preemption

Content tagged with "preemption"

Related Topics

Displaying 271 - 280 of 406

LaGrange Muni Network Serves Business and Government in Georgia

By on Tue Feb 26, 2013

As the Georgia legislature considers HB 282, a bill that will restrict local governments from investing in telecommunications networks, we are continuing coverage of the communities that will be harmed by passage of the legislation.

Should the restrictions become law, existing networks will not be able to expand. No expansion means fewer opportunities to reap the benefits that flow naturally from community networks. While this means few residents will receive access in places like Thomasville and Moultrie, it also means fewer businesses will receive access in places where networks exclusively serve commercial customers and government offices.

LaGrange's IT Director, Alan Slaughenhaupt, told us a little about its municipal network that began in 1996. The community decided to build its own network when no private provider would. The first goal was to get the K-12 schools connected. Bonds funded the network build out and were paid off within five years. At the time, the city partnered with ISN (Later Earthlink) to get the schools connected. LaGrange now partners with Charter Communications to bring connectivity to students.

The LaGrange network now connects hospitals, most city, county, and state government facilities, and provides connectivity for businesses. Alan describes how a T1 connection cost local businesses $2,300 per month in 1996. Now, thanks to competition created by the community owned network, local businesses can pay just $100 for a connection with better capacity. The municipal network serves about 400 commercial customers.

Alan explained that the automaker Kia moved a manufacturing facility near LaGrange in 2009 that used Just-In-Time inventory control. It needed a high-speed connection between the main plant and suppliers that LaGrange could deliver.

By on Mon Feb 25, 2013

Recently on Gigabit Nation, host Craig Settles visited with Mayor Max Beverly from Thomasville, Georgia. As our readers know, the Georgia General Assembly is again considering a bill to limit municipal efforts to bring connectivity to local residents and businesses. That bill is currently scheduled to be heard on Tuesday afternoon, 2/26, but many people have already expressed their anger at it in Facebook comments on the bill page.

HB 282 sets a very low bar for what is considered "served" - 1.5 Mbps - and prohibits municipal networks from serving those areas while also imposing a new heavy cost on investing in unserved areas.

Mayor Beverly discusses how he and other Georgia community leaders are fighting HB 282 through education. Speaking from first-hand experience, he finds that elected officials often turn from support to opposition when they hear about the incredible success of Thomasville.

Mayor Beverly finds himself sharing the story of Thomasville's victories that are all tied with the network, created in 1999. In Thomasville:

Christopher Mitchell

on Tue Feb 19, 2013

Last Friday, FCC Chairman Genachowski issued a statement discouraging states from creating (or maintaining) barriers to community owned networks. This statement came just days after Georgia began considering a bill to limit local authority in deciding whether a network were a wise decision.

As we’ve recognized in law and policy for many years, public-private partnerships are also essential for driving broadband deployment. Public-private partnerships like the Connect America Fund, which drives universal broadband deployment, and municipal and public -private projects like those in Chattanooga, Tennessee and San Leandro, California are also vital components of our national broadband strategy. Our Gigabit City Challenge and the important work of Gig.U to drive ultra -fast broadband centers for innovation can also benefit from innovative local approaches to broadband infrastructure. That’s why the National Broadband Plan stated that, when private investment isn’t a feasible option for broadband deployment, local governments ‘have the right to move forward and build networks that serve their constituents as they deem appropriate.’ If a community can’t gain access to broadband services that meet its needs, then it should be able to serve its own residents directly. Proposals that would tie the hands of innovative communities that want to build their own high-speed networks will slow progress to our nation’s broadband goals and will hurt economic development and job creation in those areas. I urge state and local leaders to focus instead on proposals that incentivize investment in broadband infrastructure, remove barriers to broadband build-out, and ensure widespread access to high-speed networks.”

This is a welome development as the FCC has long opposed such barriers (thank you Commissioner Clyburn as well for long speaking out on this issue) but the Chairman himself has not been as direct as this. The Chairman regularly uses Chattanooga as an example of a tremendously successful network and again noted that community in this statement.

