Colorado Eyes Killing State Law Prohibiting Community Broadband Networks

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
58,876
Reputation
8,682
Daps
163,135

from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept​

Thu, Mar 30th 2023 12:36pm - Karl Bode

U.S. telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast spent millions of dollars and several decades quite literally buying shytty, protectionist laws in around twenty states that either ban or heavily hamstring towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Even in instances and areas where AT&T and Comcast have repeatedly refused to upgrade their networks.

Quite often, these industry ghost written laws even ban municipalities from engaging in public/private partnerships. It’s a scenario where ISPs get to have their cake and eat it too; they often refuse to upgrade their networks in under-served areas (particularly true among telcos offering DSL), but also get to write shytty laws preventing these under-served towns from doing anything about it even if such efforts are approved by the majority of voters.

This dance of dysfunction has been particularly interesting in Colorado, however. While lobbyists for Comcast and CenturyLink managed to convince state leaders to pass such a law (SB 152) in 2005, the legislation contains a provision that lets individual Colorado towns and cities ignore the measure with a simple referendum. Whoops.

As a result, more than 121 Colorado communities have opted out of the restrictions in a bid to improve local broadband access. And now state leaders are finally considering eliminating the pointless law entirely via SB183:

If passed, the new proposed legislation (SB-183) – co-sponsored by a bipartisan-ish group of state legislators (10 Democrats and 2 Republicans) – would neuter SB-152 and allow local communities to decide for themselves if they wanted to pursue municipal broadband without needing special permission from the state.
COVID lockdowns and the home education and telework bills did a fabulous job highlighting these dumb laws, which effectively exist to shield local monopolies from any sort of disruption. In this case, that disruption comes in the form of an organic, voter-approved response to widespread market failure that’s left Americans paying an arm and a leg for what’s often spotty, substandard broadband access.

Two states, Washington and Arkansas, already dramatically scaled back their state restrictions during COVID, leaving seventeen states that still have some kind of pointless restrictions on the books. For a while, telecom giants successfully scared Americans away from community-owned and -operated broadband networks by claiming they were inherent taxpayer boondoggles or “socialism.”

But data routinely shows that such networks offer faster, cheaper, and better broadband access than that of many private sector monopolies. Locally owned ISPs also tend to be more directly accountable to locals because they are locals. And such efforts often prod telecom monopolies routinely pampered by regulatory capture and muted competition to actually try harder.

Most of the most interesting work going on in the telecom sector continues to be at the hands of municipalities, cooperatives, or city-owned utilities frustrated by decades of monopoly power. Big ISPs could have thwarted this movement at any time by providing better, cheaper, faster access — but it’s generally easier to pay off captured state lawmakers for protectionist laws instead.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
58,876
Reputation
8,682
Daps
163,135

New Bill Could Make Colorado Friendly State for Municipal Broadband​

By

Sean Gonsalves
on

Tuesday March 21, 2023

Earlier this month, a new Colorado bill was introduced that, if passed, would rid the state of a law designed to protect monopoly Internet service providers (ISPs) from competition.

SB-183, titled “Local Government Provision Of Communications Services,” seeks to gut a law Big Telecom pushed state lawmakers to pass in 2005. That law, known as SB-152, prevented any of Colorado’s 272 municipalities from building and operating their own telecommunication infrastructure unless local voters first passed a referendum to “opt out.”

End of ‘the Qwest Law’?

Known also as “the Qwest law,” Qwest (now Lumen but more recently CenturyLink), with the help of Comcast, leaned on legislative allies to pass SB-152 to protect their monopoly profits. On our Community Broadband Bits podcast, Ken Fellman and Jeff Wilson, prominent telecom attorneys, recount how lobbyists for the monopoly ISPs were instrumental in pushing two false, but effective, narratives we’ve seen many times before: that SB-152 only sought to “level the playing field” so that private companies could compete with municipally run networks, and that SB-152 “protected” Coloradoans from irresponsible local governments, as if there were no such things as local elections.

But, if passed, the new proposed legislation (SB-183) – co-sponsored by a bipartisan-ish group of state legislators (10 Democrats and 2 Republicans) – would neuter SB-152 and allow local communities to decide for themselves if they wanted to pursue municipal broadband without needing special permission from the state.

