The following stories have been tagged fcc ← Back to All Tags

Community Broadband Media Roundup - March 27

This article is so good, it was hard not to quote the whole thing. Do yourself a favor and check out the article for yourself-- this is exactly why we can’t trust big cable and telephone companies to serve our communities. 

New Homeowner Has To Sell House Because Of Comcast’s Incompetence, Lack Of Competition by Chris Morran at the Consumerist:

Only months after moving into his new home in Washington state, Consumerist reader Seth is already looking to sell his house. He didn’t lose his job or discover that the property is haunted. No, Seth can’t stay much longer because no one can provide broadband service to his address; even though Comcast and CenturyLink both misled him into thinking he’d be connected to their networks and in spite of the fact that his county runs a high-speed fiberoptic network that goes very near to his property.

New homeowner selling house because he can’t get Comcast Internet: 

"I accidentally bought a house without cable," writes man who works at home.
by Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica

While Comcast, the country's biggest cable company, tells the federal government it faces so much competition that it should be allowed to merge with the second biggest cable operator, a government database designed to tell consumers what options they have for Internet service is offering inaccurate information.

The National Broadband Map lets you enter any address in the US to find out what Internet access options are available. The database shows 10 options at Seth's house, including mobile and satellite, but they're all either inadequate for home Internet service or unavailable. 

Google Fiber will leave the duopoly intact and only change the players
by Jesse Harris, Free UTOPIA

TN AG Appeals FCC Decision on Chattanooga, Wilson
(no surprises here)

Tenn. AG Wants Court to Set Aside Municipal Broadband Ruling
by Erik Schelzig, Associated Press

Tennessee fights for its right to squash municipal broadband expansion: FCC faces first lawsuit over vote to preempt state laws that limit competition.
by Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica

Tenn. Attorney General VS. FCC
by NewsChannel 9- WTVC

Tennessee trying to overturn FCC ruling which allows EPB to expand high-speed Internet
by Andy Sher, Times Free Press

Tennessee sues FCC to stop expansion of municipal broadband
by Chris Welch, The Verge

TN v FCC - Petition for Review from TN Attorney General Herbert Slatery
Full Document: Scribd

Net Neutrality 

Internet providers sue FCC in first net neutrality cases
By Andrew Zajac and Todd Shields, Bloomberg News

The filings of both US-Telecom and Alamo acknowledge that their complaints were filed quickly, and possibly too early, because of uncertainty about procedural deadlines.

"We believe that the petitions for review filed today are premature and subject to dismissal," said Mark Wigfield, an FCC spokesman.

The FCC said its rules would take effect after being published in the Federal Register, which hasn't happened yet. 

Republicans Blast FCC's 'Politically Motivated' Net Neutrality Rules
by Wendy Davis, Media Post

AT&T Uses Title II regulation to get out of millions in fees
by Jeff Gamet, Mac Observer

 

Alabama

Gigabit internet service officially launched on areas of Sand Mountain
by Laura Christmas, WHNT News

Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative introduced an internet connection that company leaders say has the fastest speeds in the state — gigabit access — and they’re making it available on parts of Sand Mountain.

Officials say the ultra-fast internet service is the first in Alabama.

Note from ILSR: Opelika, Alabama, was the first to launch the service in the state, but we congratulate Farmers Telecomunications Cooperative for an impressive investment nonetheless.

If a Tiny Telco in NE Alabama Can Go All Fiber, Why Can’t Every Telco?
by Online Reporter

Like others that have deployed all fiber, Johnson said the gigabit service “can transform our communities through advanced learning tools, new entertainment options and telemedicine.” Like many others, he also said its all-fiber network “future proofs our investment for whatever emerging applications our increasingly device-enabled subscribers demand.”

Rainsville company launches new high speed internet service
by Tim Reid, WAAY-TV

New Hampshire

Northampton should explore additional Internet choices
by John Kapitzky, GazetteNet

New York

Municipal broadband would boost Erie County's economy, advocates claim
By Brian Meyer, WBFO, BUffalo

Tennessee

AT&T opposes municipal broadband bill
by Jamie McGee, The Tennessean

Bowling said she understands that connecting Tennesseans in low-density areas is a challenge for privately owned companies. But their profit margin concerns should not prevent municipalities with high-speed fiber networks from connecting residents. The original legislation restricting municipalities' broadband reach was filed in 1999, giving the corporate sector 16 years to reach those rural communities asking for fiber connection from municipalities, she said.

"We've got to get this essential utility if we want to make rural Tennessee economically viable and sustainable," she said. "It's absurd to think that you can compete in the 21st century without high-speed broadband."

AT&T Completes Upgrades Amid Municipal Broadband Debate
by News Channel 9, WTVC

The expansion in Tennessee comes amid a legislative and legal fight over municipal broadband. AT&T opposes pending legislation seeking to allow city-owned Internet providers from offering their product outside their normal service area.

More Broadband News

FACT SHEET: Next Steps in Delivering Fast, Affordable Broadband
by White House Office of the Press Secretary

Data Overload! The Latest Developments in Telecom Policy Matter for Apartments
by Betsy Feigin Befus, Multi-Housing News

Apartment firms say residents and prospects will not sign a lease, or renew one, without access to robust broadband. Not only is reliable Internet access a must, residents want a choice in providers.

