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

Change.org Petition: CA Lawmakers, Vote for Greater Local Authority, Don't Abandon Copper Yet

The California State Assembly will soon vote on three bills that have significant implications for rural Internet access initiatives in the Golden State. An online Change.org petition is asking you to urge lawmakers to give local communities the authority to determine their own Internet access needs.

On April 20th, 2016, the State Assembly will vote on a bill to provide state funding for community-based efforts aimed at improving broadband access in rural areas. And during the current session this week, California Represenatives will vote on two additional bills, drafted by lobbying groups working for the telecom industry, which seek to give incumbent providers even greater power to control the quality and price of Internet access options that are available in these rural communities.

From the petition:

Bill AB1758 was drafted by rural broadband activists and sponsored by assemblymen Mark Stone, Eduardo Garcia, Marc Levine, and Mike McGuire. It extends state funding and grant programs to local agencies and consortiums to plan and build community based internet solutions in communities throughout the state that have been ignored by big telcom. The bill requires a super majority to move from committee to vote. Committee members need to hear from people around the state to move this bill forward. If it dies in committee, funding will cease, and rural communities around the state will be at the mercy of AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, etc. AB1758 comes to discussion on April 20th, 2016.

The petition describes two other bills up for consideration, AB2130 and AB2395, which will greatly influence the use of California Advanced Services Funds, allowing large corporate cable and telecom incumbents access to those funds. Local communities will have very little opportunities to obtain those same grants under the proposed changes.

One of these bills will allow AT&T to retire copper lines; rural areas are not ready for such an abrupt change. We've covered how AT&T and other big incumbents have pressed state legislatures for the ability to abandon copper in favor for cheaper technology.

Check out the online petition for more detail.

AT&T Celebrates, Tennessee Families Go Another Year Without Internet Hope

As I write this, I suspect the "platoon" of lobbyists from AT&T and Comcast in Nashville are waking up with hangovers from celebrations last night after they once again defeated a bill to restore local authority in Tennessee. After a grassroots uprising, we thought the state would finally allow communities to decide for themselves if networks like Chattanooga's famed gigabit EPB would be able to expand.

Color me extremely disappointed - not because AT&T won, but because I fooled myself into thinking this grassroots mobilization might matter.

From the Times Free Press,

On Tuesday at the state Capitol in Nashville, a platoon of lobbyists and executives, including AT&T Tennessee President Joelle Phillips, were present in the House hearing room or watching on a video screen as Brooks presented the bill and the amendment.

...

It failed on the 5-3 [committee] vote with Rep. Marc Gravitt, R-East Ridge, voting for Brooks' amendment and Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, R-Signal Mountain, a one-time AT&T executive, voting against it.

Eight people voted on the bill. AT&T and Comcast formed the majority of the 27 lobbyists fighting against the bill according to Karl Bode.

People in Bradley County have either no service or poor access from companies like AT&T - but Chattanooga's EPB is not allowed to expand due to a state law pushed by the cable and telephone companies nearly 20 years ago to prevent competition.

These are people whose children have to go to libraries or fast food restaurants every day to do their homework. These are businesses that can barely compete in the digital age because AT&T doesn't view modern connectivity in the region an investment that would garner a fat return.

But alas, money and corporate influence again ruled the day in Nashville, where the Governor and others have continued to refuse to admit there is any problem worth fixing. This lede from Times Free Press answers the question of why companies like AT&T "donate" so much to political campaigns:

Gov. Bill Haslam says efforts by EPB and other municipal electric services to expand high-speed Internet to rural areas won't fully solve Tennessee's broadband accessibility issues and doesn't fairly treat for-profit servers like AT&T and Comcast.

In the face of this injustice, the Governor's first concern remains with what is fair to AT&T and Comcast, not what is best for the millions of Tennesseeans struggling with no connectivity or last generation slow Internet access.

To cover any charges they are doing nothing, they have announced an official "kick the can down the road strategy." Consider the Facebook post from AT&T executive turned state Legislator Patsy Hazlewood:

The state has invested $250,000 for a comprehensive study of broadband in TN. The report will be presented in June and will do a number of things. It will define broadband--which has a wide variety of definitions by both providers and customers across the state. The report will outline options for deployment and penetration on a statewide basis.