Christopher Mitchell

on Fri Feb 15, 2013

In just a few days, we have seen many articles discussing how unwise and dangerous HB 282 is for the future of economic development in Georgia. This bill will revoke local authority to decide for themselves if any public investment in telecommunications is a wise choice. We already noted coverage from DSL Reports, Free Press, and Stop the Cap. Here are some others. CivSource, a news source for civic leaders, quickly wrote about the bill, placing it in national context.

Municipal broadband has been under steady attack nationwide by incumbent broadband providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. They contend that networks built by cities and counties that also offer subscription options for residents amount to unfair competition. They won this fight in North and South Carolina, but, following more coverage of the issue, fights in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Georgia have been harder to win.

Ars Technica's Timothy Lee also covered the bill, including common pro and con arguments. But he gets something that many other reporters don't notice,

Moreover, limiting which parts of town a municipal fiber network can serve might make it impossible for that town to cost-effectively reach under-served sections with broadband service. It's often more cost-effective to deploy fiber to an entire town than to deploy fiber selectively to only certain parts of town. The neighborhoods being served by an incumbent are likely to be the wealthiest and densest parts of town.

Christopher Mitchell

on Wed Feb 13, 2013

In the 30 hours since we learned of a bill in Georgia to revoke local authority to decide for themselves if a broadband network is a wise investment, we have seen a big response! Some of that is detailed below, but what matters for now is that HB 282 was bumped from today to next week. The committee roster is here, please keep spreading the word and making phone calls. If you have contacts in Georgia that want more detail, send them our way. The Georgia Municipal Association Blog quickly explained why this bill limits the ability of towns to attract jobs to their communities.

The fundamental question is rather simple, does Georgia want local leaders to determine the economic and investment strategies for their communities or do we want those decisions to be made solely on the business plan of companies based outside of the state?

And they go on to quote the former City Manager of Adel:

After much deliberation and public demand, the City of Adel launched our wireless internet system, Southlink, in 2003. There were NO INCUMBENT, HIGH-SPEED PROVIDERS at that time with no indication of interest by anyone. The City of Adel did what no investor-owned company would consider, yet the citizens and businesses in Adel deserved the service just as much as those citizens of Atlanta, Macon, Augusta or Savannah. The business plan worked and we gained customers. Within four years of our launch, both Alltel and Mediacom launched true high-speed service to the area. With our original intent served, we then dismantled the wireless system in 2009 and 2010 and the citizens had service options. We did not launch the service to compete with incumbent providers and we gave them every chance to provide the service. Did our positive action create the impetus for other providers to bring in their service?

Christopher Mitchell

on Tue Feb 12, 2013

Stay updated on developments by following this tag. The Georgia General Assembly is considering another bill to limit investment in telecommunications networks in the state, an odd proposition when just about everyone agrees states need as much investment in these networks as possible. House Bill 282, the "Municipal Broadband Investment Act," purports to limit the ability of public entities to invest only in "unserved" areas. But as usual, the devil is in the details. This bill will be discussed on Wednesday, Feb 13 at 4:00 EST in the Telecom Subcommittee of the House Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications committee (Committee roster here). We strongly encourage Georgians to write to members of this committee and explain that these decisions should be made at the local level, not by the state. Communities each face unique circumstances regarding the need for telecommunications investment and they can be trusted to make informed decisions after weighing the available evidence. Many local governments have invested in modest networks to connect local businesses, but such investments will be prohibited in Georgia if residents in the area are already served with a connection of at least 1.5 Mbps in one direction. This baseline is far lower standard than the FCC's definition of "basic" broadband: 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. Setting a low baseline hurts communities but rewards carriers that have refused to invest in modern networks. This bill poses a dramatic threat to the ability of local governments to encourage economic development and provide the environment necessary for the private sector to create the jobs every community needs. See our fact sheet on how public broadband investments have created jobs. Supporters of this bill will claim that it only restricts investment to areas that are most needing it.

Christopher Mitchell

on Tue Jan 29, 2013

Common Cause's Todd O'Boyle and myself have just published an opinion piece in the North Carolina News & Observer to highlight the foolishness of the General Assembly revoking local authority to build broadband networks. Todd and I teamed up for a case study of North Carolina's most impressive fiber network, Greenlight, owned by the city of Wilson and then turned our attention to how Time Warner Cable turned around to lobby the state to take that right away from communities. That report, The Empire Lobbies Back, was released earlier this month. An excerpt from our Op-Ed:

The Tar Heel economy is continuing its transition from tobacco and textiles to high technology. Internet startups populate the Research Triangle, and Charlotte’s financial services economy depends on high-quality data connections. Truly, next-generation Internet connections are crucial to the state. It is deeply disturbing that the Federal Communications Commission ranks North Carolina at the bottom nationally – tied with Mississippi – in the percentage of households subscribing to a “basic broadband” connection. The residents and businesses of nearly every other state have superior connections.