Corporate and community operations also hinge on dependable Internet service. From online marketing and leasing to revenue management software and on-site amenities, the apartment industry needs high-capacity connectivity

U.S. Now 27th Globally With Average Speed of 33.9 Mbps
by Karl Bode, DSLReports

While cable operators have been relatively busy upgrading networks, their DSL competitors have not. In fact, companies like AT&T and Verizon have been busy backing away from markets they don't deem worth upgrading, giving cable less serious competition than ever before. So while higher speeds are great, less serious competition means higher prices and worse customer service. And when it comes to companies like Time Warner Cable and Comcast, they already offer the worst customer service across any industry. Fast is great -- we all love fast connections -- but it's increasingly only a part of the conversation in an industry that often doesn't really want to seriously talk about price or availability.

Map: The state of broadband in the states
By Niraj Chokshi, Washington Post

“Many of the efforts to increase connection speeds are being taken at a local/municipal level and may not have an immediate state-wide impact upon completion, but are part of ongoing initiatives that are becoming more widespread across the country,” the company noted.

Throughout the fourth quarter a number of municipalities announced the rollout of gigabit-speed Internet, including those in Arizona, California, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Oregon.

USDA Announces Funding for Broadband Projects in Arkansas, Iowa and New Mexico

Unions Try To Pressure Verizon Into Expanding FiOS
by Karl Bode, DSL Reports

 

Obviously impacted by Verizon's decision to back away from its fixed-line networks, the Communications Workers of America have launched a new "Where's My FiOS? campaign aimed at putting public pressure on Verizon to expand FiOS further -- and therefore spend a little more money on installations and union employees.

"When it received its franchise from New York City in 2008, Verizon promised FiOS would be available to every NYC resident by 2014," a union flyer being circulated in the city complains. "Now the company says it’s completed its obligations. But customers in many parts of New York City still can’t get FiOS. Instead, Verizon has cut 8500 jobs in New York State and slashed its workforce in New York City by 37% over the last decade."

Freedom to Connect - Long Term Muni Strategies

If you were not able to attend Freedom to Connect in New York on March 2 - 3, you can now view archived video of presentations from Chris and others.

Now that the FCC has made a determination that may change the landscape of Internet access, it is time to consider the future of municipal networks. In this discussion, Chris discusses passive infrastructure, including dark fiber and open access models as a way to encourage competition on the local level. Chris also looks at financing municipal networks in a fashion that takes into account public benefits created by fiber. He suggests steps elected officials can take now that will contribute to long term ubiquitous access in their communities.

You can also watch videos from other presenters including Joanne Hovis, Hannah Sassaman, and Jim Baller at the F2C: Freedom to Connect 2015 Livestream page.

Chris's presentation is posted here and runs just over 20 minutes:

 

Tennessee Files Appeal to FCC Order Scaling Back State Barriers

The State of Tennessee has filed the first appeal to the recent FCC Opinion and Order [PDF] reducing state barriers to municipal broadband. Governor Bill Haslam appears determined to keep his constituents in the Internet slow lane.

The state filed the short petition on March 20th arguing [view the petition on Scribd.]:

The State of Tennessee, as a sovereign and a party to the proceeding below, is aggrieved and seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is contrary to the United States Constitution; (2) is in excess of the Commission’s authority; (3) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.

Haslam expressed his intention to explore the possibility of filing the appeal earlier this month reported the Times Free Press. In February, the Governor and Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery signed a letter from a number of state officials to the FCC urging them not to change state law. U.S. Rep from Tennessee Marsha Blackburn and her Senate counterpart Thom Tillis introduced legislation to fight the Order just days after the FCC decision.

State Senator Janice Bowling, a long time advocate for local choice, and Rep. Kevin Brooks have taken the opposite perspective, introducing state legislation to remove restrictions to achieve the same result as the FCC Order with no federal intervention. Their bill has been publicly supported by the state Farm Bureau and local municipalities such as the City of Bristol.

Hopefully, at the next election Tennessee voters will remember how their state elected officials and their Governor stand on improving connectivity in the Volunteer State. The good folks at Tech Dirt expressed a similar sentiment

But here's the larger question: if you're a resident of Tennessee who likes having fast, affordable, competitive broadband, are you happy about your tax dollars being used to sue the FCC in an effort to uphold a law written by the big broadband players, focused on blocking such competition? It seems like the current Tennessee Attorney General, Herbert Slatery, has painted a giant target on his back for a challenger who actually wants to support the public in Tennessee.

Orlando Sentinel Op-Ed - Local governments should make broadband choices

The Orlando Sentinel published this op-ed about local government action for broadband networks on March 11, 2015. 

Local governments should make broadband choices
By Christopher Mitchell

Community broadband must be a local choice, a guest columnist writes.

When Comcast announced plans last year to invest hundreds of millions in theme parks in Florida and California, its customers may have wondered why the cable giant wasn't using those funds to deliver a faster or more reliable Internet connection. While Comcast's Universal Studios faces competition from Walt Disney World, most people don't have a real choice in high-speed Internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission has just boosted the broadband definition from 4 megabits per second to 25 mbps. At that speed, some 75 percent of Americans have no choice in providers — they are stuck with one or none.