Great - one hopes that as parents drive their children to do homework while parked in front of closed libraries with active Wi-Fi access points that the state will soon decide how to define broadband.

This is why the FCC ruling to restore local Internet choice to communities is so important and oral arguments for the appeal are this week.

What remains to be done is a greater grassroots mobilization to demand that Nashville allow communities to solve their own problems. Republicans regularly critize Democrats for trying to enact a "nanny" state where the government refuses to let people make their own decisions. But when those same Republicans are in power, we see them restricting local governments from solving their own problems locally.

Bradley County and the local governments therein should be free to work with EPB if that is their choice. All this nonsense about fairness to AT&T and studying the definition of broadband in the year 2016 are a direct result of AT&T's power in Nashville and the dependency of elected officials on powerful companies for political donations and favors.

Colorado Bill Aims To Hinder Opt-Out, Restrict Local Authority Even More

When local elected officials in Colorado put the issue before constituents last fall, voters in almost 50 communities chose overwhelmingly to reclaim local telecommunications authority. Colorado's state law that strips away local authority, SB 152, permits opt-out through referendum. Referendums are expensive for local communities, but at least they are a way to reclaim the power to decide their own future. 

That ability to opt out will get more expensive and more burdensome if a new bill becomes law. Even though the state removed local authority with SB 152, this bill demonstrates that the legislature can still find a way to strip away more local control when big corporate providers feel threatened.

Local Leaders Concerned

SB 136, sponsored by Kerry Donovan, was introduced on March 4th under the guise of "modernizing" the dreaded SB 152. The bill is now waiting for a hearing in the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. According to the Aspen Daily News, Pitkin County Commissioners are wary of the bill's consequences. So are we. Ninety-two percent of Pitkin County voters approved the opt-out of SB 152 last November, thereby reclaiming authority. The county has already completed a needs assessment and is obtaining bids for telecommunications infrastructure; they don't want this bill to derail their efforts.

Kara Sillbernagel, Pitkin County analyst, shared her interpretation with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC):

...[A] concern is SB 136 could open the door to potential litigation in the opt-out process.

...

Silbernagel added that, in her opinion, the language complicates the issue away from the simple opt-out solution, and introduces terms which have left governments that opted out “feeling vulnerable.”

“[Concerns are that] it actually seems to be more restrictive for counties moving forward,” she said.

"Modernized" Language = "Modernized" Barriers

Among other changes, the proposed bill requires local governments to give a 60-day notice to private providers if an SB 152 opt-out question will be on the ballot. Local governments are already required to provide notice when a new measure is to be included on a ballot; this creates an additional requirement for measures related to broadband.

The bill also mandates that, prior to the election, a local community must develop and publicize a detailed plan as to what types of services it intends to offer, where the services would be offered, projected revenues, projected expenses, and why the municipality or its partner is seeking to offer those services. If a municipality seeks to work with a private sector partner, the requirement that they release this type of information will make any potential partner think twice. Competitors that have access to such data have an edge before the project has permission to commence.

There also appears to be considerable confusion in the bill's language regarding the term "services." Fiber, wireless, direct, indirect, video, voice? The ambiguity is off-putting for any community and potential partner hoping to offer connectivity where the big corporate providers won't go while also avoiding legal challenges. How can a community create a plan that does not run afoul of the law if the details of the law are clouded in mystery?

This section of the bill will increase the burden it places on local government. It will increase costs to communities early in the process, extend the timetable for proposed projects, and make local governments and their partners vulnerable to litigation from deep-pocketed incumbent providers. A legal challenge can stop a proposed project in its tracks simply by asserting that a business plan is ill-defined.

From the Aspen Daily News artice:

Commissioner Patti Clapper said the bill sounded like blowback from industry due to so many jurisdictions voting to opt-out of SB-152.

“It almost seems like … a way for industry to come in from the back door and nail us the other way around,” she said.

A Simple Solution

The bill attempts to remove barriers that prevent communities from entering into public private partnerships. The only barriers in Colorado are those put in place by SB 152. Rather than toying with unnecessary changes that make the barrier more restrictive, the best option is to repeal SB 152 and let local communities decide for themselves how best to solve their connectivity needs.