Read the whole thing here.

Fact Sheets and Guides

Even as the Internet is changing every aspect of our lives and communities, most Americans are intimidated by confusing jargon and misconceptions about Internet policy. We are developing a series of fact sheets that make these issues understandable to everyone.

We presently have fact sheets from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other organizations that cover broadband, financing networks, wireless Internet, economic development benefits from community owned networks, and the public savings from community owned networks.

Stay up to date with these fact sheets and other developments in community owned networks, subscribe to our one-email-per-week list. Once a week, we send out an update with new stories and resources.

BEAD Should Continue to Prioritize Fiber

Several officials from the Trump Administration have proposed changing the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) rural Internet access program to use technologies that appear to cost less to deploy. However, these changes would repeat past policy mistakes and waste billions of dollars while delivering subpar Internet access to rural families at much higher prices.

BEAD should continue to focus on fiber [pdf]

What New York's Affordable Broadband Act Means [One Page]

A quick explanation of New York's Affordable Broadband Act, including what it doesn, why it was enacted, and what it means for ISPs and households.

New York Affordable Broadband Act One-Pager [pdf]

What New York's Affordable Broadband Act Means

After a tangled journey through the courts, a New York state bill passed in 2021 requiring ISPs of a certain size to offer a low-income option to residents has become the law of the land. Now, any provider that has more than 20,000 subscribers must offer at least a $15/month service tier capable of delivering 25Mbps or greater to families that qualify.

In this fact sheet, we explain what it means for residents of New York as well as other states that might way to explore their own options. We break down the language of the law section by section - including how households can qualify, how the program will change in coming years, the penalty to ISPs for noncompliance, and more.

What New York's Affordable Broadband Act Means [pdf]

State BEAD Challenge Guide

Almost half of states have finished or will soon complete their Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) challenge process, with the remaining half to go. Even in those states that have taken pains to democratize the process and remove the obvious obstacles, it's clear that there are a bunch of sticking points worth preparing for. To help, we've created a short guide to help newcomers to the space. It pairs well with the FCC Broadband Map Challenge Guide below.

State BEAD Challenge Guide [pdf]

Rising Tide of Municipal Broadband Networks

The municipal broadband movement continues to gain momentum. Since January 1, 2021, at least 47 new municipal networks have come online with dozens of other projects still in the planning or pre-construction phase, which includes the possibility of building 40 new municipal networks in California alone. To help encapsulate this dramatic surge in the number of communities building publicly-owned, locally controlled high-speed Internet infrastructure, we created this fact sheet to provide pertinent numbers and highlight four recently launched networks now providing service to communities hungry for high-quality Internet connectivity, choice, competition.

Rising Tide of Municipal Broadband Networks [pdf]

How to Submit Challenges to the FCC Broadband Map

With good reason, many are confused about the information shown in the FCC's new Broadband Availability map, the challenge process, and why we should care about helping the FCC make corrections. We believe it is important to contribute to improving this map to enable an equitable allocation of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funds to states next year. In an effort to provide a better understanding of the map itself and the challenge process we created a short series of instructional videos and a click-through guide. FCC Broadband Map Challenge Guide [pdf]

Ohio's Community Broadband Solutions

Cities across Ohio have expanded Internet infrastructure in thoughtful, forward-looking ways. These municipal networks have created local government savings, increased speeds, promoted service competition, and powered economic development. Some cities have specifically addressed the affordability gap in cities, where many residents have been left behind in a broken market where large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have underbuilt networks, leaving hundreds of thousands of broadband-hungry Ohioans in the digital dust. This fact sheet outlines the many long-term benefits that municipal broadband projects have brought to the state.

