State Laws Restricting Community Broadband Are Hurting US Communities During The Pandemic

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

We've talked for years about how telecom monopolies like Comcast and AT&T have ghost written laws in more than twenty states, banning or hamstringing towns and cities looking to build their own broadband networks. We've also noted with COVID clearly illustrating how broadband is essential for education, opportunity, employment, and healthcare, such restrictions are looking dumber than ever. Voters should have every right to make local infrastructure decisions for themselves, and if big ISPs and armchair free market policy wonks don't want that to happen, incumbent ISPs should provide faster, cheaper, better service.

As the pandemic continues, some cities have found ways around such restrictions -- by focusing more specifically on serving struggling, low income Americans. Texas is one such state that long ago passed municipal restrictions, courtesy of Dallas-based AT&T. AT&T doesn't want to upgrade or repair many of its DSL lines, but it also doesn't want communities upgrading or building networks either lest it become a larger trend (too late). As a result, in San Antonio, an amazing 38% of homes still don't have residential broadband.

The city's existing network can't really expand commercial service thanks to a law written by AT&T. But that law doesn't prohibit the city from servicing the poor by offering free service, something made possible by the recent CARES Act:

"This year in a number of cities, the pandemic has inspired some narrower versions of municipal broadband that get around these restrictions, focused on creating “affordable networks” that specifically target low-income households. Several of these were born out of the immediate need to bridge the homework gap.

“Pre-Covid there were at most a handful of networks being built to address affordability; now, we’ve started informally keeping a list and we’re over 30,” Siefer says. “The phenomena of setting up a network for that reason, in that way, is new."

In San Antonio's case, the city used $27 million in CARES Act funding to expand its existing network to 20,000 students across the city’s 50 most vulnerable neighborhoods. Entrenched monopolies (and the law makers, policy wonks, think tankers, and academics paid to love them) love to insist that such networks are an inevitable taxpayer boondoggle. Yet those same folks never make a solitary peep as we throw massive tax breaks at companies like AT&T for literally doing absolutely nothing. Or billions more at a rotating crop of companies for networks they, time and time and time again, fail to deliver.

The problem is that these community funding solutions are temporary, and lack funding to continue for more than a year or two, despite our very obvious broadband coverage gaps (42 million without service, 83 million locked under a monopoly). The other problem, of course, is that overpriced, slow, and spotty US broadband is the direct result of corruption and monopolization, problems we often refuse to even acknowledge, much less do anything about.

The solutions here aren't complicated, we just don't want to do them. We could easily ask voters if they want to discard the 20+ protectionist laws written by monopolies, letting local citizens decide local infrastructure issues themselves. We could beef up antitrust enforcement, and refuse to rubber stamp mindless telecom mergers that inevitably lead to more consolidation, less competition, and higher prices. We could embrace policies that upset incumbent monopolies by driving additional competition to market. We could reform campaign finance laws so AT&T and Comcast don't all but own countless state legislatures.

But we don't do that. Instead, we let monopolies write state and federal policy and laws with an eye on protecting the status quo. Laws that make disruption by smaller players expensive, cumbersome, and often impossible. We then throw billions of dollars at said monopolies for networks they routinely only half deploy. We rubber stamp harmful mergers and fail to hold monopolies accountable for much of anything. Once that's done, we then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why US broadband is utterly mediocre in nearly every single metric that matters.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid, municipal broadband, pandemic, state's rights

FCC Boss Takes Aim At Efforts To Bring Broadband To The Poor

from the with-friends-like-these... dept

So we've noted how new FCC boss Ajit Pai has breathlessly claimed that closing the digital divide will be the top priority for his commission. But we've also noted how his actions as FCC boss have run in stark, dramatic contrast to that stated goal. Whether it's making it easier for prison phone monopolies to rip off inmate families, his decision to kill a plan to bring much-needed competition to the cable box, or his attacks on net neutrality, so far Pai has made it painfully clear that protecting AT&T, Comcast and Verizon is actually where his priorities lie.

In the last week Pai took his "love for the poor" to soaring new heights by falsely taking credit for year-old job plans at Charter Communications, and cheering as Congress dismantled consumer privacy protections at large ISP behest. But Pai also took what most analysts believe will be the opening salvo in a war against subsidized broadband service for the poor.

