Study: Community Broadband Drives Competition, Lowering Costs

from the Do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For all of the talk about being #1, America's broadband networks are routinely mediocre. The U.S. consistently ranks among the middle of the pack in speeds and overall availability, while Americans continue to pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for both fixed and mobile broadband. The reasons aren't mysterious: we've let a bunch of telecom giants monopolize the sector, dictate most US telecom policy in exchange for campaign contributions, and literally write state and federal law with a relentless focus on hamstringing competition.

We then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces, wondering what went wrong. Rinse, wash, repeat.

While this has been true for 30 years or so, the pandemic has finally started shining a brighter light on the problem. After all, an estimated 42 million Americans can't get access to any broadband whatsoever despite endless billions in subsidies and mammoth industry tax breaks. Millions more can't afford service thanks to monopolization and a lack of competition. A new report by the Open Technology Institute revealed last week once again that Americans pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world:

"We find substantial evidence of an affordability crisis in the United States. Based on our dataset, the most affordable average monthly prices are in Asian and European cities. Just three U.S. cities rank in the top half of cities when sorted by average monthly costs. The most affordable U.S. city—Ammon, Idaho—ranks seventh. The overwhelming majority of the U.S. cities in our dataset rank in the bottom half for average monthly costs."

Why Ammon, Idaho? It's a community owned and operated open access fiber network that encourages, you guessed it, actual competition. Data repeatedly shows such networks offer faster, better, and cheaper service -- in part because they're more accountable to the local community being locals themselves, but also because they can spur incumbent providers to improve service and lower costs. It's something the OTI study noted quite clearly:

And yet, there's an entire telecom-sector backed cottage industry of folks who attempt to malign community broadband and public/private partnerships. Time and time again, such networks are demonized (incorrectly) as inevitable boondoggles and not simply an organic response to market failure. Why? Because such networks challenge the status quo enjoyed by AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which all but own a bipartisan laundry list of state and federal lawmakers and a chorus of "experts" happy and willing to try and argue that US broadband is both competitive and hugely innovative.

But the data doesn't budge. US broadband simply isn't competitive, particularly at faster speeds of 100 Mbps or greater:

“When you factor in price at [100 Mbps] speed,” FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel has written, “the United States is not even close to leading the world." Our findings support this statement. At the 100 Mbps minimum download speed tier, the United States has the most expensive average monthly price, followed by Asia and Europe. Eight of the 10 most expensive cities in this speed tier are in the United States."

That didn't happen by accident. And none of this should be surprising to anyone.

US phone companies have given up on upgrading their aging DSL networks because it's simply not profitable quickly enough for Wall Street's liking. As a result, cable giants like Comcast and Charter Spectrum have secured a monopoly over faster broadband speeds across huge swaths of the nation, driving up costs and ensuring some of the worst customer service in any industry in America. Contrary to industry's claims, wireless is not some panacea for this problem for reasons we've well explored. And while low orbit satellite might help a little, that too isn't going to be a miracle cure.

Study, after study, after study make it clear: US broadband is patchy, expensive, and slower than a long list of countries due to limited competition and state and federal corruption. We know this, the data repeatedly shows it, and yet year after year we simply double down on the same mistakes for what, by now, should be a fairly obvious reason: it's what wealthy US telecom monopolists want.

Filed Under: broadband, community broadband, competition, muni broadband

This Iowa Town Is Building An Open Access Fiber Broadband Network. Google Fiber Is Its First Customer

from the open-access-ftw dept

West Des Moines, Iowa this week announced that it would be building a massive, open access fiber network. The city is one of roughly 750 towns and cities that, frustrated by high prices, limited competition, and patchy availability of US broadband, have decided to instead build their own networks. Well, assuming that AT&T and Comcast haven't bribed your state officials to pass laws banning such efforts yet.

West Des Moines' new network will be funded by taxable General Obligation bonds with low interest rates. It's too early to note what kind of speeds and prices will be on offer, but the city's announcement indicates that Google Fiber will be one of its first customers:

"We couldn’t be more pleased to work with an outstanding company like Google Fiber to help make this happen,” Gaer said. “Now more than ever, reliable high-speed internet is critical. It’s amazing that in just four years, West Des Moines is well on its way to achieving the WDM 2036 Plan goal of finding an innovative way to provide access to broadband for all our residents and businesses."

