectionist state laws intentionally designed to hinder broadband competition. But the FCC recently found itself swatted down by the courts, which argued the agency lacks the authority to pre-empt even the worst portions of these laws. As a result municipal broadband providers continue to run face first into protectionist provisions written by incumbent ISP lawyers and lobbyists solely concerned about protecting the current broken broadband market.

The impact of the FCC's loss is very real. Ars Technica notes that one of the broadband ISPs that originally asked for help from the FCC, Wilson North Carolina's Greenlight, has had to disconnect one neighboring town or face violating state law. With state leaders tone deaf to the problem of letting incumbent ISPs write such laws, and the FCC flummoxed in its attempt to help, about 200 home Internet customers in Pinetops will thus lose access to gigabit broadband service as of October 28:

"We must comply with our state law," Agner said. But city council members were very vocal in their opposition to the law and regret having to disconnect the service, she said. "We have not identified a solution where Greenlight can serve customers outside of our county," Wilson City Manager Grant Goings told The Wilson Times earlier this week before the city council vote. "While we are very passionate about reaching underserved areas and we think the laws are atrocious to prevent people from having service, we’re not going to jeopardize our ability to serve Wilson residents."

Greenlight's fiber network provides speeds of 40Mbps to 1Gbps at prices ranging from $40 to $100 a month, service that's unheard of from any of the regional incumbent providers (AT&T, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable) that lobbied for the protectionist law. Previously, the community of Pinetops only had access to sluggish DSL Service from CenturyLink:

Wilson already had fiber in Pinetops, which has been an electric customer of Wilson's for more than 40 years. Before deploying Internet access to Pinetops, Wilson was laying fiber in the town to support smart grid initiatives. After the FCC voted to let city Internet services expand outside their boundaries, Wilson extended the fiber network to pass the roughly 700 homes in Pinetops, Agner said. Prior to this, Pinetops residents' only option was CenturyLink DSL, she said.

That's the same CenturyLink that's currently using the lack of competition in its markets to begin saddling already slow and expensive DSL service with usage caps and overage fees. ISPs have been very successful in sowing partisan discord by framing municipal broadband as a partisan issue (pesky government interfering in private enterprise!). In reality, most municipal broadband networks have been built in Conservative areas and see broad, bi-partisan support. Disliking the local phone and cable company (and the market failure that built them) is actually something that tends to bring bickering partisans together.

Still, with the FCC's loss there's nothing really stopping ISPs from continuing to use state legislatures as their personal playthings. Currently there's twenty such laws protecting broadband duopolies in place, and despite growing attention to the practice, new protectionist laws are being passed each year.

Filed Under: competition, dsl, fcc, fiber, municipal broadband, north carolina, pinetops, wilson
Companies: centurylink, greenlight

This Bill Could Stop Protectionist State Broadband Laws, But ISP Control Over Congress Means It Won't Pass

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

We've noted for years that one way incumbent broadband providers protect their duopoly kingdoms is by quite literally buying state laws that protect the status quo. These laws, passed in roughly twenty different states, prevent towns and cities from building their own broadband networks or in some instances from partnering with a private company like Google Fiber. Usually misleadingly presented by incumbent lobbyists and lawmakers as grounded in altruistic concern for taxpayer welfare, the laws are little more than pure protectionism designed to maintain the current level of broadband dysfunction -- for financial gain.

Earlier this year, the FCC tried to use its Congressional mandate under the Communications Act to eliminate the restrictive portions of these laws in two states. But the FCC's effort was shot down as an overreach by the courts earlier this month, and the FCC has stated it has no intention of continuing the fight. That leaves the hope of ending these protectionist laws either in the hands of voters (most of whom don't have the slightest idea what's happening) or Congress (most of whom don't want the telecom campaign contributions to stop flowing).

Undaunted, Representative Anna Eshoo this week introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2016 in the House, which is intended to be a companion bill to the existing bill of the same name already introduced in the Senate by Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden. Both bills would ban states from passing any law that prohibits a city, municipality or public utility from providing "advanced telecommunications capabilities" to state communities. In a statement, Eshoo expressed her displeasure at the ongoing efforts to thwart alternative broadband options:

"I’m disappointed that a recent court ruling blocked the FCC’s efforts to allow local communities to decide for themselves how best to ensure that their residents have broadband access,” Eshoo said. “This legislation clears the way for local communities to make their own decisions instead of powerful special interests in state capitals."

"Rather than restricting local communities in need of broadband, we should be empowering them to make the decisions they determine are in the best interests of their constituents. Too many Americans still lack access to quality, affordable broadband and community broadband projects are an important way to bring this critical service to more citizens."