The rest of America is living in the future, often because their local government rolled up its sleeves and got involved. In some of these communities, the local government built its own network and others worked with a trusted partner. Chattanooga's city-owned electric utility built the nation's first citywide gigabit network, which is about 100 times faster than the average connection today.

Google is famously working with some bigger cities, whereas local provider GWI in Maine has partnered with several local governments to expand gigabit access.

However, the big cable and telephone companies have almost always refused to work with local governments. Instead, they've lobbied states to restrict the right of local governments to build or partner in this essential infrastructure.

In Florida, the law puts restrictions on local governments that do not apply to the private sector, such as a strict profitability timetable that can be unrealistic for large capital investments regardless of being privately or publicly owned. Some 20 states have such barriers that limit competition by effectively taking the decision away from communities.

In January, President Obama spoke out in favor of local governments being able to make these investments and partnerships without state interference. He was in Cedar Falls, Iowa, which has one of the oldest municipal broadband networks in the country, but it's the first city in the state with citywide gigabit access. A local business owner, whose business had been able to thrive in its hometown due to the public network and its world-class access, introduced the president.

Both Obama and the FCC are taking actions to remove barriers to local authority, but they are seeing strong opposition from some Republicans in Washington, D.C.

National Republicans may be less likely to support an effort that Obama has now championed. But they can't just oppose the president; they will have to oppose their own base, which tends to believe decisions should be made locally. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance analyzed all citywide municipal networks, over 150 communities, and found more than 70 percent reliably vote Republican.

It may be surprising, but at the local level, there tends to be little partisan divide over whether local governments should get involved in a service so dominated by big monopolies. In the city council, it is a practical matter: Do local businesses have the connections they need to be competitive? If not, how can we make sure they do?

A bipartisan group of mayors has already come together to form Next Century Cities, a collaborative nonpartisan organization that includes a diverse group of cities. Some own and operate their own networks, as in Opelika, Ala. Some are working with partners, as Kansas City does. Some, as in Ammon, Idaho, can be hard to find on a map. And then there are cities like Los Angeles that recognize they need something better also.

Fortunately, Florida's law has slowed but not stopped smart local approaches. Martin County built a fiber network that has saved millions of dollars in connections for public facilities and is used by health-care facilities. The city of Palm Coast's FiberNET has saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for the community, while dramatically improving connections for the Flagler County School District and other entities.

Building a modern fiber-optic network is no theme-park ride, but hundreds of local governments have already demonstrated it is well within their capacity. And given that they have to live with the consequences of action or inaction, shouldn't it be their decision?

Christopher Mitchell is the director of Community Broadband Networks at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis.

The Other Half of Network Neutrality - Content Neutrality

We are pleased to bring you a guest post from Levi C. Maaia, president of Full Channel Labs and a graduate research fellow at the Center for Education Research on Literacies, Learning & Inquiry in Networking Communities (LINC) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Levi is a strong advocate for local, family owned businesses and an open Internet without government or corporate gatekeepers.

The Other Half of Net Neutrality Regulation

The Internet was originally founded on principles of public service and education. In the past two decades, tremendous commercial potential has also been realized and the Internet is now the engine behind our new global economy. This potential, however, is predicated on the network’s original open and neutral methods of communication. 

Properly implemented net neutrality regulation has the potential to maintain a level online playing field for all 21st century industries, which rely on the Internet for all types of electronic communications and financial transactions. However, Chairman Wheeler's recent plan to enforce net neutrality through the invocation Title II authority ignores practices by some content providers that threaten the economic viability and expansion of affordable high-speed and gigabit access. A notable example of this practice is how online content is delivered under the ESPN3 brand.  

ESPN3 is an online-only sports television network owned by The Walt Disney Company and the Hearst Corporation. Unlike with other online video services such as Netflix and Amazon Instant Video – where consumers choose to pay for content and access it directly – ESPN3 streaming content is available only to customers of ISPs that pay per-subscriber fees to ESPN for each of their Internet customers. If an ISP refuses to pay these fees for some or all of its user base, all of its customers are blocked from accessing ESPN3’s online content. Through the imposition of this legacy cable TV licensing approach ESPN3 is attempting to force ISPs into negotiating content deals in the same way that cable TV providers must do for broadcast retransmission consent and cable network licensing fees.  

As cord-cutters drop their cable and satellite subscriptions in favor of online streaming, TV networks are scrambling to compensate for this lost revenue.  ESPN3 is doing so by imposing a cable TV-like payment structure on Internet delivery using a model that congress and consumers have decried for decades as inflexible and expensive. These additional costs are already being factored into Internet service pricing, as ESPN3 reaches deals with the Internet providers of tens of millions of customers. If ESPN continues to be successful with this model, we can expect that other content providers will follow suit and it may not be just the cable TV networks that adopt this method. ISPs might be compelled to negotiate per-subscriber fees for access to content across the Web.

The FCC’s Network Neutrality approach means that ISPs cannot demand payment from content owners to reach customers. However, it is silent on whether content owners can demand the ISP pay a fee for every subscriber on its system, regardless of how many subscribers actually desire the content in question.