It's semi-ironic given that before Google Fiber launched, Google insisted its own network would be open access -- before immediately conducting a 180 on the decision. According to the Des Moines Register, Google Fiber would pay the city $2.25 per month for each household that connects to the network, up to a maximum of $4.5 million over 20 years. Construction of the network begins this fall, and is estimated to last around two and a half years. When completed, West Des Moines will have better broadband than many tech-centric areas like Seattle or Silicon Valley.

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access broadband networks (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service. Of course when the FCC released its flimsy, politically timid "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found.

Such networks have driven notable broadband success in countries like Sweden. But here in America, both US political parties, awash in campaign cash from Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and others, have spent decades ignoring this data to instead embrace a singular telecom policy: kissing AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast's collective ass. The result: the US remains mediocre in nearly every broadband metric that matters, and probably spends more time and resources denying this factual reality than actually addressing the problem.

Community broadband isn't some one size fits all panacea. But such options are a helpful niche solution that not only result in better connectivity, but drive incumbents to try a little bit harder, an alien concept in a country where regulatory capture and a lack of competition have been the norm for the better part of thirty years.

Instead of acknowledging this reality, telecom incumbents like AT&T, and the think tankers, lobbyists, regulators, lawmakers, consultants, and academics paid to love them, have spent years attempting to demonize community broadband, insisting such efforts are a guaranteed taxpayer boondoggle, an ominous threat to free speech, and a long list of other bullshit claims. Many of these same folks can't even acknowledge that US broadband isn't competitive, and most love ignoring the fact that these towns and cities wouldn't be considering the option if the private sector hadn't failed them, repeatedly.

There remains a rather singular solution to incumbent ISPs and their dollar per holler allies who falsely deem such efforts to be wasteful or unfair: start offering better, faster, cheaper service. If you're unwilling to do that, get the fuck out of the way.

Filed Under: competition, iowa, muni broadband, open access, west des moines

House Passes Massive Broadband Bill That Surprisingly Doesn't Suck

from the not-a-chance-in-hell dept

The majority of broadband bills that wind their way through Congress don't actually address the most pressing problem in US telecom: a lack of meaningful broadband competition. Often the bills focus almost exclusively on heavy subsidization of incumbent telecom monopolies, an approach that requires a level of diligence the U.S. has historically not been capable of. The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, which passed the House last week, certainly includes its fair share of subsidization, including $80 billion in fiscal year 2021 to help deploy fiber broadband networks to the underserved parts of the country.

But the bill also contains a number of other improvements most objective experts have long supported, including:

These are, again, all things that actual telecom policy experts (not to be conflated with the army of academics, think tankers, consultants, lobbyists and lawyers often tangentially employed by ISPs to help pretend US broadband isn't a shit show) have been advocating for for years. Many of them -- specifically "dig once" provisions and eliminating protectionist state laws -- generally have wide, bipartisan public support.

But while the bill passed the House with a vote of 233-188, there's not a chance in hell of it passing the Senate or getting Trump's signature. In large part because it runs in stark contrast to the Trump administration's and Pai FCC's approach to telecom policy, which largely involves doling out massive tax cuts, regulatory favors, and other perks to natural monopolies in exchange for massive layoffs and reduced overall sector investment. Then not only pretending that this approach worked wonders, but ignoring the high prices and limited competition that has plagued the US telecom sector for decades.

Like so many other things in tech policy (like net neutrality), actually recognizing a lack of competition in telecom -- and wanting to actually embrace pro-competition policies -- has somehow become a partisan issue, dooming us to inaction and further Comcast and AT&T dominance. While this bill is decent, its backers pushed it as election season fodder with the knowledge it won't pass. Without a dramatic Congressional shakeup, arm in arm with serious efforts to rein in Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon's dominance over state and federal legislatures, it likely never will.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, congress, dig once, fcc, house, lifeline, muni broadband, open access

The Fastest ISP In America Is Community Owned And Operated

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

We've long noted that community broadband networks are just an organic response to the broken, uncompetitive US broadband market. While you'll occasionally see some deployment duds if the business models aren't well crafted, studies have shown such networks (there are 750 and counting now in the States) offer cheaper, faster service than many incumbents. In short, these communities grew so frustrated with America's mediocre, patchy, and expensive broadband service, they built their own.

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. It's also why you'll often see the telecom sector and its various, obedient tendrils routinely try to claim these networks are a vile menace to free speech (they're not) or a guaranteed waste of taxpayer funds (again, not true at all).