Ohio's Community Broadband Solutions [pdf]

Snapshots of Municipal Broadband

Municipal networks in the United States have proven that when dollars are invested in publicly owned information infrastructure, they often return value back to the community several times over. These networks are directly accountable to the community and have proved themselves for more than 20 years in some cases, bringing lower prices to households than the large private providers. Municipal networks and partnerships account for 9 of the top 10 fastest broadband networks in the nation. This new fact sheet highlights municipal broadband success stories from across the country and some of the many benefits the networks have brought to the communities they serve.

Snapshots of Municipal Broadband [pdf]

Frontier Has Failed Rural America

Despite raking in hundreds of millions in government broadband subsidies, Frontier Communications has failed time and time again to bring reliable, high-speed connectivity to the rural communities it serves. Instead of investing in network upgrades, Frontier has neglected its rural infrastructure to the detriment of its subscribers and the company’s own financials, with its worsening service quality paralleling its plummeting stock value. This fact sheet presents evidence of Frontier’s negligence and suggests that rather than continuing to trust Frontier, government officials should look to publicly owned and community-minded providers to connect rural residents, businesses, and institutions.

Frontier Has Failed Rural America [pdf]

The Opportunity of Municipal Broadband

Next Century Cities (NCC) helps communities across the U.S. connect to each other, find resources, and discover ways to improve local Internet access options. NCC’s fact sheet uses examples from municipal network history. Communities have invested in publicly owned fiber optic infrastructure to obtain better connectivity and to reduce telecommunications costs for municipal facilities. In more than a few places, those investments became the foundation for what later became networks to serve local businesses and residences. The fact sheet also delves into other benefits, such as economic development, improved efficiency of other utilities, and accountability.

The Opportunity of Municipal Broadband [pdf]

A Pocket Guide to 5G Hype

It’s difficult to separate 5G fantasy from reality as reported in traditional news sources. Misunderstandings surrounding the demands and capabilities of 5G has snowballed, creating an incorrect assumption that the technology will solve America’s many connectivity problems. It’s true that 5G is an improvement, but it has limitations. This fact sheet addresses the most repeated errors surrounding 5G and explains why the technology should be considered another tool, not an exclusive remedy.

A Pocket Guide to 5G Hype [pdf]

Broadband is Affordable Infrastructure

Local governments spend billions on all sorts of infrastructure every year to advance the public good for their communities. Roads and bridges keep day-to-day activity moving. Investments such as water and sewer infrastructure keep cities clean and livable. Fiber infrastructure is used for a wide range of purposes, including economic development, education, and to keep a city’s administration connected. To get a look at how fiber network infrastructure compares to other public investments, we've developed the Broadband is Affordable Infrastructure fact sheet.

Broadband is Affordable Infrastructure [pdf]

Creative Funding Sources For Fiber Infrastructure

As interest in publicly owned broadband network infrastructure increases, local communities seek new ways to fund municipal networks. Revenue bonds, interdepartmental loans, and avoided costs have been the three most common methods for funding Internet network infrastructure, but local leaders are finding creative approaches to get the job done. In this fact sheet we analyze some new approaches to funding fiber optic infrastructure, pros and cons, and offer some examples.

Creative Funding Sources For Fiber Infrastructure [pdf].

Satellite Is Not Broadband

As a nation our goal is ubiquitous broadband coverage so every person, regardless of where they live, can obtain the fast, affordable, reliable Internet access necessary for modern times. For people in rural areas, where large national wireline providers don’t typically invest in the infrastructure for high-quality connectivity, satellite Internet access is often their only choice. In this fact sheet we address some of the reasons why depending on satellite Internet access to serve rural America is a mistake.

Satellite Is Not Broadband fact sheet [pdf].

Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers

As the vote to repeal network neutrality protections approached in 2017, we started digging into the FCC’s data to determine how eliminating the policy would affect subscribers whose ISPs might take advantage of future changes. We learned that, due to existing monopoly and duopoly conditions, many millions of people would have no recourse but to pay known network neutrality violators for Internet access. We developed visuals and facts sheets with frank data that describes the problem in the U.S., California specifically, and on the East Coast from Maine to Virginia.

Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers, U.S.A. Edition fact sheet [pdf].

Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers, California Edition fact sheet [pdf].

Net Neutrality Repeal By The Numbers, East Coast Edition fact sheet [pdf].

