
State Laws That Stop Cities From Installing Fast Internet - nickreese
http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/
======
js2
NC's law was practically written by TWC after Wilson, NC got fed up and ran
its own fiber. For years Wilson had attempted to get its citizens decent
broadband and TWC et al didn't want to invest in the city. So Wilson ran its
own fiber. TWC didn't want to see that happen again, and after 4 years of
lobbying eventually got a bill passed to ensure it wouldn't.

[https://www.wilsonnc.org/living/fiberopticnetwork/greenlight...](https://www.wilsonnc.org/living/fiberopticnetwork/greenlighthistory/)

[http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/time-warner-and-embarq-
ca...](http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/22/time-warner-and-embarq-cant-compete-
with-city-owned-isp-trying/)

~~~
waps
Keep in mind that these regulations have advantages as well as disadvantages.
Municipalities can easily prevent broadband providers from installing
networks. So if they compete with broadband providers, they can easily abuse
their position.

This can lead to worse internet availability.

E.g. these are municipalities, right, so porn filters and other forms of
censorship for example are pretty much guaranteed if you let them install
their own networks.

~~~
otterley
But this has never happened in any municipally provided internet service to
date (in fact, even municipally-funded libraries are loathe to install
filters). Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry
indecent mails (think adult magazines and videos).

And unlike corporations, government agencies are bound by the Constitution;
any attempt by a municipal Internet service to filter based on content would
face a First Amendment lawsuit overnight.

~~~
pdabbadabba
> Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry indecent
> mails (think adult magazines and videos).

I agree with your overall point -- I am aware of no attempt by municipal
broadband providers to censor the internet they provide, and the First
Amendment would seriously limit their ability to do so.

This, however, is not right:

>Nor has the government-sponsored Post Office ever refused to carry indecent
mails (think adult magazines and videos).

It has done this on very many occasions and, in fact, these efforts are
precisely how we got much of the First Amendment obscenity doctrine we have
today.

Some examples:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock)

[http://openjurist.org/276/f2d/433/grove-press-inc-v-k-
christ...](http://openjurist.org/276/f2d/433/grove-press-inc-v-k-
christenberry) ("'Lady Chatterley's Lover'...has been detained as unmailable
by the New York Postmaster and, after a hearing before the Judicial Officer of
the Post Office Department and reference to the Postmaster General for final
departmental decision, was held by the latter to be 'obscene and non-mailable
pursuant to 18 U.S.Code 1461.'")

[http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1990/spring/es...](http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1990/spring/esquire-
v-walker-1.html)

Another good comparison might be broadcast (and, to a lesser degree, cable)
television where, indeed, the government monopoly has generated pervasive
content censorship. But this has been made possible by a peculiar First
Amendment rule that really only applies to broadcast TV.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Fe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._Federal_Communications_Commission)

I, for one, would rather take my chances with municipal broadband than be
stuck with the truly awful TWC service that I am currently stuck with in NC.

~~~
danielweber
I'm also in NC (western part) and Time Warner is one of the two Internet
services I have at my house. I have felt no problems with either (possibly
because I have two and am ready to drop either if they start to suck). Is
there something I should be looking for that I haven't?

~~~
warfangle
Can you get 100mbps service for less than $100/mo?

If not, you're getting fleeced.

------
dba7dba
Love this part. Love it.

"While Blackburn is clearly overlooking the success of municipal broadband
provider EPB from her own state, what’s left out of the conversation is that
largest percentage of funds for Blackburn’s campaign came directly from the
telecommunications industry"

~~~
shimshim
I agree. This all seems so shady. I believe a municipality should have a
choice, based on what the people vote for. The fact that this lady's funds are
coming from telecom is a red herring to me.

~~~
logfromblammo
I think you meant to say "red flag". A "red herring" is something that
initially seems relevant to the issue at hand, but turns out to be unrelated.

A politician's campaign bankroll is very relevant to the issues that person
chooses to champion while in office.

~~~
shimshim
Hah, that crossed my mind before I posted but yes I should have said red flag.
Thanks for the clarification.

