Community Broadband Preemption Map

Eighteen states in the U.S. have enacted barriers to either make it difficult or impossible for communities to build publicly-owned networks. The map below displays states with barriers based on our analysis of whether they have an outright ban, a de facto ban, or various barriers to communities owning this essential infrastructure.

As peer nations surpass U.S. capabilities in broadband networks - the key infrastructure in the 21st century - eighteen states have decided to make it more difficult for their communities to build for themselves what the private sector will not. FDR's rejection of such policies in his time bears repeating:

I therefore lay down the following principle: That where a community--a city or county or a district--is not satisfied with the service rendered or the rates charged by the private utility, it has the undeniable basic right, as one of its functions of Government, one of its functions of home rule, to set up, after a fair referendum to its voters has been had, its own governmentally owned and operated service.

Click on a state with barriers to reveal the nature of the barrier, our commentary, and a link to the statute(s) described.

States should not prevent or discourage local communities from investing in essential infrastructure where they recognize a need. Such policies reduce a community to begging the private sector to build a network. Without the ability to build their own networks, communities face significant disadvantages - from paying higher prices on phone, television, and Internet access subscriptions to reduced health and educational opportunities.

Just as the public sector played an essential role in extending electricity and telephone service to everyone, America should once again trust in cooperatives, nonprofits, and local governments to ensure everyone has affordable, fast, and reliable access to the Internet.

Many of the current policy problems we face in this area are a result from unrealistic expectations of the private sector to invest in and properly manage these information networks as they transitioned from a nicety to an essential infrastructure. From network neutrality to universal access, private companies have divergent interests from the public good. Though policy can -- and should -- encourage robust private sector competition at the service layer (services like telephone, television, and Internet access have become distinct from the network layer - where bits are moved), the nature of building the physical networks themselves make true competition all but impossible. Without competition, the private sector is inclined to avoid investment and charged inflated prices to maximize profits.

Just as with the physical road networks upon which we have depended for nearly one hundred years, information networks should be operated in the public interest. Though municipalities, cooperatives, and nonprofits have all proven they can offer impressive services at affordable prices, other publicly owned networks have looked to the private sector to offer services over these publicly owned networks. Some networks both offer services and allow the private sector to compete equally on the same network. Either way, what matters most is who is making the rules - and do those rules favor what is best for the community or merely what produces the most short-term revenue?

Either Congress or the Federal Communications Commission should preempt states from restricting local, community owned networks. And soon.

Special thanks to Jim Baller, who has compiled and analyzed barriers to community networks. That work facilitated our analysis above.