op-ed

Tagged Stories

Comcast v. Community in Colorado

Below, you'll find a commentary I just posted on the Huffington Post.

Longmont, Colorado has become ground zero for the battle over the future of access to the Internet. Because big cable and telephone companies have stopped us from having a real choice in Internet Service Providers and failed to invest in adequate networks, a number of communities have built their own networks.

Chattanooga boasts the nation's best citywide broadband network, offering the fastest speeds available in the nation -- and the community owns it. That means much more of the money spent by subscribers stays in town, supporting local jobs.

Longmont, a town near Boulder with 80,000 people, offers a glimpse at how difficult it can be for communities to make any level of broadband investment -- the big cable and phone companies hate any potential competition, no matter how limited.

Longmont's elected officials all agree they need better broadband options to spur economic development. That's why they put a referendum on the ballot that will allow the city to use its existing assets to improve local broadband access. Not only are the mayor and city council unanimous in support of the referendum (2A) necessary for this, their opponents in the city election overwhelmingly agree also! And the local paper just editorialized in favor of it as well.

Who then, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to derail it? Comcast and its allies, of course. And this isn't the first time.

Back in the 1990s, the municipality-owned electric utility built a fiber ring to modernize its electrical grid. They took the opportunity to lay more fiber-optic cables than they would need, knowing that they could later be used by the city or partners to expand broadband access for all businesses and resident.

Over several years, the City worked with a variety of partners to spur broadband deployment locally but a new state law in 2005 gutted their ability to work with private partners to expand broadband. Qwest had just pushed what become known as the "Qwest law" through the Colorado legislature. Starting in 2004, telephone and cable companies used their clout in legislatures across the nation to prevent communities from investing in broadband infrastructure. Now Longmont would have to pass a referendum to allow local businesses and resident to use a network the town built years earlier.

In 2009, Longmont attempted to pass the referendum but Comcast and allies dumped over $245,000 into a "Vote No" campaign that spread fear and misinformation far and wide, resulting in 56% of the voters saying no. They set a record in local campaign spending, dwarfing previous amounts from all sides in any Longmont election.

But after the election, when many learned they had been fooled by anti-competition propaganda, they wanted to revisit the issue. On November 1, they have their chance. But again, Comcast and allies are pouring millions into a campaign of misinformation. Their group has already been busted for erroneously claiming the mayor is against the initiative when he has been unequivocally in favor of it. With two weeks to go before election day, they have already surpassed their previous records by spending $275,000 while the pro-2A groups have yet to expend even $5,000. The true grassroots groups are making do with a website and volunteers countering Comcast's misinformation.

Longmont Comcast Comic

The question is whether big companies like Comcast can again fool more then 50% of the voters with their glossy mailers and robo-calls. This is the real problem -- the debates have shown that the opposition to this measure comes almost entirely from outside the community. But Comcast's ability to flood the papers, airwaves, phones, and mailboxes with market-tested anti-government messages is unrivaled. The big cable and phone companies use the same tactics across the U.S., protecting their high prices and poor services from the only real threat of competition they face -- local community investment.

The most recent mailer threatens that a broadband project would raise taxes, an outright lie given that the referendum text starts, "Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of the City of Longmont..." But the anti-2A groups care about preserving Comcast's market power, not being truthful.

Longmont could join the growing movement of communities that invest in their own broadband networks to ensure fast, affordable, and reliable connections creating local jobs and offering local benefits.

While big citywide networks like Chattanooga's Gig Network have captured plenty of attention, hundreds of communities have made smaller investments -- like the ring Longmont build 14 years ago. Often without even borrowing money, local governments are expanding fiber-optic rings and connections to encourage economic development, create jobs, and lower the cost of providing city services.

This could be the future of access to the Internet -- local initiatives benefiting local stakeholders, putting the needs of the community before the desires of distant shareholders. Longmont makes its decision on November 1. When will your community make yours?

Longmont: Beware the Robo-Calls From Mega-Corporations

Vince Jordan, an advocate for broadband competition in Longmont, Colorado, wrote the following op-ed for the local paper about the upcoming referendum 2A. He has given us permission to reprint it here.

“There you go again” (to quote President Ronald Regan).