------
briandear
Do the laws prohibit private companies from installing fast internet? I don't
necessarily want a city government running my internet. Cities should not be
in the telecommunications business. However, there SHOULD be laws promoting
competition and thus restricting the de facto monopoly positions of many
providers. Where I live in France, I have, in just my small town of Avignon,
at least 5 high speed internet providers available -- resulting in my monthly
cost for 120mbs + full cable (all the movie channels) cell phone with
unlimited data, unlimited calls to over 49 countries in the world AND home
phone (which I never use) for about 70 euro per month. The internet portion of
that is something like 20 euro per month, the cell portion is about 15 or so
(give or take 3 euro.)

Cities don't need to get in the telecoms business -- however governments do
have a responsibility to promote competition. Cities getting into the internet
business would be about as efficient as the Post Office getting into the
letter delivery business -- a ton of public-union-related waste, bureaucratic
inefficiencies as well as an inherit incentive to discourage private
companies, thus reducing innovation. You also have the issue of city-run
networks being subject to political pressures such as "I'll donate money to
your reelection if you allow my content to have preference on the network."
You also have the city having access to your usage records and they'd be
nothing keeping them from using it for law enforcement purposes without a
warrant or your consent. After all, you'd be using city-owned property, thus
you really wouldn't have much leverage. The police would certainly leverage
that. We all know that most internet traffic isn't going to be safe from NSA-
types, however, there's a reasonable belief that NSA-level intercepts aren't
filtering down to the local cop on the beat. Maybe it's a bit of paranoia,
however based on my experiences with city governments in the US, they are some
of the most power-hungry, corrupt sufferers of little-man(woman) syndrome I've
ever encountered. These are the same twits that want to ban large sodas
because they think they're your daddies and mommies. Yeah, count me out. Last
thing anyone needs to do is give a city (or any) government more power to do
anything.

~~~
dguaraglia
What happens in the US is that municipalities will sign exclusivity agreements
with certain companies (Comcast, AT&T, TWC) to encourage them to lay down the
infrastructure.

Imagine you are the mayor of Podunk, Arkansas and you want your constituents
to have access to high speed internet. AT&T and Comcast won't rush to lay
cables to your town because there's simply not enough business for them to
compete for. So, as mayor of Podunk give AT&T an exclusivity agreement for 20
years in exchange for them laying down the infrastructure today.

The problem is obvious: now AT&T doesn't have any competition and they can do
whatever they want with their prices. Your population is hostage to the
exclusivity agreement for the next 20 years.

One possible solution for this problem would be the government to build the
infrastructure and then invite companies to compete for it's usage. That's
what happens in UK and other countries.

~~~
rayiner
Granting exclusive franchises for cable have been illegal under federal law
since 1992.

~~~
stonogo
While true, your statement is completely irrelevant, as is that section of the
law to which you refer. Local governments simply switched to leasing right-of-
way access; cable companies now simply pay for exclusive access to _that_ ,
instead of exclusive control of a given franchise area.

~~~
rayiner
I don't know where you're getting that from. That is explicitly prohibited by
47 U.S.C. 253(a): "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or
local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service."

See:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ctrc.maryland.gov/articles/pdf/Effect_on_Broadband_Deployment.pdf&cd=7&ved=0CCsQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFRz09nyLt0GFcF1V7JjkD0ynhKwQ).
Section III(A).

The NTIA has a 50-state survey of right of way laws here:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7Pg...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KM_NU7PgFYb5oASejoDwAQ&url=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/staterow/statelocalrow.html&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF3tJ0t8xc34iXN5KMyx3jOJdpjXQ)

~~~
stonogo
It is explicitly prohibited and done all the time. Investigate the current
situation with Baltimore, Maryland regarding its Comcast franchise as an
example of how these things are still a problem, despite Congress' attempts to
prevent it.

The executive summary here is that the laws you cite protect some services
without protecting other services that may commonly be bundled. In the
Baltimore situation I mentioned, only Comcast can provide cable TV. Verizon
won't roll FiOS out to most of the city, because they wouldn't be able to sell
television services alongside the internet and telephone services. It's
rumored this also prevented Google Fiber from considering Baltimore as a
target market. So, while the _letter_ of the law agrees with you, that any
entity can provide service, the city has signed an agreement with Comcast that
makes it financial suicide to attempt it.

It is not enough to parse the laws; you must also understand how they interact
with the actual actions taken by real governments.

~~~
rayiner
Its funny you mention Baltimore. I researched the issue extensively because
I'm moving there in a month.

Baltimore's agreement with Comcast is non-exclusive for television service:
[http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_...](http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-09-21/news/0409210094_1_county-
council-baltimore-county-franchise-agreement).