Missouri's HB 2078 Advances

Dear Readers: Since I first wrote this story with my attempt to analyze this bill, I have revisited my earlier interpretation. If you read this bill analysis before, you will notice some changes.

It is starting to become an annual pilgrimage to Jefferson City. Each year, House and Senate leaders on the telecom industry dole, introduce the same anti-competition bill.

This year the bill we are watching is HB 2078 in the House, yet another AT&T bill. We briefly introduced you to it in January when we requested you call Republican Representative Lyndall Fraker and the other Members of the House Utility Infrastructure Committee. Fraker is Chair of the Committee, often an indication that the committee will hear the bill.

AT&T donated $20,000 to the House Republican Campaign Committee, reports Ars Technica. Even though the check was deposited on February 15, 2016, Ars learned it was actually donated in September 2015, before session began. Regardless of when the money was donated, it is notable that AT&T contributed a total of $62,500 to political committees in Missouri, a place where the incumbent does not shy away from flexing its lobbying influence.

Last year, HB 437 was introduced and, after opposition from a number of private entities and public sector representatives, stalled in the House. Many of HB 437's anti-competitive characteristics are resurrected this year in HB 2078.

There are many things we don't like about this bill because it forces local governments to hold expensive referendums, dictates how they spend local revenue, and decrees cryptic rules that discourage partnerships with private providers.

"Competitive Services"

The bill would allow a municipality to offer "competitive services" as defined by the bill only if less than 50 percent of addresses in town are not being offered services "by any combination of service providers." We are not the only ones to document the overstatement of coverage of NTIA maps, which rely on self-reporting from the very companies that seek to limit municipal networks.

The bill goes on to provide various definitions of "competitive services," one of which is "communication service," which is an  ambiguous and confusing term that will have the effect of triggering the referendum requirement in the bill. Such an onerous requirement slows down local communities when they are trying to hasten economic development opportunities. 

The bill's backers attempt to put limits on what is "competitive" by preventing innovation from municipal networks. They use the words "substantially similar" to describe the types of services offered - another ambiguous term that can be conveniently reinterpreted later. 

"Exception"...Ya

HB 2078 creates a lip service "exception," as these bills always do, with a bar set so high no municipality could invoke it. We chose to highlight just a few aspects of a worthless section of a bill clearly and carefully drafted to prevent competition for the incumbents.

After a weekend reviewing the language of the bill, I see this as the correct interpretation :  that in order for a municipality to offer services by taking advantage of the exception, they must both double the speeds offered by incumbents and serve half the residences.

The most debilitating factor for any municipality that is subject to this law is that they would have to offer service to at least 50 percent of the addresses in the municipality from the first day. In other words, the community would have to wait until they have deployed a network to at least 50 percent of their community before they could begin providing service. Such a requirement would hobble any municipality that wanted to access revenues from one portion of a buildout to fund later expansions.

att-death-star.PNG

A Word About Dark Fiber

The bill used the broad term "communications service" and "competitive service" which called into question whether or not it applied to dark fiber providers. Recently, Google Fiber announced it will lease dark fiber from Huntsville, Ting leases dark fiber from Westminster and has stated that it seeks similar partnerships elsewhere. There are other communities that have unique arrangements with private entities. HB 2078 inserts Missouri state law into potential partnerships between public and private entities that rest on dark fiber. It requires the same terms and conditions be made available to "all service providers." 

This section interferes with a municipalities ability to forge partnerships with private industry leaders. For example, the agreement between Westminster and Ting might have triggered the negative impacts of this bill because the two agreed on 5 years exclusivity for the provider. 

The Next Step for HB 2078

HB 2078 passed through the House Utility Infrastructure committee 16 - 2 on February 18th and next heads for the Select Committee on Utilities. If it passes there, it will move the the House Floor for approval.

Last year the same measure did not advance because it was a bad bill. Missouri already has restrictions in place but this bill will make it even harder for residents and businesses to ever have access to more choices and the better service that come with competition. The legislation is written and backed by elected officials who hold the distinction of being darlings of AT&T, CenturyLink, and Comcast. Until we put this issue to rest permanently by allowing local authority in Missouri, the pilgrimage to Jefferson City will get tougher every year.