Without content neutrality protection as part of the FCC’s regulatory approach, we may see the current a-la-carte, merit-based model of the Internet disappear in favor of a system where payment demands for content are forced on consumers by media giants. This would likely result in skyrocketing prices for Internet access akin to that of cable TV which has risen in cost more than four times the rate of inflation over the past 15 years! This could have a crippling effect on all industry, especially small businesses and startups. Practices like those by ESPN3 pose just as great a threat to broadband and fiber deployment, affordability and access as a lack of other aspects of net neutrality regulation do. 

Indeed, content neutrality is the other half of the net neutrality issue and it must be addressed. And much like the fundamental issue behind network neutrality, a few incredibly large firms with tremendous market power are the primary threat.

In 2004, Levi Maaia joined Full Channel, a family-owned broadband provider in Bristol County, R.I. Under his leadership, Full Channel successfully turned around a declining subscriber base while making its first forays into digital and high-definition television, IP telephony and renewable energy solutions.  

In 2008, he developed and launched Full Channel’s renewable wind energy initiative GreenLink through a partnership forged with sustainable energy provider People’s Power & Light. As a result, cable industry trade publication CableFAX honored Full Channel with its 2009 Top Ops Community Service Award.  In 2012, Levi formed Full Channel Labs, an online innovation and technology partner, which develops and supports advances in networking and digital technologies.

Missouri Anti-Muni Bill Advances Out of Committee

The Missouri Senate Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government Committee voted to pass anti-local choice SB 266 on March 18th. This bill, sponsored by Senator Kurt Schaefer, will increase barriers for municipal networks and damage the possibility of highly-effective partnerships with the private sector. Call your Missouri State Senator and let them know you consider this bill anti-competitive, hostile to local interests, and that you will remember their vote at the next election.

The bill was discussed in the same committee earlier this month when a number of private tech firms, industry associations, and utilities groups wrote to members to express their concern with the bill. A dozen entities, including Google, NATOA, and APPA wrote that the provisions in the bill would prevent public private partnerships that improve connectivity at the local level. [See a PDF of the letter here.]

At the time, the committee chose not to vote. Rather than listen to experts, however, they postponed the decision and voted to pass the bill on Wednesday. The only amendment was a provision excluding Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis.

The exceptions will help Google and SpringNet but other communities will be shackled. The legislation states that its goal is to encourage innovation but the result is just the opposite by discouraging investment through intimidation.

Columbia is watching the course of this legislation with particular interest. As we reported last fall, the city is considering expanding use of its current fiber resources to spur economic development. This bill could derail their plans and keep Columbia's population limping along with CenturyLink's dismal DSL.  Mid-Missouri Public Radio reported on the bill in February:

“Smaller communities are concerned because they don’t have access to high-speed Internet,” [spokesperson for the Columbia Water and Light Department, Connie] Kacprowicz said. “Many of these communities in Missouri can’t even download a Netflix movie.”

Kacprowicz said the city of Columbia has extra fibers to sell to Internet service providers. According to Kacprowicz, the city was going to sell these fibers to the service providers. This would allow the providers to increase Internet access for small communities.

In light of the recent FCC ruling overturning certain restrictions in Tennessee and North Carolina, analysts are questioning its staying power. Nevertheless, Schaefer appears determined to push it through. From the Columbia Tribune:

Schaefer predicted that the commission’s decision would be challenged in court. “Today is the first day that they have attempted to do that, so I bet we are looking at five years of litigation around the country before that issue ever gets resolved.”

The National Institute on Money in State Politics reports that in 2012 Schaefer received $8,250 from CenturyLink, $6,250 from AT&T, and $3,000 from Comcast. All would benefit from the lack of competition created by the bill without any need to be "entrepeneurial." CenturyLink also contributed to Schaefer's campaign to run for Attorney General, reports the Tribune. He may one day have the opportunity to argue the bill he authored before a federal court.

According to Sen. Schaefer's legislative assistant, the bill will now go to the Senate chamber for a vote. If it passes, it will then go to the House. If the bill becomes law, it will take effect in late August.

If you live in Missouri, it is imperative that you call your Senator and tell them to vote NO when SB 266 comes before them. 

FCC Opinion and Order Striking Down Local Authority Limits in TN and NC: Highlights

The FCC has found that it has the authority to remove aspects of Tennessee and North Carolina law that limit local authority to build or expand Internet networks. In short, states seem to retain the authority to restrict municipalities from offering service at all. However, if states allow local governments to offer services, then the FCC has the power to determine whether any limitations on how they do it are a barrier to the deployment of advanced telecommunications services per its authority in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.

The FCC has removed a restriction in Tennessee law that prevented municipalities with fiber networks from expanding to serve their neighbors, per a petition from Chattanooga.

In North Carolina, the FCC has removed multiple aspects of a 2011 law, HB 129, that effectively outlawed municipal networks by presenting local governments with a thicket of red tape, including territorial restrictions on existing networks. The city of Wilson had petitioned the FCC for this intervention. 

Listen to our podcast with Jim Baller about this decision.

See the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Press Release on the Opinion and Order for more. If you don't want to read the full order, we pulled out some key paragraphs and sorted them for your benefit!

