preemption

Content tagged with "preemption"

Displaying 301 - 310 of 386

NC Labeled a "Tech Turkey" For Bill Killing Community Broadband

By on
In a nod to Thanksgiving, Government Technology has collected 11 "Tech Turkeys - "Half-baked lowlights from the year gone by" (2011). North Carolina made the list at Number 9 after its Time Warner Cable-sponsored Legislature decided to effectively outlaw community fiber networks. This might not have been as big a deal if those communities were not the only entities in the state actually investing in next-generation broadband. Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink prefer to "save the best for last" when it comes to investing in the state. The stated reason for revoking local decision-making power from communities? It wasn't fair for Time Warner Cable to compete against cities like Salisbury. We looked deeper into that claim and found it wanting, as illustrated below in an infographic and video: 600-TWC-Salisbury-infographic3.png
Read More

Border to Border Broadband in Minnesota

By on
Minnesota's Governor Dayton has already done more for expanding broadband access in Minnesota than predecessor Pawlenty who took the "stay quiet and hope for the best" approach to expanding access in our state. After being prodded by the legislature (including now-Lieutenant Governor Prettner-Solon) Governor Pawlenty appointed an industry-heavy "Ultra High Speed" Broadband Task Force that exceeded the expectations of many, including myself, with its report [pdf]. I give a lot of credit to a few members, especially "Mikey" and Chairman Rick King of Thomsen Reuters, for that report given the constraints of the environment in which it existed. Minnesota's Legislature and Governor Pawlenty then created some goals for 2015 and generally ceased any work on ensuring Minnesota could meet the goals. However, some departments (like the Department of Commerce) are using that language to prod broadband providers to consider what steps they can take to get us closer. Despite my frustration, I want to recognize those who are doing all they can to expand access to this essential infrastructure. Fast forward to this week, when Governor Dayton announced a new Task Force that is supposed to really do things (as opposed to the more common Task Force approach of creating the appearance of doing things). I am heartened by many of the appointees. There are some terrific people, especially some terrific women who are too often under-represented in technology) that will work very hard to bring real broadband to the Minnesotans that either need their first option or a better option. And they have their work cut out for them. The state has few options to compel investment from a private sector that sees little reason to invest in an industry with so little competition (St Paul has one high-speed provider: Comcast, and one slower, cheaper alternative - CenturyLink). For instance, rural Kanabec County took the Ultra High Speed Task Force's recommendation and asked its incumbent to partner in providing better broadband.
Read More

Google Congratulates Longmont on Referendum

By on

Update: A contact at Google cast doubt on whether the call below was made -- but also reiterated that Google is on the record opposing state laws like that in Colorado that take authority away from communities.  

We have learned that Google called Longmont Power to congratulate them on regaining their authority via the successful referendum.  Apparently, Longmont was a top contender for the Google Gigabit project but Google was unable to determine whether Longmont had the authority to work with them due to the anti-competitive 2005 Qwest law.  

Presumably this places Longmont back on the list of places Google may try to build a network depending on the outcome in Kansas City.  

This is yet another example of why state restrictions on local broadband authority is entirely counter-productive to spurring broadband investment.  We previously speculated that Texas law prevented Austin from being Google's partner.

States: STOP taking broadband authority away from communities. Local authority is essential for investment in next-generation networks.  Communities: make sure you are making smart partnerships!  Don't just jump at anyone pretending to offer a free lunch.  

Read More

Longmont Referendum Take Two: It Starts With a Debate

By on
As we previously noted, the city of Longmont, Colorado, is preparing for a referendum to allow the City to offer telecommunications services to local businesses and residents using a fiber ring it built long ago. This is due to a 2005 law (the "Qwest" law) that was pushed through the Colorado Legislature by incumbents seeking to prevent competition. That law has succeeded -- most Colorado communities can only choose between slow DSL from the incumbent telephone company and comparatively faster services from the incumbent cable company. And when Longmont last attempted to pass a referendum to share its fiber infrastructure with local businesses, Comcast and Qwest swamped the town with unprecedented sums to confuse residents -- leading to the referendum failure with 44% voting yes. But after the referendum passed and people had time to better understand the issue, many who voted against it realized they had been duped. We have seen the same dynamic elsewhere -- in Windom, MN, for example, where the second referendum succeeded. WindomNet has since saved a number of jobs and is expanding to eight other underserved rural communities around it. Longmont built its fiber ring in the late 90's but it still has a lot of unused capacity that could be used to attract economic development if the publicly owned power utility were authorized to offer services to businesses. Without this authority, the community has a valuable asset that they are forced to leave unused -- even as local businesses could benefit greatly from it. The Longmont Times-Call outlined the situation in July:
Without that vote, the city can't let homes or businesses use that fiber without a vote, thanks to a 2005 state law. It's a fight the city's lost once before in 2009, when opponents -- including the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association -- spent $245,513 to urge the measure's defeat. This time out, there's a different tack. The city has been underlining in discussions that the measure would "restore its rights" to provide telecommunications service.
Read More