Here in reality, many of these networks are outperforming their private sector counterparts. Chattanooga's EPB, for example, was rated one of the best ISPs in America by Consumer Reports, despite Comcast's efforts to sue the effort out of existence. And this week, PC Magazine's ratings of the fastest and most popular ISPs showed that Cedar Falls Utilities (CFU), a locally-owned utility providing broadband out of Cedar Falls, Iowa, offers the fastest averaged speed ratings the magazine's researchers have ever seen:

Verizon's Fios was the top rated private ISP, and notice where they fall in the comparison above. From the full report:

"Cedar Falls Utilities (CFU) out of Cedar Falls, Iowa, has the fastest average PCMag Speed Index we've ever seen. Even individual towns with fast speeds were never capable of this in our previous tests. (Pick your jaw up off the floor so you can start searching Zillow for house listings there.) Its PSI of 1,350.4 shows what's possible when your state doesn't block municipal ISPs that are part of a town/city utility. (They are blocked in about half of the US.)

The Cedar Falls effort is one of the oldest and most successful community networks to date, and now it's the fastest -- by a wide margin. That lawmakers continue to pass and defend protectionist state laws literally written by Comcast and AT&T prohibiting such efforts where applicable continues to be a nationwide embarrassment. If ISPs really wanted to put these efforts to bed, they'd offer faster, cheaper, better service. Instead, we get FCC officials trying to falsely claim such networks trample your free speech rights.

To be clear, community networks aren't a panacea. But they're not automatic taxpayer disasters, either. In many areas, courtesy of limited competition and feckless, campaign cash compromised lawmakers and regulators, they're the only thing pressuring regional telecom monopolies to actually try and do better. And as this Harvard study illustrated quite well, because they're actually part of the community they serve, they tend to have a vested interest in their communities' welfare, resulting in better, faster, cheaper broadband and decent customer service.

Filed Under: broadband, cedar falls, competition, iowa, muni broadband
Companies: cedar falls utilities

Colorado Town Offers 1 Gbps For $60 After Years Of Battling Comcast

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

A new community broadband network went live in Fort Collins, Colorado recently offering locals there gigabit fiber speeds for $60 a month with no caps, restrictions, or hidden fees. The network launch comes years after telecom giants like Comcast worked tirelessly to crush the effort. Voters approved the effort as part of a November 2017 ballot initiative, despite the telecom industry spending nearly $1 million on misleading ads to try and derail the effort. A study (pdf) by the Institute for Local Reliance estimated that actual competition in the town was likely to cost Comcast between $5.4 million and $22.8 million each year.

Unlike private operations, the Fort Collins Connexion network pledges to adhere to net neutrality. The folks behind the network told Ars Technica the goal is to offer faster broadband to the lion's share of the city within the next few years:

"The initial number of homes we're targeting this week is 20-30. We will notify new homes weekly, slowly ramping up in volume," Connexion spokesperson Erin Shanley told Ars. While Connexion's fiber lines currently pass just a small percentage of the city's homes and businesses, Shanley said the city's plan is to build out to the city limits within two or three years.

"Ideally we will capture more than 50% of the market share, similar to Longmont," another Colorado city that built its own network, Shanley said. Beta testers at seven homes are already using the Fort Collins service, and the plan is to start notifying potential customers about service availability today.

The telecom sector simply loves trying to insist that community-run broadband is an inevitable taxpayer boondoggle. But such efforts are just like any other proposal and depend greatly on the quality of the business plan. And the industry likes to ignore the fact that such efforts would not be happening in the first place if American consumers weren't outraged by the high prices, slow speeds, and terrible customer service the industry is known for. All symptoms of the limited competition industry apologists are usually very quick to pretend aren't real problems (because when quarterly returns are all that matter to you, they aren't).

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 nineteen 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.

There's probably not a day that goes by without these companies regretting letting that caveat make it into the final bill.

Filed Under: colorado, community broadband, competiton, fort collins, muni broadband, municipal broadband
Companies: connexion

Towns And Cities Keep Ditching Comcast To Build Their Own Broadband Networks

from the ill-communication dept

We've long talked about the more than 750 towns, cities, and counties that have responded to US broadband market failure by building their own broadband networks. We've also talked at length about how data has shown these networks often offer better service at lower, more transparent prices than their purely private sector counterparts, whose apathy has only grown in the wake of limited competition. And, of course, we've talked at great length about the 21 state laws giant ISPs have quite literally written and purchased in a bid to try and keep this phenomenon from taking root.

Those protectionist efforts aren't working all that well.

In states like Massachusetts, there are countless towns and cities that either only have the choice of expensive Comcast cable broadband, or antiquated Verizon DSL lines the company simply refuses to upgrade (despite countless billions in subsidies, regulatory perks, and tax breaks). After years of apathy from entrenched incumbents, these towns and cities have slowly but surely peeled off and begun building their own networks.