Rural Broadband Expansion Ignores Economic Development Potential in Minnesota - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 190

For years, many rural communities suffered from a broadband donut hole problem - the investment in better-than-dial-up was in the population center, leaving a donut of poor access around it. Now policy to reverse that in places like Minnesota is perversely creating the opposite problem, to the detriment of the entire community.

This week on the Community Broadband Bits podcast we welcome back Dan Dorman, Executive Director of the Greater Minnesota Partnership. He is also a former legislator and current small business owner in Greater Minnesota.

We discuss how this problem developed and where we see it happening before our very eyes. Though we focus on Minnesota, this issue is broadly applicable to all states. We also talk about how Comcast lobbyists have cynically manipulated the program to prevent economic development or possible competition, despite the fact that Comcast serves practically no one outside of the metro region.

Lisa Gonzalez and I predicted this problem in our paper from 2014, All Hands On Deck: Minnesota Local Government Models for Expanding Fiber Internet Access. Listen to Dan Dorman's last appearance, episode 136.

The transcript from this episode is available here.

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

This show is 25 minutes long and can be played below on this page or via iTunes or via the tool of your choice using this feed.

You can can download this Mp3 file directly from here. Listen to other episodes here or view all episodes in our index.

Thanks to Kathleen Martin for the music, licensed using Creative Commons. The song is "Player vs. Player."

Sale of OptiNet: BVU Caught Between Virginia's Rock And A Hard Place

For more than a decade, the people of Bristol, Virginia have enjoyed what most of us can only dream about - fast affordable, reliable, connectivity.  In recent days, we learned that Bristol Virginia Utilities Authority (BVU) has entered into a deal to sell its OptiNet triple-play fiber network to a private provider. The deal is contingent on approval by several entities.

As we dig deeper into the situation, we understand that troubles in southwestern Virginia and Bristol have led to this decision. Nevertheless, we urge the Bristol community to weigh the long-term consequences before they sacrifice OptiNet. Once you give up control, you won’t get it back.

"...A Few Bad Apples..."

If the people of Bristol surrender this valuable public asset to the private market, they run the risk of undoing 15 years of great work. None of this is a commentary on the private provider, Sunset Digital Communications, which may be a wonderful company. The problem is that Sunset will be making the decisions in the future, not the community. 

OptiNet has helped the community retain and create jobs, attracting and retaining more than 1,220 well-paying positions from Northrup Grumman, CGI, DirecTV, and Alpha Natural Resources. Businesses have cut Internet access and telecommunications costs. Officials estimate around $50 million in new private investment and $36 million in new annual payroll have come to the community since the development of OptiNet. The network allowed public schools to drastically reduce telecommunications expenses and introduce gigabit capacity long before such speeds were the goal among educators.

Schools and local government saved approximately $1 million from 2003 - 2008. Subscribers have saved considerably as well, which explains OptiNet's high take rate of over 70 percent. Incumbent telephone provider Sprint (now CenturyLink) charged phone rates 25 percent higher than OptiNet in 2003. The benefits are too numerous to mention in one short story.

However, BVU is emerging from a dark period marked by corrupt management. This sad reality actually makes its considerable achievements all the more remarkable. Last summer, several officials from BVU's OptiNet utility were indicted and found guilty of a number of federal charges including falsifying invoices, taking kickbacks, and misusing funds all for personal gain. Four people were fined and sentenced to prison. One other official is still being tried for her involvement in misuse of funds and tax offenses.

When this small number of officials violated the trust in Bristol that accompanies a locally managed utility, their actions negatively impacted the entire community. The actions of a few bad apples may have put the entire barrel at risk.

An Unsolicited Offer

logo-sunset-digital.jpg

A few months later, Sunset Digital Communications approached BVU with an offer to purchase OptiNet. Sunset had its financing in place prior to making the offer.

Sunset worked with the LENOWISCO Planning District Commission on its 2001 Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) project in Lee and Wise Counties in southern Virginia and Tennessee.

The company, based in Duffield, Virginia, serves 80,0000 residents and businesses. They also provide services to anchor institutions, and other Internet service providers. Sunset wants to use the OptiNet infrastructure to start an expansion into rural areas. In a recent Herald Courier article, Sunset President and CEO Paul Elswick described the relationship between OptiNet and Sunset as "friendly competitors."