 

Key Paragraphs in the FCC Decision

We selected some of the most important passages with references to the original Memorandum Opinion and Order. Look for these passages as you read the original FCC doc [PDF].

Communities Around Chattanooga and Wilson Need Better Connectivity:

43. Numerous commenters favor preemption because they wish to obtain service from EPB or Wilson but are unable to do so, and the maps and data discussed above illustrate that communities surrounding EPB’s and Wilson’s current areas of broadband service have far fewer choices for advanced telecommunications capability than the national average. This suggests that further expansion could generate improved levels of investment and competition in these locations. (pp 23-24)

See charts on pages 15 and 16, 21 and 22 showing areas around Wilson and Chattanooga lag national average on Internet access for both basic and advanced services.

 

Characterizing the North Carolina Barriers to Municipal Networks:

3. In North Carolina, the restriction takes the form of a series of costly hoops through which a service provider must jump.  Although characterized as intended to “level the playing field” with private providers when passed, it is clear that the combination of requirements effectively raises the cost of market entry so high as to effectively block entry and protect the private providers that advocated for such legislation from competition.  (p. 4)

14. We also find that North Carolina’s H.B. 129 falls within our authority to preempt under section 706.  H.B. 129 does not prohibit service by municipal entities — indeed it explicitly permits service. (p. 6)

113. Taken together, these purported “level playing field” provisions single out communications services for asymmetric regulatory burdens that function as barriers to and have the effect of increasing the expense of and causing delay in broadband deployment and infrastructure investment. (p. 51)

62. However, even if we focus on taxpayer protection, as some request, the evidence before us suggests that the Tennessee and North Carolina laws before us actually increase the likelihood of failure because of the barriers that they erect to the successful deployment of broadband infrastructure (p.31)

98. … Indeed, the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer Local Government Commission recognized this in the legislative history of H.B. 129 when it noted that “the boundaries set forth in the PCS weaken the financial viability of [the Greenlight and Fibrant] broadband systems.” (p.45)

103. We therefore find that the exemption for “unserved” areas contained in 160A-340.2(b), is not consistent with our analysis of marketplace realities–both with respect to when H.B.129 was enacted, and especially with respect to our recent findings in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report reflecting evolving technology and consumer expectations. Under H.B.129, an area qualifies as “unserved” if at least 50 percent of the households do not have access to service at download speeds of at least 768 kbps while, in sharp contrast, under the Commission’s current benchmark companies receiving Connect America funding for fixed broadband must serve consumers with speeds of at least 10 Mbps for downloads and 1 Mbps for uploads;and areas are “unserved” by advanced telecommunications capability if they do not have access to service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps / 3 Mbps. As a result of the significantly lower speed thresholds adopted in H.B.129 compared to any of the above standards, very few areas in North Carolina will qualify as “unserved” despite the fact that many areas do not meet the standards articulated above. Given that Congress has directed us to carefully evaluate broadband deployment in our role as the regulator of interstate communications by wire, we find that our speed thresholds are the appropriate metric by which to evaluate whether an area is “unserved,” not the standard contained in H.B.129. (p.47)

 

Characterizing the Tennessee Barrier to Municipal Networks

13. The territorial restriction in Tennessee Code Section 601 serves only to restrict municipal electric providers from providing broadband service on fiber networks that they are already authorized to build statewide…  It serves only to effectuate state communications policy preferences by enforcing inefficiency and protecting incumbents from competition. (p.6)

62. However, even if we focus on taxpayer protection, as some request, the evidence before us suggests that the Tennessee and North Carolina laws before us actually increase the likelihood of failure because of the barriers that they erect to the successful deployment of broadband infrastructure. (p.31)

 

Municipal Networks Improve Internet Access Services and Competition

Footnote 139: We note that EPB vastly increased the broadband speeds available to those within its service territory while generating revenue from its broadband service without cross-subsidization from its electrical service, indicating that there was substantial unmet demand.  (p.25)

47. … In other cases, even in the absence of market failure, communities may find that meeting additional unmet demand for broadband serves important policy priorities.  For instance, the municipal provider may have both the incentive and means to serve those broadband needs that are so widely dispersed in the community they would not show up on the balance sheet of any private firm. (p.25)

 

Relevant to Barriers in Other States

16. While the present Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order) only addresses the EPB and Wilson Petitions, the Commission will not hesitate to preempt similar statutory provisions in factual situations where they function as barriers to broadband investment and competition. (p.6)

60. Some commenters argue that municipal entry distorts the marketplace because the municipality functions as both regulator and competitor and could use its authority anti-competitively. This argument fails because these commenters are unable to identify any compelling evidence that this is an actual problem in Tennessee or North Carolina (or elsewhere). (p.31)

62. However, even if we focus on taxpayer protection, as some request, the evidence before us suggests that the Tennessee and North Carolina laws before us actually increase the likelihood of failure because of the barriers that they erect to the successful deployment of broadband infrastructure (p.31)

79.[Regarding potential barriers to telecom-related services that may not solely be Internet access] -  … that “a provider’s ability to offer video service and to deploy broadband networks are linked intrinsically… We recognize that providers may not always have a business case for building a network unless they can optimize revenue by bundling multiple services. (p.39)