Like Alford, Massachusetts, population 486, which now has faster speeds than many cities after locals grew tired waiting for local incumbents. After city residents there decided to build their own fiber network, they're enamoured with the fact that the kids aren't angry when they come home for vacation:

"The 20-year-olds were home over the holidays, and we had no problem with the four of us [using the internet]," said Peter Puciloski, who is chairman of the town's Broadband Committee. "In the past, we would get warnings that we hit our monthly 50 gigs or something. But there are no limitations here."

Another town, Charlemont, Massachusetts, has been begging Comcast to deliver broadband for the better part of the last two decades. They too decided to build their own, faster (and uncapped) fiber network, in large part because residents felt that direct ownership would provide them greater control. It's all part of a quest by countless rural towns and cities to avoid the economic and cultural pitfalls of being connectivity backwaters in the information age:

"Part of what you want to conserve in small towns is the fact that there’s families. There’s multigenerational opportunities. That’s going away because of the lack of broadband. Young families aren’t coming out the same way, because they can’t make a living,” she said. “No town should be mostly populated by mostly 65-and-older folks. That’s not the richness of a rural community."

For decades now, ISP lobbyists, think tankers, consultants, and other hired policy tendrils have gone out of their way to demonize community broadband as a "perverse form of socialism," ignoring that this is a purely organic, democratic response to market failure. One that wouldn't be happening if the United States actually cared about fostering competition in broadband, or holding giant lumbering natural monopolies accountable for what should be obvious failures. These areas aren't getting into the broadband business because they think it's fun, they're doing it because the US broadband market is painfully, obviously broken.

You need a combination of competition and adult regulatory oversight to drive solutions to these broken markets. Instead, we've currently embraced federal policies that effectively rubber stamp every idiotic desire of giants like Comcast. We then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces as US consumers pay some of the highest rates in the developed world for substandard service that is unevenly deployed. Community broadband isn't some mystical panacea that cures everything (and can certainly have pitfalls if business models are poorly designed), but when done properly it's a wonderful way to light a fire under the asses of some of the laziest, government-pampered, natural monopolies America has to offer.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, muni 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

Disgusted With Charter Spectrum Merger, Lexington To Build Entirely New Fiber Network

from the busting-the-duopoly-logjam dept

When Charter Spectrum acquired Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in a blockbuster $69 billion merger last year, the company promised the deal would result in all manner of "synergies" and consumer benefits. But as is the case with most telecom megamergers, most of these acquired users say the deal only resulted in significantly higher prices -- and somehow even worse customer service than the historically awful service the company was already known for. In many areas, users say they've been socked with price hikes up to 40% for the exact same service.

Charter CEO Tom Rutledge, the highest paid executive in America last year, stated that customers were "mispriced" and were simply being shoved in the "right direction."

Things got so bad, that Lexington was forced to hold a town hearing last summer to address overwhelmingly negative public sentiment toward Charter's dysfunction. Like many American cities, consumers in Lexington often only have the choice of one cable broadband provider, since the local phone companies have failed to seriously upgrade their fiber networks. Also like in many American cities, locals tell a tale of a company that faces so little competition in its market, it simply doesn't have to give much of a damn:

"Following a brief presentation where provider representatives highlighted the company's expanding network, workforce, and investments in infrastructure, customers stood up one by one to tell a different story. Among the themes: unpredictable bills, questionable internet speeds, and poor customer service. One customer, Christian Torp, complained that the company repeatedly charged him for his own equipment.

"I've probably over the years spent 30 or 40 hours on it," he told WUKY. "I'm a father and an attorney. I don't have the time to spend dealing with their fraud."

It should be noted that Kentucky is one of 23 states that have let incumbent ISPs quite literally write state telecom law protecting towns and cities from building their own networks or striking public/private partnerships for better broadband. Fortunately for Lexington residents, city leaders were able to convince private operator MetroNet to come to town and build a $70 to $100 million network to try and ease the local duopoly logjam. Construction of the network will begin in January, and should start offering some real, gigabit-capable fiber competition by next summer:

"Just in time for Christmas, Santa Claus is coming to town," (Lexington Mayor Jim) Gray said at a news conference officially announcing that Indiana-based MetroNet plans to spend as much as $100 million building a fiber-optic network that covers the city’s entire urban service area.

MetroNet pledged Tuesday to spend at least $70 million to build the network over the next three to four years if it receives a cable franchise from the city. Gigabit speed is equivalent to moving data at 1,000 megabits per second. Lexington’s average internet speed is 16.2 megabits per second, according to some studies.