Virginia Doesn’t Care About Rural People

BVU has been effectively prevented from expanding into nearby rural communities by Virginia law, which limits which business models BVU can use despite an utter lack of interest from existing providers improving their services in that region. 

BVU Authority Board Chair Jim Clifton told WCYB:

"We have peaked in our ability to compete, and again, if we can't get grants, and even with the grants, we can only go into certain areas. We can only go into a 75 mile radius of our footprint," Clifton said. He said as a public utility, they have reached the peak for providing those types of services.

Bristol's neighbors want OptiNet because of the great things it has accomplished for Bristol but state legislators will not allow the city to share the wealth. The pressure to expand through privatization is testament to OptiNet's success in a harsh, anti-muni environment.

In Steps Richmond

Rather than allowing BVU to bring its high capacity connections to those who desperately want it, legislators are using the actions of a few corrupt officials to further harm one of the few sources of economic growth in southwest Virginia.

While Sunset was pursuing BVU, State Senator Bill Carrico (R-Galax) was preparing a bill the Bristol Herald Courier described as a "wrecking ball for a job better suited to a hammer." The bill, a knee jerk reaction to the federal indictments, would reduce the size of the BVU authority and effectively transfer broad decision-making to state leadership by appointment. The editorial board described it as a way for the state to revoke local authority from Bristol for more than just OptiNet. From the Herald:

At the same time, Carrico wants to reduce to just two board members the representation from Bristol, Virginia, where the customer base represents 46 percent of OptiNet, 86 percent of wastewater, 98 percent of water, and 53 percent of electricity service business. 

We believe stronger oversight is required — and new blood on the board is essential — but not necessarily appointed from the governor’s office.

The City Council also opposed the bill but managed to get an amendment that allowed more Bristol representation on any new Board. Those members would only vote on water and sewer issures. SB 329 has passed through the Committee on Local Governments and now awaits a vote by the full body. It is not clear what will become of the bill if the sale of OptiNet is finalized.

seal-VA.png

A Tempting Offer But At What Price?

Sunset has offered $50 million to purchase OptiNet, which now carries approximately $24.4 million in long-term debt, reports the Herald Courier. A portion of that includes interdepartmental loans from the electric division to OptiNet. The electric system, water and sewer systems carry about $20.9 million combined, the bulk of which belongs to the electric system. BVU CEO Dan Bowman told the Herald Courier that the sale of OptiNet "would enable BVU to pay off all its $48 million in long-term indebtedness in all four divisions." There is some debate about whether or not this is possible, according to the agreement between the city and the BVU Authority.

The idea of becoming debt free is intrinsically appealing, but at what cost? BVU generates the necessary revenues to service its debt. Should Sunset decide to sell to one of the big corporate providers like Comcast, subscribers will be subject to the same price hikes and sub-par customer service like the rest of us. The purchase agreement has not been made public yet, but unless Sunset agrees to retain ownership or BVU is allowed a right of first refusal if Sunset decides to sell OptiNet, the risk is real.

Moving Along

On Tuesday, the Bristol City Council quickly approved a 2009 agreement between the city and BVU to clean up loose ends so the purchase can move forward. The agreement ensures that after debts are paid, half of all proceeds from a sale of OptiNet will go to the city. The City Council seems poised to approve the purchase, which must also be approved by the Cumberland Plateau Company (CPC), U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, National Telecom and Information Administration and Virginia Tobacco Commission. 

CPC is part of the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission, an entity established by the state legislature to improve economic development. CPC has the right of first refusal to purchase OptiNet because it was a partner in its deployment and its infrastructure is located in the CPC service area. If CPC and the other entities approve the transaction, the sale is expected to be finalized in May or June.

Rocks Carefully Placed For Maximum Effect

The deal is not over but momentum is moving toward the sale. No one can deny that BVU is under intense amount of pressure from several fronts. Virginia legislated a hostile environment that pushed OptiNet to privatize if it wanted to continue expanding to meet the needs of neighbors. The only interests served by this policy have been the big cable and telephone companies that maintain lobbyists in Richmond so they can pay less attention to the rest of the state.

When legislators are too cozy with big corporate Internet access providers, the only choice for expansion may be privatization. If the Virginia State Legislators were considering their constituents first, they would do what it takes to grow more networks like OptiNet. In other words, remove all barriers in the form of onerous requirements that limit expansion and discourage public investment in Internet networks.