The reason Verizon doesn't offer television service in Baltimore is because it
doesn't have a cable TV franchise from the city. The reason it doesn't have
one is not because Comcast's contract is exclusive, but because the city won't
give Verizon one unless they agree to build out FiOS to the whole city.
Verizon won't do that because it makes no financial sense to build fiber
everywhere in a city where a quarter of the population is at or below the
poverty line. It dramatically increases their cost per actual subscriber,
which is already iffy for FiOS to begin with. Verizon hsd built internet
service only to a few high end communities, something that doesn't require a
city-wide franchise.

Google won't enter Baltimore for the same reason Verizon won't. Google does
not agree to build out requirements for Google Fiber. They demand the right to
only build fiber in neighborhoods where enough people sign up to justify it:
[http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-
forest/index.ssf/2014/05/g...](http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-
forest/index.ssf/2014/05/google_fibers_portland_deal_wo.html).

~~~
stonogo
All such agreements are non-exclusive, by law, as you pointed out. It is
fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout and
public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the local
government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to pursue
a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their buildout
requirements. It has the same effect: Google can't sell TV service on terms it
likes, so Baltimore is not a market. In the case of FiOS, it's far more likely
that Verizon would like to have -- and could not get -- a piecemeal franchise
in the city, and simply decided that not being able to sell TV meant it was
more cost-effective to try selling 4G access as broadband in the city.

In either case, Comcast signed a buildout/franchise agreement, and the economy
has shifted since then to render such agreements less profitable. That,
combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it generally
gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as far as the
end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town. The fact
that it _technically_ shouldn't be that way is just academic.

The Sun article you linked regards Baltimore County. Baltimore is not in
Baltimore County. I wish you better luck with your future research.

~~~
rayiner
Give me a break, they both signed agreements in 2004 and I posted that at
2am... This page has excerpts from the city's franchise agreement with
Comcast. As you can see, it's non-exclusive:
[http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/Franc...](http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/PublicAccessTV/FranchiseAgreement/FranchiseAgreement.html).

This directly contradicts your assertion claim that Baltimore gave Comcast an
exclusive franchise for television.

> It is fairly universal in franchise agreements to require universal buildout
> and public-access channel service in exchange for certain amenities the
> local government can provide. In the case of Google Fiber, they chose not to
> pursue a TV franchise and Baltimore was smart enough to stick to their
> buildout requirements.

It is fairly universal, but it is also what suppresses competition in the
market. Verizon and Google won't touch those terms with a 10-foot pole. Its
not smart of Baltimore to stick to those requirements, because it means people
in Baltimore won't get fiber.

> That, combined with Comcast's boilerplate 'most favored nation' clauses it
> generally gets into their agreements, renders all of your arguments moot, as
> far as the end result for the populace goes: there is only one game in town.
> The fact that it technically shouldn't be that way is just academic.

Sure, there is one game in town, but my argument isn't about that. Your claim,
an oft-repeated bit of misinformation, is that cities get around 253(a) by
granting exclusive right of way to certain providers. Or maybe your claim is
that cities get around 253(a) by granting exclusive franchises for television
to a single provider. The implication is that a competitor is legally
precluded from entering the market. However, the reality is that cities don't
do those things. What they do instead is succumb to class warfare politics,
and make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors.

The question is: who is to blame. People on HN like to make it seem like cable
companies negotiated themselves sweetheart exclusive deals. But the reality is
that municipalities are to blame. Between the build out requirements and
random cash grabs for public access, cities put up massive roadblocks to
potential competition. Only the incumbents are willing to put up with them.