Footnote 329: As discussed above with reference to EPB and Tennessee, the restrictions on the provision of bundled services undermines a provider’s ability to provide broadband successfully due to the strong customer preference for bundled offerings (p.53)

 

Regarding FCC Authority to Preempt State Laws:

146. To put it plainly, section 706 authorizes the Commission to displace state laws that effectuate choices about the substance of communications policy that conflict with federal communications policy designed to ensure “reasonable and timely” deployment of broadband. (p.62)

141. … Before addressing whether section 706 authorizes preemptions of laws regulating municipalities as broadband providers, we first address whether it authorizes preemption under any circumstances; for example, whether it would reach state laws that regulate broadband provision by purely private entities.  Take, as an illustration, a hypothetical state law that prohibited cable-based broadband providers from offering broadband capacity greater than that offered by wireless broadband providers.  We think that the answer in that instance would be clear. Such a law would prevent cable-based broadband providers from competing based on superior bandwidth, which in turn could cause such providers to conclude that they could not make an economic case for increasing the capacity of their network in certain communities. (p.59)

143. … And section 706(b) uses at least equally urgent language, requiring us to continually reappraise deployment, and mandating that we “shall take immediate action” when necessary by “removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market. (p.60)

11. We find that section 706 authorizes the Commission to preempt state laws that specifically regulate the provision of broadband by the state’s political subpision, where those laws stand as barriers to broadband investment and competition.  A different question would be presented were we asked to preempt state laws that withhold authority to provide broadband altogether.  But where a state has authorized municipalities to provide broadband, and then chooses to impose regulations on that municipal provider in order to effectuate the state’s preferred communications policy objectives, such as the protection of incumbent ISPs, such laws fall within our authority to preempt.  (p. 5)

147. But where a state has authorized municipalities to provide broadband, and then chooses to impose regulations on that municipal provider in order to effectuate the state’s preferred communications policy objectives, we find that such laws fall within our authority to preempt.  To take an example, where a state allows political subpisions to provide broadband, but then imposes regulations to “level the playing field” by creating obligations apparently intended to mirror those borne by private providers, it does so in order to further its own policy goals about optimal competitive and investment conditions in the broadband marketplace.  The states here are deciding that incumbent broadband providers require protection from what they regard as unfair competition and regulating to restrict that competition.  This steps into the federal role in regulating interstate communications.  Where those laws conflict with federal communications policy and regulation, they may be preempted.  We thus interpret sections 706(a) and 706(b) to give us authority to preempt state laws that regulate the provision of broadband by political subpisions, provided that the law in question serves to effect communications policy and would frustrate broadband deployment “on a reasonable and timely basis . . . to all Americans.” (p.62)

148. Such a law is focused solely on policy preferences, and not core state control of political subpisions.  In short, a state law that effectuates a policy preference regarding the provision of broadband is not shielded from all scrutiny simply because it is cast in terms that affect only municipal providers. (p.63)

12. And unlike Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, the question here is not whether the municipal systems can provide broadband at all, but rather whether the states may dictate the manner in which interstate commerce is conducted and the nature of competition that should exist for interstate communications. (p.5)

167. Once the state has granted that power, however, we do not believe a state is free to advance its own policy objectives when they run counter to federal policy regarding interstate communications. (p.70)

Within North Carolina, the John Locke Foundation has been a persistent critic of local government efforts to encourage competition against the cable and telephone company incumbent providers. It has made many claims in its effort to ensure communities have no power to build their own networks or to use their assets to partner with independent entities for superior Internet access. The FCC saw fit to directly respond to some of these claims.

 

John Locke Foundation Has Misrepresented How Municipal Networks are Funded

69. Morganton and Salisbury, North Carolina.  The John Locke Foundation (JLF) describes the cities of Morganton and Salisbury as examples of municipal broadband that “delivers harm, not help, to the competitive environment” in North Carolina. With respect to the “CoMPAS” (City of Morganton Public Antenna System) system in Morganton, JLF asserts that such harm to the community is evident in two actions by the city council.  The first harmful action, JLF claims, was the council’s decision to allow CoMPAS to borrow funds from two municipal funds. The same report on which JLF relies also states, however, that CoMPAS no longer operates at a loss and its loan repayments to those two funds will be complete in fiscal year 2014. Based on all the information in the report, there does not appear to be any evidence of harm to the community from the municipality’s decision to temporarily borrow money from two of its own reserve funds.  JLF’s second example of purported harm is the alleged cross-subsidization of CoMPAS cable rates by increases in taxes and electricity rates.  Significantly, the news report cited by JLF does not claim that any cross-subsidization actually occurred.  On the contrary, it reports that Morganton’s City Manager (a certified public accountant) said it had not occurred. (p.35)

Mount Vernon Mayor: Local Authority Has Been Good For Our City

As the time approached for FCC Commissioners to choose to allow Wilson and Chattanooga to serve surrounding communities, leaders from municipalities with publicly owned networks shared their experiences. Jill Boudreau, Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington, published her community's experience with their muni in GoSkagit.com. 

As in the recent testimonial from Opelika Mayor Gary Fuller, Mayor Boudreau described how Mount Vernon's network has created a quality of life where high-tech has enhanced local medicine, encouraged new businesses, and created and environment rich with competition.