The actions of a few corrupt BVU officials have played right into the hands of those that want to limit local Internet choice. 

Speeds Up, Prices Steady (or Down!) With EC Fiber

The East-Central Vermont Community Fiber-Optic Network (EC Fiber) recently announced plans to increase speeds across tiers with no increase in prices.

Changes will look like this:

  • "Basic" will increase from 7 to 10 Megabits per second (Mbps)
  • "Standard" will increase from 20 to 25 Mbps
  • "Ultra" will double from 50 to 100
  • The new "Wicked" plan will increase from 100 to 500 AND will include a price decrease. (Current subscribers to the Wicked tier who pay for 400 Mbps will also get the bump up to 500 Mbps and the price decrease.)

All speeds from EC Fiber are symmetrical so both download and upload are equally fast.

Self-Funded at the Start

Twenty-four communities in Vermont make up the consortium which began in 2009. The towns joined forces to deploy a regional Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) network when large corporate incumbent providers chose to invest elsewhere. Slow DSL was the best option in the area and local residents, businesses, and local institutions needed better connectivity.

Individual investors funded the initial network buildout but last year a new Vermont law took affect that allows towns to create "communications union districts." EC Fiber now functions under such a governance structure and organization officials expect to more easily attract larger investors and borrow at lower interest rates. EC Fiber hopes to answer requests to expand beyond its 24 member towns.

Characteristic Altruism

Increasing speeds with little or no rate increases is typical of publicly owned network communities. Tullahoma's LightTUBe, Chattanooga's EPB Fiber, and Lafayette's LUS Fiber have done it, often with little or no fanfare.

Publicly owned networks are also known to shun data caps, another tool big players like Comcast use to squeeze every penny out of subscribers. EC Fiber summed up why data caps are inconsistent with the publicly owned network philosophy:

An uncapped internet environment encourages entrepreneurs and economic growth. Despite the trend toward instituting data caps among commercial internet providers, ECFiber believes that caps are inconsistent with its mission as a community network. An unconstrained online environment frees businesses and individuals to be creative and innovative.

Holding Their Breath in Bradley

Cleveland Utilities (CU), serving Bradley County, is carefully searching for the best way to improve connectivity for its southeast Tennessee customers. After exploring a number of possibilities, CU sees a partnership with Chattanooga's EPB as the brightest opportunity but their collaboration rests on lawmakers in Nashville or the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Need Is There, The Neighbors Are Close

CU President, Ken Webb knows the community needs and wants something better than AT&T for Internet access or cable TV from Charter Spectrum, especially in rural areas. Residents and business owners have gathered at community meetings. Local community leaders have passed resolutions asking the state to roll back restrictions and contacted CU directly but the utility's hands are tied as long as state barriers remain in place.

For over 7 decades, CU has served residents and businesses, providing electricity, water, and sewer. After a 2015 feasibility study revealed a $45 million estimate to build out a triple-play fiber to the entire county, CU began considering a limited pilot project.

They have been talking with their neighbors, EPB, about the possibility of partnering for some time Webb told the Times Free Press:

"We don't want to reinvent the wheel," Webb said Tuesday. "We continue to study our options (for adding telecommunications services), but we would prefer for the state to allow us to have the option of working with EPB."

Waiting...Waiting...Waiting

Right now, the prospect of fiber in Bradley County appears to hinge on two possible outcomes. First, if last year's FCC decision to roll back state barriers is affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and legal review stops there, the EPB will not need to worry about a legal challenge. 

Bradley County residents and businesses may also have a chance at fiber if the state legislature adopts legislation introduced last year by Cleveland's Representative Kevin Brooks. Senator Janice Bowling sponsored the Senate version last year and the two vowed to carry on advancing the bill this year. The bill, that would restore local authority to invest in Internet networks, received backing from a number of organizations and local communities.

Hamilton County, home to Chattanooga and its world famous gigabit municipal fiber, is located immediately west of Bradley County and ready to expand to the communities that want access to the EPB gigabit. Due to Tennessee's restrictive state laws, EPB cannot serve beyond its current electric service footprint:

DePriest, who is also chairman of the Tennessee Fiber Optic Communities, said the Chattanooga utility is eager to expand into the parts of Hamilton County it doesn't currently serve, which includes about 9,000 homes in east Hamilton County, and into all of Bradley County, which has more than 50,000 homes and businesses.