The bottom line is that companies like Verizon and Google are ready and
willing to build fiber in places like Baltimore. But the city won't let them
unless they agree to ridiculous terms. The fact that even Google refuses to
agree to such nonsense in Fiber cities should tell you who is at fault here.

~~~
stonogo
I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result
is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and
it's always one that has negotiated a favorable contract with the local
government. I know you don't think this is possible, that it's been outlawed,
and that you're prepared to spend your life asserting that there is no way for
a government to cause an exclusive franchise to exist, but there is, and they
do. In my city, for example, the government just outright sold land to Time-
Warner. Time-Warner doesn't pay for access to the right-of-way because they
don't have to any more. In return, my city (and the county it's in) got fiber
rolled out city wide.

I'm also unsure why you think that a simple business decision by Google is
some sort of Moral Designator. It is the job of a city government to protect
the less fortunate. They're not going to achieve that by letting corporations
serve rich neighborhoods and ignore poor ones. I'm not sure how a city can
"make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors" by
holding them to the same terms as the existing franchisees.

I'm not really interested in having some kind of politically-charged debate
with you about it, and now that you're throwing around phrases like 'class
warfare,' I've realized you don't have any other actual motivation here. Sorry
to have wasted your time on the matter.

------
mwsherman
Are these laws any more onerous than the ones the private providers must
respect?

I don’t dispute that they are anti-competitive, but I wonder these are laws
(or similar) are also the reason there is not private-sector competition.
Would like to see original sources, and comparisons.

Remember, most cable and phone systems were designed by municipalities _as
monopolies_ , which is what got us here today. They were seen as utilities.

~~~
rdl
As far as I can tell, cable systems were basically not "designed" \-- it was a
pretty shady industry in the early 80s, with a bunch of shoddy work,
questionable ROW deals, etc. Consolidation happened and a bunch of regional
carriers happened and maybe some of the later deployments were "designed", but
very little of the early catv was built the way telephony was, which was
itself usually different from water/sewer. Electric depended on where, and was
either sketchy (in some of the East Coast cities), or some kind of "designed"
system, or government (RE).

------
steanne
there's a few more states with restrictions of various sorts.

[http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap](http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap)

------
superbaconman
The fear is that the government will start creating noncompetitive laws once
they win the bid. I have no problem with government taking over local ISPs if
they can deliver a service that's just as good without caving to gov employees
when they fall behind. There must exist some shared infrastructure (or cities
must allow for redundant service lines) if true competition is to emerge.

~~~
CaptainZapp
To this European some American laws appear just weird and, I dare say,
corrupt.

The telecom - and cable industry in the city of Zurich - yelled "bloody
murder!" and foretold all sorts of doom and mayhem if the publicly owned
electric utility would build a publicly financed fiber network. This happened
about ten years ago.

The same companies argued that fiber is not economically viable and the
investment not worthwhile.

They pored massive funds into a NO campaign for the referendum, which was
accepted by the public in a landslide, twice!

After construction started the biggest telco, Swisscom, actually jumped onto
the train. Now, thanks to the foresight of a public utility and the spending
of public money Zurich has one of the densest, most modern, high capacity
fiber networks.

Oh, the argument that a public utility smokes out poor private companies?
That's not happening and that's very easy to avoid:

EWZ (the utility) does not act as an ISP. They sub lease the network to ISPs
under equal and transparent conditions, who in turn sell network capacity to
the consumer.

This also avoids the "censorship issue", which, in my opinion, is a spurious
argument, at best.

I'm aghast about some of the arguments used in order to keep the public from
pursuing its best interest.

I'd wager that a private company, whom's business model is built on force and
coercion provides rotten service and will not act in the best interest of its
customers.

When you look at where broadband stands in the US, compared to the rest of the
world, I think my argument has merit.

~~~
mercurial
Besides, as the UK demonstrates, companies will happily implement "voluntary"
filtering as soon as somebody in the government starts spelling "regulation",
so it makes little difference either way.

------
mfkp
From the first sentence:

> over 39 million Americans have less than 2 wired broadband providers they
> can get broadband service from.

The logical/programmer side of me reads this as "over 39 million Americans
have _one_ wired broadband provider they can get broadband service from"

~~~
fixedd
Zero is also less than two.

~~~
bostonpete
Agreed -- if your logical/programmer side interprets <2 as ==1, then be
careful with your code refactoring. :-)

~~~
nailer
Maybe it's a signed int. :^)

~~~
nailer
Meant unsigned, thanks autocorrect. But anyway, there's still +0 so nevermind.

------
cnst
> ...

> Combined these rules force municipalities to compete with for-profit
> corporations, but with none of the benefits of being a municipality.

> ...

What an incompetent and one-sided summary of the laws! After reading all of
these, point-by-point, all I am left with is the impression that these are all
good laws, and are good for the fairness of the market. Why the hell should
municipalities get kick-ins that are not afforded to the businesses?

Keep in mind, I came in knowing that most of these laws are very one-sided!
So, to have such an effect...

Is the author getting funding from the big telco and cableco?