Well, it has already started. The folks who spent almost a quarter of a million dollars in the elections two years ago to convince the citizens of Longmont that being able to take further advantage of the fiber network they already own and are using is too dangerous for them, are at it again. No doubt by now, many of you have received one if not multiple “robo-calls” trying to convince you that the City is going to raise your taxes as a result of a yes vote on 2A. The first three words of Ballot Issue 2A say, “Without raising taxes”, but, since the opponents of this ballot, (those being the two mega-corporations who stand to benefit from you voting against 2A), can’t come up with any good reasons against the measure, they are resorting to the tired old cry of “they are going to raise your taxes!”

Citizens of Longmont, from 1997 to 2005, we had the right to use the asset that the city owns, namely the fiber network, to the benefit of ALL of the businesses and citizens of Longmont. The same corporations that are trying to “buy” your vote again, as they successfully did in 2009 with their “No Blank Check” campaign, in 2005 were able to lobby for and buy a law that took away our right to fully utilize this city owned asset. What ballot issue 2A is asking is for the citizens of Longmont to take back a right they once had.

This fiber network, which is fully operational today and used by the city for city purposes, and in fact already benefits the citizens of Longmont to some degree by keeping city service communications cost low, can do so much more. Our fiber network can be used to enhance the three Es, Employment, Education and Entertainment, here in Longmont. Low cost communications is as much a necessity today as is low cost power and water. Longmont already benefits from the lowest power rates in the country and the best service. Why wouldn’t we want the same advantage in the communications network that serves our businesses, our schools and our homes? Do you really believe the opponents of this measure, the lawyers from Denver being paid for by Comcast and CenturyLink, (stated so in a recent Chamber of Commerce session by the very lawyer), and the folks from Colorado Springs being funded by the same organizations, REALLY have YOUR best interest at heart? Do you think these folks would even be here if they weren’t being paid by these corporations?

When the election was over in 2009 and we lost by a very slim margin and the city was then able to explain more clearly what we lost, many of you wrote to the editor of the paper stating that if you had known what the ballot issue was actually about, instead of the “No Blank Check” that you had been convinced it was about, you would have voted for it. Well, here is your second chance Longmont. Don’t let the two mega-corporations “buy” your vote with robo-calls and the mis-information mailings that will no doubt start this week. Be informed and take back the right you had to an asset that you already own, to the benefit f our businesses, our schools and ourselves.

Vote YES! on 2A! Visit Longmont's Future. Be part of Longmont’s Future!

Robo Call graphic courtesy of Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

The Short Story of AT&T's Attack on Schools, Libraries in Wisconsin

 

I wrote the following synopsis of AT&T's attack on schools and libraries in Wisconsin for SaveTheInternet.com.  We are still waiting for the Governor to sign the bill, something that may take another week or longer apparently.

WiscNet is an Internet services co-op that provides Internet access to the vast majority of schools and libraries in Wisconsin, as well as a number of local governments. Because it’s a co-op, it can deliver lower-cost broadband to public entities than they could negotiate on their own. The arrangement between WiscNet schools and governments saves Wisconsin taxpayers millions of dollars each year and offers services that private companies like AT&T won’t provide.

Despite WiscNet’s proven utility throughout the state, AT&T and its incumbent allies (a group called Access Wisconsin) attempted to murder WiscNet in the back alleys of Madison, Wisconsin’s capital. But following a dramatic outpouring of public support for the network, lawmakers compromised and merely placed it on death row.

AT&T dumps millions into Wisconsin politics for a reason — to enact its agenda. When it furtively inserted a few provisions into a budget bill in the 11th hour a few weeks ago, legislators went merrily along without asking any questions.

These provisions would have effectively shut WiscNet down, and they would have required the University of Wisconsin, a premier research institution globally, to withdraw from Internet2 and other research networks. They also would have forced the University of Wisconsin Extension to return federal broadband stimulus grants that had already been used to break ground on projects to improve connections in rural areas with inadequate connections. Returning those grants would have cost $27.7 million over 5 years to the involved communities and killed almost 500 jobs.

Why did AT&T do this? Access Wisconsin claimed stimulus-funded networks are "unfair" competition. Yet, it had applied for and received federal broadband stimulus grants the year before! Unfortunately for Access Wisconsin, that award had to be returned because it hadn't read the rules that would require making the funded infrastructure open access. Whoops.