"We have developed some plans and we will develop more," DePriest said. "We've already had more than a thousand people from that area write us, email or call us asking when they can get our (broadband service)."

"We think we have the expertise and the infrastructure already in place so that expanding into these areas would help them and help us," he said. "We would have to work out the arrangement with Cleveland Utilities and Volunteer Electric because this is their territory and we're not going to go anywhere where we are not invited and where it doesn't make good business sense."

Missouri Legislature Off to Another Anti-Muni Session: Pick Up Your Phone and Call!

If you pay attention to state laws affecting municipal networks in Missouri, you are experiencing an unsettling feeling of deja vu right now. On January 7, Representative Lyndall Fraker introduced HB 2078, a bill much like last year's Senate anti-muni bill. Fraker is Chair of the House Utility Infrastructure Committee, where  the bill is now awaiting a hearing, so it has a good chance of being heard sooner rather than later. 

Your Phone Call Required! 

Time to call Members of the Committee, especially if any of them represent you, and let them know that you expect them to vote against this bill. It is anti-competitive, opposed to local authority, and prevents new investment. Bad bill! 

Preventing Partnerships to Maintain The Status Quo

This bill would not only make it extremely difficult for local communities to invest in publicly owned Internet networks, but would complicate and delay public-private partnerships. A number of communities across the country already own infrastructure and are exploring ways to partner with private providers who want to use it to serve schools, businesses, and residents. If a community wants to lower telecommunications costs or obtain better services, this legislation would have them first jump through a series of obscure, expensive, and cryptic hoops. This legislation creates barriers that serve no purpose except to erect hurdles that discourage local communities from finding better providers.

The requirements in HB 2078 and its companion bill SB 946 are clearly intended to limit competition - to maintain the existing de facto monopolies and duopolies within Missouri. As we have seen in places like Westminster, Rockport, and in Missouri's North Kansas City, partnerships are filling a gap in places where incumbents don't feel justified investing or communities are not ready for their own high-quality Internet networks. A key benefit to allowing partnerships is the establishment of competition in areas where there is only one provider who has no reason to work to please its subscribers.

According to HB 2078, before a community can even consider offering any type of service:

"...the competitive service is not being offered to fifty percent of the addresses by any combination of service providers within the boundaries of such city, town, or village."

In other words, existing de facto monopoly status in places where there is only one provider can be easily preserved by the Missouri State Legislature if this piece of legislation passes.

State Lawmakers Impose Their Will On Local Decisions

The bill also dictates specific criteria for feasibility reports, waiting periods, and fiscal impacts. HB 2078 directs the city on specific loan requirements, limits borrowing to $500,000, and dictates interest terms. Along with other restrictions, the bill shackles local governments to the point where investing in better infrastructure is not practical.

Give the Locals What They Want!

Once again, state lawmakers are stepping over the line when they should be stepping back from it. Missouri has existing barriers that discourage publicly owned networks and negatively impact rural communities overlooked by large corporate providers. Rather than perpetuate this harmful state of affairs, state lawmakers should look to the future, strike down the state's existing barriers, and give local communities full authority to decide their own connectivity future.

Are You From Tennessee? Your Opinion Matters!

For the past several months, we have covered the plight of North Carolina and Tennessee. These states have passed laws that prohibit local governments from expanding beyond their municipal electric utility service area to bring better connectivity to neighboring communities. Even though nearby towns ask places like Chattanooga or Tullahoma to provide services, they are prevented from doing so.

Today we bring to you this news story from Anderson County, Tennessee. Local officials are encouraging residents to tell the state about their horrible connectivity. With a bill in the state legislature to remove the restriction and the state embroiled in a court case to challenge the FCC's decision to roll back the state barrier, local governments are using the survey to connect people with lawmakers.

In Anderson County, some local government agencies have hardcopies of the state’s survey for those without Internet access. Any Tennessee resident with Internet access can take the survey online here

"It's the slow circle of death that you see wheeling around there, and it's waiting and waiting and waiting," -- Steve Heatherly, Anderson County Chamber of Commerce Chairman