Lexington was fortunate to be attractive enough to private companies to strike such a deal. But in countless less developed cities and rural American markets, private ISPs simply don't think the slower return on their investment is worth their time. As a result, many towns and cities have struggled for years with substandard service and sky-high prices. In turn, many have considered building their own networks or striking partnerships with companies like Google Fiber, only to discover that ISPs like Charter have quite literally purchased laws making that impossible.

So while Lexington was lucky enough to attract a private investor, there's countless U.S. broadband markets that don't get to see this kind of happy ending.

Filed Under: competition, fiber network, lexington, muni broadband
Companies: charter spectrum

Comcast Tries To Stop Colorado City From Even Talking About Building Its Own Broadband Network

from the Comcast-knows-what's-best-for-you dept

We've noted for years how giant ISPs have literally written and purchased protectionist laws in more than twenty states restricting towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Many of these laws even go so far as to restrict these towns from striking public/private partnerships with companies like Google Fiber, often one of the only options for areas incumbent ISPs have declared not-profitable enough to serve. In this way giant ISPs get their cake and eat it too: they don't have to expand service, but make sure nobody else can either.

Colorado's SB 152 is one such law. SB 152 was a 2005 product of lobbying from Comcast and CenturyLink, and required communities jump through numerous hoops should they want to simply make decisions regarding their own, local infrastructure. Like all such laws the ISP pretense was that they were simply looking to protect taxpayers from financial irresponsibility (an idea often lacking in ISPs' daily business efforts), though it's abundantly clear the real goal was to prop up and protect the dysfunctional broadband duopoly status quo from anything vaguely resembling change or competition.

However, over the last few years ballot initiatives have allowed several Colorado communities like Boulder, Montrose, and Centennial to take back their right to determine their infrastructure needs for themselves and ignore the restrictions SB 152 imposes. Rather unsurprisingly, residents angry at substandard service from the likes of Comcast have been overwhelmingly opting out of the restrictive state law. Again -- not because they think building a network will be fun -- but because they're so disgusted by incumbent service they feel they have no other option.

Fort Collins is the latest city to this week vote on opting out of SB 152. To be clear: opting out of the law's restrictions only opens the door to the possibility of building a network or striking public/private partnerships. But the incumbent ISPs like Comcast that bought the law have spent more than $200,000 to prevent that conversation from even happening:

"Politics is an expensive game, but when an oligopoly is at stake, there's no price tag too high for Big Telecom. In Fort Collins, Colorado—a town of about 150,000 north of Denver—Big Telecom has contributed more than $200,000 to a campaign opposing a ballot measure to simply consider a city-run broadband network. It's the latest example of how far Big Telecom is willing to go to prevent communities from building their own internet and competing with the status quo.

"It's been wild," said Glen Akins, a Fort Collins advocate for municipal broadband. "We're overwhelmed by the amount of money the opposition is spending."

That spending, which is breaking local records, has included TV spots -- funded by an ISP policy front group -- that make numerous, misleading arguments about what locals are actually voting on. The ads try to conflate being allowed to have a conversation about the idea with actually moving forward with a plan. The ads also falsely claim that if the city of 150,000 moves forward with such a project, road repair, affordable housing, and other priorities in the city would suffer (also not true since the project would be funded by service revenues and utility bonds that couldn't be used for these other services):

What's Comcast so afraid of? The idea of city-owned or public/private partnerships have opened the door to open access networks in many cities, where ISPs come in and actually compete over core infrastructure. Like Ammon, Idaho, for example, where users can switch between multiple ISPs in seconds if they're not getting the speeds, prices or customer service they'd prefer. Actual competition obviously would mean a notable erosion in Comcast revenues:

"Evidence from other cities suggests that a real choice in broadband services could reduce Comcast's revenues by millions of dollars per month," the group, which advocates for municipal broadband projects, wrote in a policy brief. "Competition in Fort Collins would cost Comcast between $5.4 million and $22.8 million per year. In Seattle, robust competition would cost between $20 million and $84 million per year."

It's worth repeating that Comcast could prevent towns and cities from going this route by simply offering better service and lower prices. But in a country where incumbent telecom companies all but own state legislatures (as we just saw in Michigan), it's often much less expensive to write and purchase a law. Or in this case, spend half a million dollars to mislead consumers, preventing them from even having a conversation about creative paths toward better, faster, cheaper broadband.

Filed Under: colorado, competition, fort collins, muni broadband
Companies: comcast