Fortunately, a broad coalition supporting WiscNet responded to these threats by flooding elected officials with phone calls, letters, and site visits (a lesson to those who would provoke librarians). The legislators soon came to a compromise, but a few days later, AT&T (with its unparalleled lobbying clout in Wisconsin) undid the compromise before it could pass. A lesson to all those who work for the public interest: It is not over until signed by the executive.

WiscNet and allies again rallied and pulled WiscNet back from the hangman's noose. But the legislature couldn't let AT&T go home empty-handed, so they gave WiscNet two years to convince the legislature to let it live. And while today's stimulus funds were saved, UW cannot accept future grants to improve Internet access without approval from Madison.  The bill now sits on Governor Walker’s desk awaiting signature.

This fight in Wisconsin was just one of many in state houses across the nation this year. The Time Warner Cable anti-municipal broadband bill in North Carolina was the most prominent example, but South Carolina and Arkansas also had incumbents pushing to limit public broadband — the only real threat of competition those networks face. Positive legislation in TennesseeWashington, and New Hampshire was killed by powerful incumbents including Comcast, AT&T, and others. These companies are increasingly bold about limiting community networks that put community needs first.

 

Time to Act: North Carolina Senate Finance Committee Votes on H129 on Wed

North Carolina's Senate Finance Committee is poised to take away the right of communities to decide for themselves if building their own broadband network is a good idea or not. If it passes out of this committee, it goes right to the Senate Floor and will likely become law.

We have covered Time Warner Cable's bill to kill community networks in greater depth than any other story -- and now folks in North Carolina have to immediately contact their Senators to oppose this power grab from big companies like TWC and CenturyLink. You can also use this form from Free Press if you are unsure who your Senator is.

In recent weeks, we've posted excellent speeches from legislators opposed to the bill, testimony from concerned citizens, and a variety of resolutions from local governments who are fearful of this bill's impact on public safety networks needed to keep residents and businesses safe.

If you are shy, you can call before or after business hours and leave a message on their voicemail. It takes less than five minutes. Your calls make a huge difference because so few constituents ever call state legislators. Simply let them know you oppose H129 and that the state should concern itself with expanding broadband access, not restricting who can offer it.

And as I have said numerous times, those outside North Carolina should also be contacting their elected leaders -- because everyone lives in a state where powerful lobbyists are trying to preserve and expand the power of a few massive companies like Time Warner Cable and AT&T. Progressive States Network recent covered this topic.

Two weeks ago, I wrote the following op-ed for The Wilson Times, which is behind a pay-wall.

logo-wilsontimes.png

Time Warner Cable has convinced North Carolina’s House of Representatives to greatly restrict the authority of local communities to build their own broadband networks. Its legislation, H 129, is now being debated in the Senate and will enact a host of special regulations for publicly owned networks that do not apply to networks run by the cable and phone companies.

The “Level Playing Field / Local Gov’t Competition” bill could more appropriately be called the “Monopoly Protection Act.” It creates special provisions to disadvantage public networks – like Wilson’s Greenlight and Salisbury’s Fibrant – that offer superior services compared to Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink.

TWC has convinced many Legislators that a massive $18 billion/year company operating one of the largest telecommunications networks on the planet, is powerless to compete against networks built by a few small towns.

Bill sponsor Representative Avila has simply had enough of “predatory” (her word) local governments shaking down AT&T and TWC. The champion of a similar bill last year, Senator Hoyle, candidly admitted it was written by TWC and there is no reason to suspect anything has changed.

The state of North Carolina’s broadband? Terrible. The FCC has just released a report showing the Tar Heel state has the absolute lowest percentage of households with access to the Internet at minimum speeds identified by the National Broadband Plan as necessary to take advantage of modern technologies.

When Broadband.com launched its new map showing the prices paid by small businesses for broadband, seven of the ten most expensive cities were located in North Carolina. Anchorage barely beat out Greensboro for the highest average price per Mbps. This is why major private sector companies like Google and Intel have gone on the record opposing TWC’s bill.

With most of the businesses and citizens in North Carolina being left out of the digital economy, what is the Legislature’s response? The first priority is a bill long pushed by anti-competitive companies to limit who can build the broadband networks necessary to keep pace with the world, or at least neighboring states.

Fast, reliable, and affordable access to the Internet is essential for communities to thrive in the modern age. This realization led Wilson and Salisbury to build their own globally competitive networks, which offer the best available connections in the state.