CAF II Auction Fact Sheet

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) manages the CAF program, which provides billions of dollars in subsidies to Internet service providers for areas where the cost of building networks is prohibitive. Some large providers decided not to accept some of the subsidies during Phase I - about $198 million annually for 10 years. This fact sheet details the most important aspects of the Connect America Fund (CAF) Auction. What is it? What should it do? Who does it affect?

CAF II Auction Fact Sheet [pdf]

Muni Fiber Model Fact Sheet

When you think “municipal fiber network,” you may think Chattanooga or Wilson, North Carolina - places where the city utility offers retail services directly to subscribers. That’s only one of several possible models that are emerging as an increasing number of communities use publicly owned assets to improve local connectivity. This fact sheet offers five of the most well known models that local governments are investigating and implementing as they become more self-reliant. Examples and characteristics of each model help illustrate.

Muni Fiber Models [pdf]

Municipal Networks: Speed Increases & Affordable Prices

The large corporate national Internet Service Providers seem to raise their monthly rates every year but don’t give subscribers anything more for their money. On the flip side, we noticed that municipal networks tend to increase speeds for subscribers with very modest or no price increases over long periods of time. In order to illustrate this phenomenon, we looked back in time at rates and speeds in eight Tennessee communities that have invested in publicly owned Internet network infrastructure. You will see how speeds have increased significantly, but rates have only inched up.

Municipal Networks: Speed Increases & Affordable Prices [pdf]

Why Local Solutions?

The next time you’re attending a city council meeting, a local broadband initiative, or just chatting with neighbors about better local connectivity, take a few copies of our fact sheet. In addition to providing some basic talking points to get the conversation moving, the fact sheet offers resources to guide you to more detailed information on publicly owned Internet networks. You've already started to get people interested in all the advantages of high-quality connectivity, now show them how local self-reliance it the most direct route to better access.

Why Local Solutions?[pdf]

More than just Facebook

This fact sheet provides an overview on how Internet access and fast, affordable, reliable connectivity reaches most aspects of our lives. It provides statistics on economic development, education, and methods of delivering Internet access and is a good introductory tool that points out how Internet access is much more than just social media.

More than just Facebook[pdf]

Municipal Networks Deliver Local Benefits

This fact sheet on municipal networks in Virginia describes how economic development, public savings, and better connectivity have contributed to the health of local communities with publicly owned networks. Virginia local governments have improved public safety, healthcare, and connectivity in local schools. Rural areas are better able to compete for high-tech and manufacturing jobs because high-speed connectivity is now an essential service for day-to-day business.

Municipal Networks Deliver Local Benefits[pdf]

Minnesota Cooperatives and Local Governments Can Solve Rural Digital Divide

This fact sheet highlights the great work that Minnesota cooperatives and municipalities have done to bring fast, affordable, reliable Internet service to rural areas throughout the state. They've built many Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) networks, but there is still much work left to do. One in 4 Minnesotans lives in a rural area, and of those rural households, 43 percent lack access to broadband, defined by the FCC as 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload. Resilient, robust, fiber is the long-term goal, but fixed wireless can help extend coverage in hard-to-reach rural areas.

Minnesota Cooperatives and Local Governments Can Solve Rural Digital Divide[pdf]

Fast, Affordable, Modern Broadband: Critical for Rural North Carolina

This fact sheet emphasizes the deepening divide between urban and rural connectivity. The fact sheet can help describe why people who live in the country need services better than DSL or dial-up. This tool helps to visualize the bleak situation in rural North Carolina, how it can be improved, and offers links to resources.

Fast, Affordable, Modern Broadband: Critical for Rural North Carolina [pdf]

Community Broadband Networks Map

Communities across the nation have invested in publicly owned cable and fiber infrastructure. ILSR's Community Networks Map documents over 500 communities where municipal networks serve residents and businesses. This fact sheet provides a quick introduction to the interactive online map.

Community Broadband Networks Map Fact Sheet 2015 [pdf]

Financing Municipal Networks

When a community decides it needs to establish its own publicly owned network infrastructure, one of the biggest challenges is financing the investment. Each community is unique but three main methods of financing are most popular. This fact sheet offers a quick look at these common approaches and provides real-world examples.

Financing Municipal Networks Fact Sheet [pdf]

Broadband 101

This is a handy resource for elected officials and activists that are confused by some of the jargon or just want to make sure they understand some key ideas around broadband and telecommunications.