Mount Vernon's open access network provides infrastructure for nine service providers. Some of these providers offer services only to businesses, while others also serve government, retail providers, and specific industries such as the medical community. Hundreds of public and private customers receive fast, affordable, reliable connectivity through these providers and the city's publicly owned network.

We first introduced you to Mount Vernon in 2013. The community began deployment in 1995 and have added incrementally to the network to serve nearby Burlington and the Port of Skagit. Government facilities, schools, hospitals, and businesses save millions while utilizing top-notch technology. Businesses have relocated to the area to take advantage of the network and enjoy the high quality of life in the relatively affordable area with its abundance of outdoor recreation.

Mayor Boudreau recognizes that Mount Vernon's success may not be easy to come by for every community but believes each should have the ability to decide that for themselves. She writes:

When it comes to community growth and prosperity, next-generation Internet is vital infrastructure just like a road or sewer pipe. Though what we’ve built in Mount Vernon may not work in every city, each community should have the choice to pursue fast, affordable and reliable broadband in the way that works for them.

Community Broadband Media Roundup - March 14

Whether You’re Red or Blue, You Should Love the FCC’s Internet Plan: This Tea Party guy gets it. Why don’t DC Republicans? by Susan Crawford, BackChannel

He said (paraphrasing), “I want my freedom and I can’t stand the idea of government messing with our lives, and that’s why I like the Tea Party. But I also can’t stand that there’s a company that can tell me what kind of Internet access I can get — I can’t run my business from my home because I can’t buy the connection I need here.”


FCC Ruling

FCC order allows EPB to expand Gig service to outlying areas
Dave Flessner, Times Free Press

"We're glad that a growing number of state lawmakers are supporting proposed legislation that would remove the territorial restrictions that currently prevent municipal utilities from extending fiber services to neighboring areas," he said. "This Tennessee-driven approach is the best near-term option for serving more of the people across our state who are currently underserved or poorly served with broadband connectivity."

Here's The FCC's Ruling On Municipal Broadband
by Karl Bode

The FCC's taking aim at North Carolina and Tennessee protectionist laws first, with the hopes that other states and cities will petition the FCC for help down the line. While the FCC's net neutrality rules tries to protect consumers in the absence of competition, the municipal broadband ruling is an effort to actually create a little additional competition.

Local governments should make broadband choices
By Christopher Mitchell, Guest columnist

When Comcast announced plans last year to invest hundreds of millions in theme parks in Florida and California, its customers may have wondered why the cable giant wasn't using those funds to deliver a faster or more reliable Internet connection. While Comcast's Universal Studios faces competition from Walt Disney World, most people don't have a real choice in high-speed Internet access.

FCC decision gives counties hope of blazing Internet speeds 
by Charles Taylor, County News

Electric Co-ops as a Vehicle for Bringing Fiber to Rural Areas
by Mitchell Shapiro, Quello 

I recently listened to an interview with Randy Klindt, General Manager of Co-Mo Connect, a rural electric co-op building a gigabit fiber network in Central Missouri. It reminded me that the nation’s rural electric co-operatives can be effective vehicles for deploying advanced communication infrastructure in relatively high-cost and underserved rural areas.

...

As Klindt points out, member owned co-ops like Co-Mo have a different perspective than private companies when it comes to investment horizons. While the latter tend to prefer payback in a 3-5 year timeframe, co-ops view both electricity and communication networks as long-term infrastructure investments with payback timeframes in the 10-20 year range.

Recent FCC Proceedings Highlight Importance of Equity, Local Control
By Nicole DuPuis, Public CEO

These decisions speak to the basic tenets of democracy and equity. The internet, which is one of our country’s most sound economic engines, has also developed into a carrier of social good. It protects our right to free speech, broadens our access to information, and enables us to communicate across physical boundaries. Policies that view and protect these services as institutionalized goods to which the public should have unrestricted access reflect democratic ideals and a spirit of equality among all citizens.

FCC Chooses 12 New Rural Broadband Experiment Winners
by Joan Engebretson, Telecompetitor

 

Alabama

FCC ruling may allow Opelika to expand fiber network
by Pierce Ostwalt, The Plainsman

“I’ve been mayor for 10 years [since] last October,” Fuller said. “In my first three or four years, the most complaints I got about anything was Charter. Sorry customer service, outages all the time, pricing was going up and there was no competition.”

Fuller’s comments fall in line with many of the points made by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler before the FCC’s Feb. 26 ruling.

 "Broadband access providers have the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on Internet,” Wheeler said. 

Idaho

Local Schools Make PLans for Own Broadband
by Chelsea Brentzel

"I think it's just something we do in the spirit of collaboration, and I think that's always important because when we talk about the school district and the city it's all the same people, and so anytime we can keep costs down it benefits everyone involved," Kirkham said.

She said the IEN crisis puts a focus on local government.

"This is always an argument for local control so whenever you have local control, then you aren't at the mercy of the decisions being made higher up the ladder and so this is one of those instances where you see that being played out," Kirkham said.