Companies like Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink have neither the capacity nor willingness to make similar investments. They require a fast shareholder return on their investments. But next-generation networks take many years to break even – it is simply more profitable to continue offering last-generation DSL and cable services to residents and businesses who have no other choice. In short, these companies are more accountable to Wall Street than Main Street.

They lobby the Legislature rather than invest in next-generation networks, while making absurd claims that no community has succeeded in building its own broadband network. They know legislators will not bother to call Bristol Virginia Utilities to learn the story behind their profitable, job-creating, network – just one of many. BVU’s infrastructure investment attracted hundreds of private sector jobs offering salaries at twice the median wage. Being publicly owned, the network profits are reinvested locally, offering more bang for the buck.

When pressed on specific examples of community network failures, TWC and its allies may cherry pick a few that have legitimately struggled, out of over 130 citywide publicly owned networks. They may cite operating losses from networks only a few years old, conveniently omitting the fact that all networks have operating losses in early years. The business model for building a citywide next-generation network calls for massive up-front expenditures long before revenues begin rolling in – they are not expected to break even for 3-5 years at the earliest.

The track record of community broadband networks is overwhelmingly positive, which is why these few massive companies work so hard to preempt them in state legislatures.

This bill carves out unique barriers for publicly owned networks, such as restricting where they may offer services, a dramatic reversal of the Legislature’s approach to privately owned networks: reducing regulations on where they offer services. TWC and other private companies can offer loss leaders to bleed community networks of revenue but community networks are subject to strict price regulation from the state. Nonprofit networks will be compelled to pay taxes “that would apply” to a private provider, ignoring that TWC routinely avoids paying its fair share of taxes.

Supporters of this bill claim it only creates a few modest hurdles rather than being an effective ban. Of course, when these same voices successfully deregulated the cable companies a few short years ago, they promised it would usher in more competition and lower prices. Instead, North Carolina has fallen farther behind while businesses and residents have suffered with numerous rate hikes.

Legislators should do what is best for the vast majority of businesses and citizens of North Carolina, preserving the ability of communities to decide for themselves whether to build the networks necessary for future economic development, education, health care, and a high quality of life.

Breaking Through Time Warner Cable's Misinformation in North Carolina

I wrote an op-ed for the Durham Herald Sun about the efforts in North Carolina to limit local authority to build community networks. We will continue heavy coverage on North Carolina and other states in danger of passing anti-competitive, pro-monopoly legislation proposed by powerful, massive carriers. Here is the op-ed:

After more than four years of lobbying, Time Warner Cable may finally succeed in restricting the authority of local communities to build their own broadband networks.

Its legislation, H 129/S 87, will enact a host of special requirements for publicly owned networks that do not apply to networks run by the cable and phone companies.

The "Level Playing Field / Local Gov't Competition" bill could more appropriately be called the "Monopoly Protection Act." Rather than actually leveling the playing field, this bill solely disadvantages publicly owned networks.

Time Warner Cable has convinced the House that a massive $18 billion-per-year company operating one of the largest telecommunications networks on the planet, is powerless to compete against a community-owned network like Greenlight in Wilson or Fibrant in Salisbury.

Bill sponsor Rep. Marilyn Avila has simply had enough of "predatory" (her word) local governments shaking down AT&T and TWC. The champion of a similar bill last year, Sen. David Hoyle, candidly admitted it was written by TWC. There is no reason to suspect anything changed this year.

But perhaps the more fantastical element of this story is that the Legislature's biggest broadband priority is to limit, not expand, broadband investments in the state ranked 41st in broadband. Just how bad is North Carolina's broadband? When Broadband.com launched its new map showing the prices paid by small businesses for broadband, seven of the 10 most expensive cities were located in North Carolina. Anchorage barely beat out Greensboro for the highest average price per Mbps. This is why major private sector companies like Google and Intel have gone on the record opposing TWC's bill.

Fast, reliable, and affordable access to the Internet is essential for communities to thrive in the modern age. This realization led Wilson and Salisbury to build their own globally competitive networks, which offer the best available connections in the state.

Companies like Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink have neither the capacity nor willingness to make similar investments. They require a fast shareholder return on their investments. But next-generation networks take many years to break even.