Which is all true, though both bills have virtually no chance at passing. Incumbent ISPs have been very successful in paying lawmakers to argue that any attempt to eliminate these protectionist laws is an "assault on states' rights," as argued by the likes of Marsha Blackburn. Of absolutely no concern to these critics is the fact that large companies are writing and buying the passage of state laws that ensure many states remain broadband backwaters solely to protect incumbent ISP revenues.

On the bright side, the rise of alternative (though limited) options like Google Fiber -- and the FCC's fight -- have shined a very bright spotlight on a practice that has been ongoing for fifteen years with little to no public and press attention. As such, ISPs (and the politicians that love them) are having a much harder time than ever convincing locals that laws keeping them on expensive, sluggish broadband are in their collective best self-interest.

Filed Under: competition, congress, fcc, municipal broadband

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

Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC Attempt To Eliminate Protectionist State Broadband Laws

from the you-can't-build-it,-and-they-won't-come dept

For years we've discussed how incumbent broadband providers protect their duopoly by writing and lobbying for awful protectionist state laws. These laws, passed in nineteen different states, either significantly hamstring or outright ban towns and cities looking to build their own networks, or strike public/private partnerships with companies like Google Fiber. In most instances, these towns and cities only jumped into the broadband business after being under-served for a decade -- if they were able to get broadband in the first place.

While it was overshadowed by the net neutrality vote at the time, back in February the FCC voted 3-2 to try and take aim at the most restrictive parts of these laws. The FCC argued that it could use its authority under Section 706 of the Communications act -- which requires the FCC to ensure "reasonable and timely" deployment of broadband access -- to pre-empt these restrictions working in contrast to that goal. But North Carolina and Tennessee quickly sued, arguing that preventing them from letting AT&T and Comcast write awful state laws violated their state rights.

In a huge blow to the FCC, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (pdf) has ruled that the FCC's pre-emption of these state restrictions must be reversed, because Section 706 doesn't clearly provide the FCC with the proper authority. While the FCC may have been well intentioned, all three Judges noted that the law simply doesn't give the FCC the authority to strip out chunks of state law:

"Section 706 does not contain a clear statement authorizing preemption of Tennessee’s and North Carolina’s statutes that govern the decisions of their municipal subdivisions. Section 706(a) instructs the FCC to utilize “measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” Subsection (b) is a similar but broader instruction—it directs the FCC to “remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment and . . . promot[e] competition in the telecommunications market."

The ruling continues, reiterating that the Communications Act language is simply too murky to be applied by the FCC in this fashion:

"Remove barriers to infrastructure investment” is unclear regarding whether it applies to public and private infrastructure investment or only private infrastructure investment. “Infrastructure,” by itself, is not specific to the public sphere. Furthermore, nowhere in the general charge to “promote competition in the telecommunications market” is a directive to do so by preempting a state’s allocation of powers between itself and its subdivisions."

While the FCC may have gotten too creative under the scope of the law, the end result of the ruling is unfortunate all the same.

For more than a generation, phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast have all but owned many state legislatures, who in turn make it their unrelenting mission to protect regional, geographical monopolies (duopolies, if you're "lucky") from any evolution or competition whatsoever. And while Tennessee and North Carolina were quick to breathlessly accuse the FCC of violating states rights, state leaders haven't been concerned in the slightest that letting AT&T and Comcast write bad state laws consistently hurts consumers, businesses, and the state itself.

Tennessee remains a broadband backwater for just this reason, so this shouldn't be a ruling anybody in the state (or in policy circles) is popping champagne corks over. It remains unclear what the FCC will do now, though in a statement FCC boss Tom Wheeler said he intends to continue fighting these restrictions, one way or another:

"In the past 18 months, over 50 communities have taken steps to build their own bridges across the digital divide. The efforts of communities wanting better broadband should not be thwarted by the political power of those who, by protecting their monopoly, have failed to deliver acceptable service at an acceptable price. The FCC’s mandate is to make sure that Americans have access to the best possible broadband. We will consider all our legal and policy options to remove barriers to broadband deployment wherever they exist so that all Americans can have access to 21st Century communications.

"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."

The agency could appeal, could try its luck in a different jurisdiction and hope for better results, or it could wait on Congress to properly give it the authority it needs to fight broadband corruption and dysfunction of this type (chortle, guffaw). Unfortunately for consumers, Wheeler's running out of time if, as tradition encourages, he's going to step down with the election of a new President. While we wait, the onus once again rests squarely on the shoulders of voters to be informed, and to kick cash-compromised telecom sector sycophants out of office.

Filed Under: 6th circuit, broadband, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, preemption, state laws