Rural schools find faster Internet at cheaper prices
by Michael H. O’Donnell, Idaho State Journal

If there is a silver lining to the mess involving the state of Idaho’s broken contract to establish the Idaho Education Network, it’s the realization that local Internet providers might be able to provide better service to small school districts for less money. 

Kentucky 

Mayor seeks companies to boost Internet speeds
City issues Request for Information as next step of Gigabit City project

New Mexico  

Rancho Santa Fe Association moves forward with plans for ‘fast, reliable’ fiber-optic network
by Karen Billing, Rancho Santa Fe Review

Norther Carolina

From Hollywood to Wilson, NC - a broadband move
By Allan Maurer, Special to WRAL TechWire

After 16 years in Los Angeles, the founders of ExodusFX moved their video special effects business to the East Coast three years ago, finally choosing the Eastern NC City of Wilson because of its gigabit municipal broadband network… 

... In LA, it would cost from $1,5,00 to $3,000 a month or more to get the necessary high speed broadband connections if you could find them at all, he says. By moving to Wilson, the company helps keep much work from going to India or China by reducing its production costs, including cost of living as well as the much less expensive bandwidth it needs. In Wilson, they pay $150 a month for their dedicated fiber hookup. 

Ohio

Progress continues on Fairlawn’s municipal Wi-Fi project
By Sean Patrick West Side Leader

“We’re the first city in our area — really, the State of Ohio — to do something like this,” he said. “We’re creating not only Wi-Fi, but also fiber for broadband. It will be a utility for residents and for businesses, so I think it’s pretty exciting.” 

Rhode Island

Chippendale: Homes Without Internet Access Leave Students Unable to Excel in School
GoLocal News

“But, there is a catch - and it’s a big one,” explained the representative. “There are approximately 232 Foster homes that have no means of accessing Broadband Internet. The students in those households want to do their homework – but they can’t. They have the high tech equipment - which taxpayers have paid for, but the technology is rendered useless in the students’ own homes! This is why I introduced House bill 5488. We must bring access to Broadband Internet to those Foster residences ASAP so these students can do their schoolwork and complete their homework.”

Tennessee

City backs TUB in broadband expansion efforts
by Andrea Agardy, Tullahoma News

The board of mayor and aldermen has officially voiced its support of the Tullahoma Utilities Board’s (TUB) bid to offer its LightTUBe Internet service outside the current limits of its coverage area.

Brian Skelton, TUB’s general manager, was among those praising the FCC’s decision.

“I am happy with the FCC decision,” Skelton said. “Municipal broadband expansion is certainly one of the answers to help get high speed broadband to more unserved and underserved Tennesseans. While I respect the concern of the state having their laws overridden by the federal government, this decision should ultimately be made at the local level, and many states, including Tennessee, have passed laws prohibiting a local decision.”

Federal authorities are not alone in taking another look at the issue. A bill to lift the restrictions on municipal Internet providers, sponsored by Sen. Janice Bowling [R-Tullahoma] and State Rep. Kevin Brooks [R-Cleveland], is currently pending in the state legislature.

Virginia

Broadband: Connecting rural Nelson County poses trials

“What is important about the NCBA’s ‘open access’ network is that businesses and residences that decide to obtain Internet are not locked into having service from only one ISP,” Carter said.“… It is the authority’s objective for additional ISPs to contract to use the NCBA network so that there will be more choice through competition for services, and that increased competition will also result in improved and expanded services.” 

And finally,

How small cable companies say they get screwed by their larger rivals: Small cable operators have to pay the big ones for access to TV programming
by Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica  

Small Cable Ops Beg FCC For Help in Battling Cable Giants
by Karl Bode, DSL Reports

Tech Blog GigaOm Abruptly Shuts Down
by Ravi Somaiya, New York Times

When Gigabit Communities Go Rogue
Jason Meyers, THE GIGABOT

A gigabit network deployment in Pelican Bay, Fla., provides a good example of what can happen when fed up (or, perhaps, underfed) broadband consumers take matters into their own hands -- and should serve as a wakeup call for broadband service providers that may not be paying enough attention to the needs of their niche customers. 

Why America's Internet Is So Sh*tty And Slow
Adam Clark Estes, Gawker Media

You may have heard that the internet is winning: net neutrality was saved, broadband was redefined to encourage higher speeds, and the dreaded Comcast-Time Warner Cable megamerger potentially thwarted. But the harsh reality is that America's internet is still fundamentally broken, and there's no easy fix.

Reaction to the FCC Decisions, Dissent, and Next Steps - Community Broadband Bits Episode 141

After the FCC decisions to remove barriers to community networks and to reclassify Internet access as a Title II service to enforce network neutrality rules, Lisa and I spend some time discussing the decision and reactions to it.

We also discuss my presentation at Freedom to Connect, where I offer some thoughts on what communities can do in the long term to ensure we end scarcity and the corporate monopoly model of Internet access.

Though we will continue to fight against barriers to local choice and work to ensure every community has the authority to choose the model that best fits it, we plan to spend more time examining how Internet access can be built as infrastructure rather than as for a specific service from a single provider.

Read the transcript from this show here.

We want your feedback and suggestions for the show - please e-mail us or leave a comment below.

This show is 16 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

Listen to previous episodes here. You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here.

Thanks to Persson for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Blues walk."