It is more profitable to continue offering last-generation DSL and cable services to residents and businesses with no better options. In short, these companies are more accountable to Wall Street than Main Street.

They have found it more expedient to lobby the Legislature than invest in next-generation networks, while making absurd claims that no community has succeeded in building its own broadband network.

BVU Logo

They know legislators will not bother to call Bristol Virginia Utilities to learn the story behind their profitable, job-creating, network -- just one of many. BVU's infrastructure investment attracted hundreds of private sector jobs offering salaries at twice the median wage. Being publicly owned, the network profits are reinvested locally, offering more bang for the buck.

When pressed on specific examples of community network failures, TWC and its allies may cherry pick a few that have legitimately struggled, out of over 130 citywide publicly owned networks. Or they cite networks that are a few years old and have operating losses -- as they have done with Wilson. But any major telecommunications network, public or private, suffers losses in the early years. Networks require massive upfront investments long before they can start collecting revenue. And the process of connecting subscribers takes time -- especially when they do not rudely rush through the process.

Business plans forecast and expect these losses.

The track record of community broadband networks is overwhelmingly positive, which is why companies like TWC and CenturyLink work so hard to preempt them in state legislatures.

This bill carves out unique barriers for publicly owned networks, such as restricting where they may offer services, a dramatic reversal of the legislature's approach to privately owned networks: reducing regulations on where they offer services.

TWC and other private companies can offer loss leaders to bleed community networks of revenue but community networks are subject to strict price regulation from the state. Nonprofit networks will be compelled to pay taxes "that would apply" to a private provider, ignoring that TWC routinely avoids paying its taxes.

By implementing this de facto ban, North Carolina would be the 19th state to create hurdles specifically for community broadband. Of the other 18 states with barriers, most are less restrictive, preserving some local right of self-determination. This bill makes building a community network all but impossible.

Legislators should do what is best for the vast majority of businesses and citizens of North Carolina, preserving the ability of communities to decide for themselves whether to build the networks necessary for future economic development, education, health care, and a high quality of life.

Read more: The Herald-Sun - Corporations are trying to monopolize broadband

Op-Ed Praises UTOPIA for Helping Utah

Kane Loader, the City Manager for Midvale and Chair of the UTOPIA board, penned a recent op-ed explaining why UTOPIA is important to readers. UTOPIA is a trailblazer in the US open access fiber-optic network space. After initial problems, the network is showing a lot of promise and has long offered some of the fastest speeds available in the US at the lowest prices.

Utah can lead the way in this digital future, and the cities of UTOPIA are proud to be part of the cutting-edge solution.

We are building this network not as a money-making operation, although our financial situation improves as our subscriber base grows. We are building this network for the same reason local governments built highways in the 19th century and airports in the 20th century: This infrastructure will be what connects our 21st century world.

Whose Internet? NC Communities Should Defend Freedom to Build Networks

Durham's Herald Sun published our op-ed about community broadband networks in North Carolina. Reposted here:

Who should decide the future of broadband access in towns across North Carolina? Citizens and businesses in towns across the state, or a handful of large cable and phone companies? The new General Assembly will almost certainly be asked to address that question.

Fed up with poor customer service, overpriced plans and unreliable broadband access, Wilson and Salisbury decided to build their own next-generation networks. Faced with the prospect of real competition in the telecom sector, phone and cable companies have aggressively lobbied the General Assembly to abolish the right of other cities to follow in Wilson and Salisbury's pioneering footsteps.

The decision by Wilson and Salisbury to build their own networks is reminiscent of the decision by many communities 100 years ago to build their own electrical grids when private electric companies refused to provide them inexpensive, reliable service.

An analysis by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (http://tiny.cc/MuniNetworks) compares the speed and price of broadband from incumbent providers in North Carolina to that offered by municipally owned Greenlight in Wilson and Fibrant in Salisbury.

Wilson and Salisbury offer much faster connections at similar price points, delivering more value for the dollar while keeping those dollars in the community. For instance, the introductory broadband tiers from Wilson (10 downstream/10 upstream Mbps) and Salisbury (15/15 Mbps) beat the fastest advertised tiers in Raleigh of AT&T (6/.5 Mbps) and TWC (10/.768 Mbps). And by building state-of-the-art fiber-optic networks, subscribers actually receive the speeds promised in advertisements. DSL and cable connections, for a variety of reasons, rarely achieve the speeds promised.

