Image
Fast, affordable Internet access for all.
Pro Community Broadband Bill in Washington Will Return Next Year
By
on
As we recently noted in our coverage of the Chelan Public Utility District in Washington state, state law restricts the authority of Public Utility Districts to offer retail services over the fiber-optic networks many have built. But at least one Representative is pushing to expand PUD authority.
Representative John McCoy has been working to improve rural broadband access and spurring more competition in Washington State. He brought a bill, HB 1711 that would allow PUDs to begin offering retail services as well as offer telecommunications services outside their traditional boundaries.
The bill did not go far this year, likely due to the considerable influence of large carriers like Charter, Frontier, and others. But Representative McCoy plans to bring it up again next year and may have more support depending on the recommendations of a current study. The University of Washington Law School is studying options to expand broadband access in rural areas. The final report is due in December and will address the option of allowing PUDs to offer retail access.
I strongly encourage people who may be interested in such developments in Washington to contact Rep McCoy or email me to find out how you can get involved. Quite frankly, we need to develop better networks to ensure citizens are aware of efforts like this bill so elected officials can be contacted in a timely manner.
At the bottom of this post, we have embedded a six minute audio clip of Rep. John McCoy discussing HB 1711 and issues around access to the Internet more generally from a Progressive States Network conference call earlier this month.
Digging into this bill, the summary of the bill [pdf] offers some history:
Public utility districts (PUDs) are municipal corporations authorized to provide electricity, water, and sewer service. In 2000, the Legislature authorized PUDs and rural port districts to acquire and operate telecommunications facilities for the following purposes: (1) to serve their own internal telecommunications needs; (2) to provide wholesale telecommunications services within their district limits; and (3) to provide wholesale telecommunications services to other PUDs by contract.
Currently, 14 PUDs and three rural port districts in the state provide wholesale telecommunications services.
And for local governments,
And for local governments,
According to a 2003 Attorney General Opinion, first class cities and code cities may provide telecommunications services as part of their "home rule powers," except as may be limited by specific statutory language governing particular services. Second class cities and towns, however, do not have the authority to provide telecommunication services.The full summary of the bill:
A public utility district (PUD) or rural port district may provide retail telecommunications services in areas that are within or adjacent to the district. In addition, a PUD or rural port district may provide wholesale telecommunications services in areas that are adjacent to its district. Retail telecommunications services is defined as the sale or lease of telecommunications services or facilities to public agencies, individuals, non-profit organizations, libraries, schools, institutions of higher education, or other public or private entities. Any PUD or rural port district offering retail telecommunications services must ensure their rates, terms, and conditions for retail telecommunications services are not unduly or unreasonably discriminatory or preferential. In addition, PUDs and rural port districts must keep separate accountings of revenues and expenditures for their retail telecommunications activities and may establish a separate utility function. Revenues generated from the retail telecommunications activities must be used to pay off the costs incurred in building and maintaining the telecommunications facilities. If a person or entity receiving retail telecommunications services from a PUD or rural port district has a complaint regarding the reasonable of the rates, terms, conditions, or service provided, the person or entity may file a complaint with their PUD or rural port district. A city or town may construct, purchase, lease, operate, and maintain telecommunications services or facilities in order to provide its inhabitants with telecommunications services. The city or town has full authority to regulate and control the use, distribution, and price of the service. A definition of "utility service" is added with respect to code cities. This definition includes telecommunications services as well as water, sewer, solid waste and electricity.For the actual language of the bill, download HB 1711 [pdf]. If you care about these issues, get involved -- the cable and telco lobbyists will speak for you unless you get involved.
File
Geoterm
Related Stories
Fort Worth Strikes Public Private Partnership To Set Table for Citywide Fiber Network
Fort Worth, Texas, has struck a $7.5 million, 34-year contract with Dallas-based Sprocket Networks to construct a new 300-mile fiber optic backbone to shore up city municipal communications needs, expand affordable access to marginalized neighborhoods, and boost local economic development. City officials say construction crews are expected to begin work sometime in the next three to six months, with the full network construction expected to cost $65 million and take three years to complete.
Blue River Latest Colorado Town To Eye Community Broadband
Blue River, Colorado is the latest Colorado municipality to explore building its own broadband network with an eye on affordable access. The town is part of a trend that’s only accelerated since the state eliminated industry-backed state level protections restricting community-owned broadband networks. Town leaders recently hired the consulting firm, NEO Connect, to explore the possibility of building a town-wide fiber network.
After Years of Declining Service, Pikeville, Kentucky Strikes a Deal for a New Partnership
Pikeville, Kentucky officials, after almost a decade of fighting with Internet Service Provider (ISP) Optimum about service so consistently poor that the city finally sued the provider, are working on an alternative: a partnership that will see the local government build new citywide fiber infrastructure and lease it to an operating partner. The city formalized a public-private partnership with Inter Mountain Cable, a private local company, which will build the network and get exclusive rights to operate it for 15 years, with the city retaining ownership.
Loveland, Colorado’s Municipal Fiber Network Crosses Finish Line
Last week, Pulse Fiber officials announced that construction of its community-owned broadband network is now complete with every household and business in this city of 77,000 now having access to affordable gig-speed service. The $110 million construction project, which began in earnest only four years ago, is the largest capital project in the city’s history, reaching the finish line on time and on budget, city officials said.
California’s Broadband Plan Has Huge Potential, But Red Flags Abound
California has an ambitious $6 billion proposal to shore up affordable broadband access throughout the state, which includes a $3.25 billion plan to build an open-access statewide broadband middle-mile network backers say could transform competition in the Golden State. But while the proposal has incredible potential, digital equity advocates remain concerned that the historic opportunity could be squandered.
Vermont CUD CVFiber Connects First Fiber Customers
CVFiber continues to make progress in deploying affordable fiber to long-neglected rural areas in Vermont. In late 2022 CVFiber broke ground on an ambitious plan to build a 1,200-mile fiber-optic network to bring affordable gigabit broadband access to 6,000 rural Vermont addresses with its first customers having been connected in the central Vermont town of Calais.