Link,
The blog post from the group representing the cable companies:
A group representing giants in the cable industry is trying to shut down two municipalities' proposals to expand their public broadband networks, arguing that public broadband has a "mixed record" and can be harmful to taxpayers, despite these two networks already being successful where they're already operational. Laws in 20 states prevent municipalities from from creating their own broadband networks much to the pleasure of private cable companies, which have shown an impressive dedication to avoiding any competition and any suggestion that their service is merely a utility. Municipalities have on occasion created their own public networks to make up for shortcomings from local internet providers, and it's easy to see why private providers wouldn't want that around.
The two municipalities, those of Chattanooga, TN, and Wilson, NC, have petitioned the FCC to allow them to work around state laws that block their broadband service's expansion. The FCC has previously said that it plans to use its powers to invalidate these laws, but there's some contention over whether it can do that. In a filing and blog post today, USTelecom which the Guardian says represents Comcast and Time Warner Cable, among other industry giants argues that the FCC doesn't have the power to do this. That's hardly the only reason that USTelecom provides for why these municipalities should remain blocked, however, generally arguing that it should be up to the state to decide. For what it's worth, state governors are in agreement. The National Governors Association also submitted a comment on Friday asking that the FCC "honor the longstanding partnership between states and the federal government" and reject these two municipalities' petitions.
While USTelecom is right that some public broadband networks have turned into blunders, many have been incredibly successful and have actually proven to be legitimate competitors to private networks. In fact, Chattanooga offers gigabit internet to every home and business in its community a speed that's still incredibly rare to see from private providers in the US. Community Broadband Networks says that 40 communities in 13 states are currently offering gigabit service.
With the FCC having said that it will allow municipal broadband networks to work around these laws, it seems that the cable companies may have an uphill battle. Still, it's not clear when the FCC will find time to rule on this and, if the cable industry loses, it wouldn't be surprising to see it continue the fight from there.
The blog post from the group representing the cable companies:
The success of public broadband is a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures from St. Cloud, Fla. and Groton City, Conn., to Philadelphia and the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA). With state taxpayers on the financial hook when a municipal broadband network goes under, it is entirely reasonable for state legislatures to be cautious in limiting or even prohibiting that activity.
For this and other reasons, USTelecom opposes the petitions filed by the city of Wilson, N.C., and the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tenn., asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to preempt state laws restricting public entities from offering broadband service. The FCC should not interfere with state decisions on how best to extend broadband service.
States have adopted a wide range of legislative approaches on how much authority they give local governments to build, own and operate broadband networks. Some states require an election or public hearings before a public project can move forward. Others ask for competitive bids, and still others put restrictions on the terms of service so the public entities bear the same regulatory burdens as private service providers.
States are well within their rights to impose these restrictions, given the potential impact on taxpayers if public projects are not carefully planned and weighed against existing private investment.
Municipal broadband is often hailed as the solution to providing service in difficult to build areas where its been hard to attract private investment. But municipal broadband is not the only or the most efficient way to do this. The FCCs Connect America Fund (CAF), which is just getting off the ground, is dedicated to serving rural America. The CAF program is focused on stimulating investment by providing public funds for broadband in areas where there is no business case. In contrast to municipal broadband networks, which can undermine competition and saddle local communities with significant debt if such networks fail, the CAF offers an efficient, rational means of helping to expand broadband access to all Americans.
The commission has the power to preempt state laws under appropriate circumstances. However, Supreme Court precedent requires a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent in order to interfere with the relationship between states and their political subdivisions. Because the commission lacks this clear intent under Section 706 of the Communications Act, the FCC does not have the power to preempt the North Carolina and Tennessee statutes.
The FCC could make positive use of its preemption authority to facilitate broadband deployment at the local level by removing barriers to entry, specifically around local rights of way. These barriers, which can include the expense of obtaining permits and leasing pole attachments, can amount to 20 percent of the cost of fiber optic deployment, according to the National Broadband Plan.
- See more at: http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/fcc-has-no-standing-state-broadband-laws#sthash.K4jgtTyp.dpuf