Curbing innovation

The Research Triangle is a hub of innovation but is stuck with last-century broadband delivered by telephone lines and cable connections. In the Triangle, as in most of the United States, broadband subscribers choose between slow DSL from the incumbent telephone company and faster but by no means adequate cable broadband from the incumbent cable company.

A few DSL subscribers may have access to U-Verse, but most are waiting for someone in Texas (AT&T's headquarters) to authorize the upgrade to U-Verse (faster than typical DSL but much slower than full fiber-optics). On the cable side, someone in New York (Time Warner Cable's headquarters) decided to force subscribers in the Triangle to wait for cable upgrades long after many cities had received them.

Perhaps by the end of 2011, all businesses and residents in the Triangle will have access to the best broadband TWC and AT&T have to offer -- which is still inferior to that offered by Wilson, Salisbury, any community with Verizon's FiOS, and just about every major city in Europe or Asia.

The opposition

Under state law, communities can organize and build their own broadband networks to ensure their citizens have world-class access to the Internet. The argument for preempting this local authority features two diametrically opposed claims:

  • Communities should not build these networks because they always fail.
  • Communities should not compete with the private sector because they will drive the existing provider(s) out of business.

Interestingly, the preponderance of evidence actually weighs against both claims. The vast majority of community fiber networks have performed extremely well against great odds. After winning the costly, frivolous lawsuits filed against communities by incumbents, community networks have successfully competed against temporary, artificially low prices by competitors who use profits from non-competitive areas to subsidize their efforts to deny any subscribers to a new network.

The few community fiber networks that have struggled against these odds are presented as the norm by industry-funded think tanks that try to scare any community considering a broadband investment.

A public monopoly?

There are few, if any, instances where community networks have driven incumbents out of business. It is true that once a community network begins operating, incumbent profits decline, often because they lower prices and increase investments -- each of which greatly benefits the community. But even if that were not true, why should a local government in North Carolina care more for the profits of two massive out-of-state companies than for what is best for their citizens and the future of the community?

The incumbent lobbyists will say that local governments can just raise taxes to unfairly cross-subsidize the networks. The reality is that citizens enjoy having their taxes raised about as much as having their cable rates raised. Citizens have little recourse when cable companies raise their rates, but they can directly express their dissatisfaction with elected officials who arbitrarily raise their taxes, by voting them out of office.

Local control

Remember though, the argument here is not about whether any given community should build a network. Right now, communities make that choice themselves. For years, lobbyists have pushed the General Assembly to take that decision away, either directly or by creating a web of contrived obstacles.

On matters of essential infrastructure, communities should be free to decide whether they will build it or depend on others. For years, Mooresville and Davidson relied on Adelphia for cable access while the network fell into disrepair. In the wake of Adelphia's bankruptcy, they chose to take it over to avoid continued similar problems from TWC. In taking it over, they found it in even worse shape than expected, resulting in higher costs to fix it. This situation, fixing the failure of the private sector, is actually used by telecom companies to argue against public ownership.

There is a very good reason so many communities are considering a variety of broadband investments: private providers are not meeting their needs. The question is whether the General Assembly wants to let communities move forward as they choose, or let out-of-state companies decide the competitiveness of the state.

To communities that seize broadband initiative, benefits flow fast

On November 29, 2010, MPR published our commentary about community broadband.

The Twin Cities has slower and more expensive broadband Internet than the nearby town of Monticello.

The Twin Cities metro area has a population of 2.8 million and the highest density of people and businesses in the state. So why is our broadband Internet slower and more expensive than that enjoyed by Monticello, population 12,000?

Several years ago, the city of Monticello (45 miles northwest of Minneapolis) recognized the increasing importance of reliable, high speed, low cost broadband. After the incumbent telephone and cable companies declined to build the network city leaders had in mind, the community decided to build one itself. Now, FiberNet Monticello offers some of the best broadband packages available in the country, while the Twin Cities is lagging.

A new analysis by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance compares the available broadband speeds in Monticello to those available in the Twin Cities metro.

In the metro, as in most of the United States, broadband subscribers choose between DSL from the incumbent telephone company (Qwest) and cable broadband from the incumbent cable company (Comcast).