As the official summary of the proposed new legislation notes, “current law regulates competition in local governments' provision of cable television service, telecommunications service, and high speed nternet service, which is defined as ‘advanced service.’"

The proposed bill, which was introduced during the regular session on March 9, would replace the legal term “advanced service” with “broadband nternet service,” and eliminate “the requirement that a local government hold an election before providing or before operating a facility to provide cable television, telecommunications, or broadband nternet services to subscribers.”

It would also get rid of the requirement that local Colorado governments need to hold an election to enter into a private partnership to allow a private provider to offer cable TV, broadband service, or middle-mile infrastructure. Even now, thanks to this vaguely drafted law, it is not clear whether libraries are currently breaking the law by providing Internet service in areas that have not had a referendum.

It is currently in the hands of the state Senate’s Local Government & Housing Committee, though a committee hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Three Colorado Examples

Currently, ILSR is tracking 17 states with preemption laws that significantly restrict municipal broadband service – from outright bans to various barriers that make it impossible or extremely difficult for communities to build publicly-owned, locally-controlled broadband networks. ILSR does not actually include Colorado among the 17 because nearly every community that wishes to exempt itself from it has, via an unnecessary vote (that required taxpayer dollars to hold).

More than 121 Colorado municipalities, nearly half of all state municipalities, have already overwhelmingly said ‘Yes’ to local ballot questions that asked voters if they wanted to “opt-out” of the state law, even if only to explore the possibility of offering municipal broadband service.

Despite continued misleading and disingenuous attacks on the very idea of municipal broadband, proffered by the likes of University of Denver Professor of Finance Ronald Rizzuto, Coloradoans lived-experience seems to be carrying more weight. Across the state, not only are communities frustrated by the substandard service of the incumbent monopoly providers – ranking them among “the most hated companies” on both sides of the Rockies – there are three burgeoning municipal networks in Colorado’s Front Range region to consider as real-life case studies.

Image
Fort Collins Connexion logo

In Fort Collins, the city’s Connexion fiber network is 95 percent complete. In that city of 168,000, city councilors were so eager to finish building the network, they voted last April to approve an additional $20 million to complete construction, bringing the total cost of building the network to $142.8 million. In their January 2023 monthly report, Connexion reported that revenues were “significantly below budget” because of its “previously constrained installation capacity” that limited how many new subscribers they could sign-up. They also reported that expenses were also “significantly below budget,” resulting in a $72,000 shortfall.

Some local media outlets have seized on that, which has garnered the network critical coverage, most especially in the anti-government news outlet Complete Colorado.

Still, the 2017 business plan’s expected take rate of 28 percent has been exceeded. Today, Connexion has a take rate of 33 percent, despite challenges the city has faced. And, of course, an analysis of a network’s financial impact is incomplete if it does not take into account economic multiplier effects as well as an array of other indirect benefits a citywide fiber network brings.

In 2022, PCMag ranked Connexion as the fourth fastest Internet service provider in the nation and in 2021 as one the best Work-From-Home cities.

The second fastest ISP in the nation (and also on the list of best Work-From-Home cities), according to PCMag, is NextLight in Longmont, Colorado, another municipal network in the Front Range region.

The NextLight fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) network broke ground nearly a decade ago and today enjoys a 60 percent take rate in a city of 100,000 residents, last year celebrating passing the 25,000 subscriber milestone.


In 2013 voters approved a $45.3 million bond issue to speed network construction along. That debt is on track to be paid off in 2029 as initially projected.

The success of that network is not only fueled by the reliability that fiber provides but also by the appealing prices for service. Subscribers are able to get symmetrical 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) service for just $40/month or a symmetrical gig connection for $70/month. But what has really garnered the city praise is NextLight’s ability to offer its basic 100 Mbps plan at no cost to eligible low-income households, and its gig speed plan for just $20/month.

It highlights an important distinction between the incentives of municipal broadband networks in comparison to the shareholder-focused monopoly provider approach.

As NextLight’s Internet director Valerie Dodd told the Colorado Sun: “the city’s mission is to provide fiber-based, highly reliable, affordable Internet for any household within the Longmont LPC footprint.”

The goal is not to make money. The goal is to provide valuable service, affordable service and then it’s also to reinvest in the network to ensure that we have reliability and excess capacity into perpetuity.