Last year the Wheeler-lead FCC voted to expand the Lifeline program, first created by the Reagan administration and expanded by the Bush administration. Originally, low-income homes received a $9.25 monthly credit that could be used toward wireless or traditional phone service. The 2015 changes not only gave these homes the option to use this money for broadband in an attempt to modernize the fund, but also placed the lion's share of ISP eligibility administration in the hands of the FCC in an attempt, in part, to better police fraud.

A number of states sued over the move, in part because large ISPs (which enjoy even greater regulatory capture on the state level) didn't want the federal government spending money on anything that might improve regional competition. This week, Pai issued a statement saying (pdf) that he would be killing the FCC's legal defense of the 2015 changes, and freezing all federal approval of federal provider eligibility. Why? This power belongs in the hands of the states, not the FCC, claims Pai:

"Congress established our universal service programs as a joint federal-state partnership. And through the years, many states have helped consumers and protected taxpayers by enforcing the rules of the road. As Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) recently observed in introducing bipartisan Lifeline legislation with Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), we need to ‘return the role of state utility commissions in determining Lifeline eligibility. State utility commissions are key to policing against fraud and harmonizing federal and state initiatives that will help us close the digital divide.’ By letting states take the lead on certification as envisioned by Congress, we will strengthen the Lifeline program and put the implementation of last year’s order on a solid legal footing. This will benefit all Americans, including those participating in the program."

On a superficial level Pai does a wonderful job making this all sound perfectly reasonable, obfuscating much of the motivation for the shift as a noble quest to restore states rights (which is what most news coverage will focus on). The problem, again, is that companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon (a former Pai employer) have an absolutely incredible amount of control over state legislatures and regulators. It's a primary reason why more than twenty states have passed laws banning your town or city from upgrading its broadband networks -- even if nobody else will.

Pay-to-play state-level politics is also responsible for the kind of utter shitshows we've seen in states like West Virginia, where state leaders threw millions of dollars in subsidies at companies like Frontier and Verizon, then tried to bury the fact that these companies spent this money on over-priced, un-used hardware and redundant consultants, while doing little to nothing for the benefit of state residents. Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn is another perfect example of what state "oversight" of broadband providers looks like.

So yes, there's a reason large ISPs prefer regulatory oversight of these kinds of programs in the hands of the states, and it has absolutely nothing to do with state rights. It has everything to do with ensuring that these funds aren't used in a way that might increase competition, and decrease their bottom lines. It's simply easier, and by proxy cheaper, to accomplish via lobbying on the state level. Especially after Wheeler's FCC did an arguably-good job finally cracking down on fraud in the E-Rate and Lifeline programs (I'll note here that Pai voted against holding AT&T accountable for ripping off the program in 2015).

Granted while this reconfiguration takes place, carriers waiting to learn if they can actually service the poor will be prohibited from doing so. Those growing familiar with the arguably-massive chasm between Pai's words and his actions were quick to cry foul, stating that this is just an attempt to begin applying the death by a thousand cuts "solution" to the program. Others, like consumer advocate and former FCC staffer Gigi Sohn (who, unlike Pai, actually has a reputation for caring about low-income communities) issued fairly clear warnings:

"The Chairman is masterful in using the argument "the FCC lacks legal power" to undercut just about every pro-consumer and pro-competition policy he doesn’t like. He used this excuse recently in declining to defend the FCC rules that lowered prison phone rates, and he will certainly do the same when addressing the FCC’s privacy rules for broadband and, ultimately, its network neutrality rules.

I won’t get into the details about how Chairman Pai committed his own process foul by having his Wireline Bureau, in the order revoking the nine Lifeline designations, undercut a legal determination voted on by the full Commission in the Lifeline Modernization Order. Instead, I’ll repeat what should now be obvious – the new FCC majority fundamentally dislikes the Lifeline Program and will seek to weaken it by any means possible."

While Pai's approach is certainly eloquent and clever, the folks that have actually spent years fighting for the poor are quick to note that the claims about state rights are little more than a hollow show pony. Meanwhile, somebody might want to tell Ajit Pai that to be considered a champion of the poor, you need to start by, you know, actually being a champion for the poor.

Filed Under: ajit pai, digital divide, fcc, lifeline, poor, state's rights

Why Do States Need Patents In The First Place?

from the head-scratcher dept

Filed Under: patents, sovereign immunity, state's rights

Low Taxes Aren't A Subsidy

from the logistical-nightmare dept

Filed Under: e-commerce, state's rights, taxes
Companies: amazon