Monticello's offerings are faster at every price point, but Comcast appears to offer comparable downstream speeds in the highest tier of service. This apparent equivalence, however, is like comparing dirt roads with interstates. Both are roads that allow you to travel from point A to B, but they have fundamentally different characteristics in carrying capacity and reliability. For a variety of reasons, DSL and cable almost always fall short (and often, well short) of the advertised "up to" speeds, whereas full fiber networks regularly achieve the speeds they promise.

In the metro, cable offers most residents the fastest option for broadband, but only one choice of provider. The Monticello network not only created a new choice for its residents, it induced the incumbent telephone company to greatly upgrade its network to remain competitive. Now, Monticello residents can choose between two extremely fast broadband providers, as well as a cable internet connection. The community-owned network may have only been the third broadband option, but it fundamentally changed the market.

Prior to Monticello's investment, residents and small businesses had access only to asymmetrical broadband, as we do in the Twin Cities. This means the upstream capacity (when one sends a file to another) is much slower than the downstream capacity (when one receives a file). Monticello's network offers symmetrical speeds -- identical up and down speeds. For residents, this means high quality video chats, greater opportunities to share family videos, and better gaming.

For businesses, it means a whole new world. They are better able to interact with clients and customers. Businesses can take advantage of new cloud-based services to become much more efficient, garnering a tremendous competitive advantage during this economic downturn. And when downtime means lost dollars, local businesses can count on much higher reliability from a modern, locally operated network. Despite the many advantages Monticello's businesses gain from their network, they pay significantly less for their Internet access than businesses in the metro.

Buoyed by the success of Monticello and similar projects across the country, more communities are recognizing the need to build their own broadband infrastructure.

Tonka Connect, a project that may include 17 communities situated around Lake Minnetonka, is exploring approaches to build the network those communities need to thrive in the digital future. Rural Sibley County just completed a feasibility study for its fiber-to-the-farm project. Lake and Cook Counties are moving forward with projects boosted by the federal stimulus program.

They all recognize that big companies have little incentive to improve a system. Full fiber networks are expensive to build, and the return on investment takes years.

This is the major reason that the United States has dropped from being the No. 1 broadband country to between No. 14 and 32, depending on the study. The nation's fastest citywide network? Not New York. Not San Francisco, Silicon Valley, nor Seattle.

Chattanooga, Tenn.

That city built the nation's fastest network as part of a decades-long program to revitalize the community. As in Monticello, leaders recognized that the interests of their incumbent providers (AT&T and Comcast) were markedly different from the community's needs.

Monticello seized the broadband initiative in Minnesota. Communities in the metro have the same choice: Either bet their economic future on an out-of-state company or build economic self-reliance with a community network.

Cities Take On AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon

We have a piece published on Alternet about the battle to maintain an open Internet and proper access to it.

A battle is raging for control of the Internet and it is not taking place in Washington. Scores of cities, fed up with the recalcitrance and outright arrogance of their providers and Washington’s lack of action are taking their information future into their own hands by building their own high-speed networks. To Harold DePriest, head of Chattanooga’s municipally owned fiber network, currently the largest in the country, the issue is clear: “Does our community control our own fate or does someone else control it?”

He who owns the information highways makes the rules of the road. Today those rules are made by a handful of global corporations with little public oversight.

Photo used under Creative Commons License - Courtesy, Baldinger

Understanding - and Rethinking - Broadband Regulation

Though we certainly support the FCC's reclassification of broadband to ensure companies like Comcast do not interfere with the open Internet, we focus on policy at the community level. We fully support the efforts of organizations and people in DC to work at the federal level.

But for those who are utterly baffled at the questions being raised the the last 15 years of Internet policy, I strongly recommend a recent op-ed by Wally Bowen: "FCC needs to rethink broadband regulation."

The stakes are high. The Internet's explosive growth – and the spectacular innovation it spawned – were enabled by common-carrier rules that still govern the nation's dial-up telephone networks.

Before 2002, online users were at the center of the Internet and World Wide Web, free to choose among competing ISPs, and free to roam and innovate. With the removal of common-carrier rules, the cable and telephone companies occupied the center of a broadband-driven Web, free to pick winners and losers among innovators (e.g. AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal with Apple) – and free to dictate when and where broadband access will be deployed.

In short, the definitive battle for the future of the Internet is underway.