Broadband 101 Fact Sheet [pdf]

Community Broadband and Economic Development

Community Broadband Networks have a very good track record in creating jobs. This fact sheet details where publicly owned network attracted new businesses or helped existing businesses to thrive.

Economic Development Fact Sheet [pdf]

Community Broadband and Public Savings

Though schools, libraries, and other community anchors need access to faster, more reliable networks, the big cable and telephone companies have priced those services so high that they are breaking the budget. But when communities create their own connections, affordable high capacity connections aren't the only benefits.

Public Savings Fact Sheet [pdf]

Wireless Internet 101

Wireless networks may appear to be magical, but are actually driving investment in fiber optic wires. This resource defines many terms, key points, common speeds, and offers insight into wireless technology and policy.

Wireless Internet 101 Fact Sheet [pdf]

Community Broadband Preemption Fact Sheet

This 2 page fact sheet explores the issue of preemption - how at least 19 states have made it impossible or more difficult for communities to build their own networks. It includes some history, legal issues, and quotes from FCC Commissioners.

Community Broadband Preemption Fact Sheet [pdf]

After Buying NC Legislation, AT&T Kills NC Jobs

Christopher Mitchell

on Tue Jan 8, 2013

When the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill written by the cable and telephone industry (with help from ALEC), they probably didn't expect AT&T to turn around and slash its local workforce. And yet, that is what AT&T has done: "Hey North Carolina, thanks for that monopoly, hope you don't mind if we move a bunch of jobs down to Alabama." We had just published our report on how Time Warner Cable and AT&T bought anti-competition legislation in North Carolina when we heard the layoff news. Unfortunately, there is no real surprise there -- the big telecom firms are much better at slashing jobs than creating them. The increased profits from the consolidation that creates such big firms arise specifically from eliminating jobs. To AT&T, the workers in Greensboro are inefficient. After all, AT&T is a global company -- those call service jobs could be done in Birmingham or India. If the networks serving Greensboro and surrounding communities were locally owned, particularly if owned by the communities themselves, the support jobs would almost certainly be local. That may strike AT&T as inefficient, but perfect efficiency by that definition leaves most of us unemployed. The question for North Carolina is when it will recognize that its own best interests lie far from the best interests of Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink. If North Carolina wants to be a leader in the digital age, it has to let its communities decide for themselves if slow DSL and cable connections cut it or whether they would prefer to build their own blazing-fast, low cost networks like Wilson's Fiber Optic Greenlight. Take a minute help us spread our graphic on Facebook today, about North Carolina's dumb decision. If you want to stay in the loop when these companies threaten states with restrictive laws, sign up on DecideLocally.com to get occasional alerts.

In late 2006, Wilson, North Carolina, voted to build a Fiber-‐to-‐the-‐Home network. Wilson’s decision came after attempts to work with Time Warner Cable and EMBARQ (now CenturyLink) to improve local connectivity failed.

Wilson’s decision and resulting network was recently examined in a case study by Todd O’Boyle of Common Cause and ILSR's Christopher Mitchell titled Carolina’s Connected Community: Wilson Gives Greenlight to Fast Internet. This new report picks up with Wilson’s legacy: an intense multiyear lobbying campaign by Time Warner Cable, AT&T, CenturyLink, and others to bar communities from building their own networks. The report examines how millions of political dollars bought restrictions in the state that will propagate private monopolies rather than serve North Carolinians.

Download the new report here: The Empire Lobbies Back: How National Cable and DSL Companies Banned The Competition in North Carolina

These companies can and do try year after year to create barriers to community-‐owned networks. They only have to succeed once; because of their lobbying power, they have near limitless power to stop future bills that would restore local authority. Unfortunately, success means more obstacles and less economic development for residents and businesses in North Carolina and other places where broadband accessibility is tragically low.

It certainly makes sense for these big companies to want to limit local authority to build next-‐generation networks. What remains puzzling is why any state legislature would want to limit the ability of a community to build a network to improve educational outcomes, create new jobs, and give both residents and businesses more choices for an essential service. This decision should be made by those that have to feel the consequences—for better and for worse.

This story was originally posted on the ILSR website.

Subscribe to preemption