In Loveland, where 67,000 Coloradoans call home, there is another municipal network known as Pulse. The early success of that network was enough to convince Larimer County officials to use $6.3 million of its American Rescue Plan funds to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Loveland to expand the network further out into Larimer County.

County Commissioner Kristin Stephens told the Loveland Reporter-Herald the expansion was not “just about watching ‘Die Hard,’ This is about emergency services, honestly. In so many parts of this county we don’t have those kind of emergency services and connectivity to get word to folks about emergency situations.”

She added that Pulse performs better than private ISPs both in terms of service quality and its focus on serving those most in need of broadband access.

In episode 443 of our Community Broadband Bits podcast, Pulse Fiber Manager Brieana Reed-Harmel and Marketing and Communications Manager Lindsey Johansen discuss what it took to become a valued, local broadband utility for Loveland residents.

They also talk about how vital it was to work together with Fort Collins and Estes Park to share costs and bring efficiencies to all the municipal networks in the region.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
58,876
Reputation
8,682
Daps
163,135


16 U.S. States Still Ban Community-Owned Broadband Networks Because AT&T and Comcast Told Them To​

from the​


Thu, Nov 7th 2024 05:34am - Karl Bode

For years we’ve noted how U.S. broadband is expansive, patchy, and slow thanks to mindless consolidation, regulatory capture, regional monopolization, and limited competition. That’s resulted in a growing number of pissed off towns, cities, cooperatives, and city-owned utilities building their own, locally-owned broadband networks in a bid for better, cheaper, faster broadband.

Regional giants like Comcast, Charter, or AT&T could have responded to this organic trend by offering better, cheaper, faster service. But ultimately they found it far cheaper to undermine these efforts via regulatory capture, congressional lobbying, lawsuits, protectionist state laws, and misleading disinformation.

Currently sixteen states have laws — usually ghost written by regional telecom monopolies — restrict or outright ban community broadband. Some of these laws are outright bans on community broadband, basically letting Comcast or AT&T veto your local infrastructure voting rights. Others erect elaborate, cumbersome restrictions on the financing and expansion of such networks and pretend that’s not a ban.

The good news: The Institute For Local Self Reliance (where I study and write about broadband access) notes that these sixteen laws are a notable reduction from the 21 state laws we had in 2020. What caused the change? The pandemic home education and telecommuting boom highlighted the essential nature of broadband (or more accurately, the expensive, sluggish, terrible nature of monopoly options).

As a result, several states voted to roll back the efforts and take a more serious look at community owned and operated broadband networks:

“In 2021, Arkansas and Washington passed legislation significantly rolling back legislative barriers on publicly owned broadband networks. In 2023, Colorado rolled back a law that required communities to hold a referendum vote to opt out of a state ban on municipal broadband. That law was repealed after over 120 communities across the state overwhelmingly voted to opt out of the state preemption law, fueled no doubt by the success of the municipal networks in Estes Park, Fort Collins, and Loveland. In May of 2024, Minnesota followed suit, rolling back its preemptions laws.”

There are numerous funding and deployment models when it comes to community broadband. Some municipalities build open access fiber networks themselves (see: Utah’s UTOPIA), allowing for numerous competitors. Others are built off the back of city-owned electric utilities (see: Chattanooga’s EPB). Some are fiber cooperatives (see the success had in North Dakota). Some are public private partnerships.

Data routinely shows these networks provide faster, better, cheaper service than regional cable and phone giants. Staffed and backed by locals, they tend to be more in tune with the needs of locals. They’re extremely unlikely to engage in predatory pricing, privacy, or net neutrality violations. You’ll usually enjoy local customer service. They incentivize regional monopolies to actually try.

There’s $42.5 billion in infrastructure bill subsidies that should start reaching the states early next year. A lot of this money will land in the laps of the usual regional monopolies. But a lot of it is going to wind up in the hands of local community-owned networks, which is a dramatic policy shift from years past. As a result, companies like Charter, AT&T, and Comcast have ramped up the use of fake consumer groups built specifically to mislead locals.

Community broadband isn’t some magic panacea. Like any other business model, it requires competent planning, intelligent financing, and stellar leadership. But it should be the democratic choice of a community whether to pursue such options. Not the decision of a Comcast executive living half a world away.

Filed Under: broadband, community broadband, fiber, high speed internet, lobbying, municipal, protectionism, state laws, telecom



 
Top