NonProfit MCNC Builds Middle Mile in North Carolina

By on
The Salisbury Post discusses MCNC's new middle-mile networks that are being built with stimulus funds. MCNC, an independent nonprofit so old that few remember what it stands for (Microelectronics Center of North Carolina), already runs the North Carolina Research and Education Network connecting libraries and schools across the state.
MCNC is a private, nonprofit organization that runs the North Carolina Research and Education Network. The organization secured two grants through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to fund the infrastructure. Broadband Technology Opportunities Program funds make up $75.75 million of the funding for this phase; MCNC raised $28.25 million privately, including $24 million from Golden LEAF Foundation. The total project includes more than 2,000 miles of broadband infrastructure to be outfitted through 69 counties in North Carolina. “The great work being done here … is going to be able to be shared over the world,” said Freddoso [CEO of MCNC]. Freddoso said MCNC has had conversations with the city of Salisbury, distributor of Fibrant cable and Internet service. While the new fiber optic infrastructure will not provide service directly to customers, MCNC will offer wholesale broadband to companies like Time Warner Cable and municipalities that run their own services, like Salisbury.
While we are always happy to see libraries and schools getting access to the connections they need at affordable prices, we believe some of these state-wide educational networks can be counter-productive. Schools and libraries should be anchor tenants on networks owned by the local community (ownership options include coop, nonprofit, or muni ownership).
Read More

NCSL Voting on Community Broadband Resolution

By on
Update: As we were publishing this, NCSL barred debate on the resolution. As Tim Judson, put it: Apparently it's ok for states to preempt communities but not for feds to preempt states. The National Conference of State Legislatures is currently meeting and today will vote on a resolution relating to community broadband networks. The resolution calls for NCSL to fight any federal effort to implement the National Broadband Plan recommendation that all communities be empowered to decide locally if they should build a network. Fabiola Carrion of Progressive States Network is there and put together a community broadband factsheet [pdf] and a call to action for people to oppose this wording.
Tomorrow, August 11th, the members of the National Caucus of State Legislatures will cast a final vote on a resolution entitled Twenty-First Century Communications, which threatens the existence of municipal broadband networks. The vote could have a serious impact in your local communities, increasing prices and diminishing broadband service. We need your support to defeat this troubling resolution. I've included a fact sheet below, highlighting the importance of municipal networks in making broadband more accessible, affordable and efficient for everyone.  Please share this with your colleagues and support our efforts to defeat this damaging resolution. 
NCSL should recognize that communities need all the tools available to make sure their businesses and residents have access to fast, affordable, and reliable Internet connections. AT&T's reaction to the fact sheet suggests that they may have been a driving force encouraging NCSL to fight for AT&T's right to buy legislation that prevents the most likely source of competition to AT&T's wireline services.
Read More

CED Magazine: Broadband is a Lifeline Service

By on
Hats off to a column published by CED Magazine this week, written by Editor-in-Chief Brian Santo. The discussion centers on proper government role in broadband:
These disagreements are hopelessly tangled in another argument entirely: What role should the government have in any market, let alone the broadband market? North Carolina’s state legislature just passed a law prohibiting municipal broadband services. But in the communications industry, many free-market and anti-regulatory arguments would be mooted if the market provided what is being asked for – affordable and universal access to broadband. Now, not later.
Communities are not building their own networks on a lark - they do it because they have to in order to ensure their future vitality. Just last week, we also answered the same question of the role of government in broadband when revisiting an excellent commentary published years ago about the proper role of government in matters of infrastructure. We will all benefit the most when we all have access to fast, affordable, and reliable access to the Internet. But blindly relying on a few massive companies to get us there is lunacy. They simply do not have the motivation or capacity to sufficiently invest or to run the networks in such a way that all have access -- as private companies, they are supposed to maximize profit. Maximizing profit is incompatible with managing infrastructure -- pricing access to infrastructure too high results in losses for everyone, including the vast majority of the private sector. At the very least, all communities must maintain the freedom to choose locally if building a network is the right decision for them.
Read More

Community Networks Provide Cable/Broadband Competition That is Otherwise Unlikely

By on
You can also read this story over at the Huffington Post. How can it be that the big companies who deliver some of the most important services in our modern lives (access to the Internet, television) rank at the top of the most hated? Probably because when they screw up or increase prices year after year, we have no choice but sticking with them. Most of us have no better options. But why do we have so few choices? Government-sanctioned monopolies have been outlawed since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Unfortunately, the natural tendency of the telecommunications industry is toward consolidation and monopoly (or duopoly). In the face of this reality, the federal government has done little to protect citizens and small businesses from telecom market failings. But local governments have stepped up and built incredible next-generation networks that are accountable to the community. These communities have faster speeds (at lower prices) than the vast majority of us. Most of these communities would absolutely prefer for the private sector to build the necessary networks and offer real competition, but the economics of telecom makes that as likely as donuts becoming part of a healthy breakfast. In most cases, the incumbent cable and telephone companies are too entrenched for any other company to overbuild them. But communities do not have the same pressures to make a short-term profit. They can take many years to break even on an investment that creates many indirect benefits along the way. One might expect successful companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable to step up to the challenge posed by community networks, and they have. Not by simply investing more and competing for customers, but by using their comparative advantage – lobbying state legislatures to outlaw the competition.
Read More

Understanding User Fees and the Community's Right-of-Way

By on
A friend once told me about his battle with the local government over whether it would charge him a fee for inspecting the house he wanted to begin renting out (he had bought another house but didn't want to sell the first in a down market). His house was well maintained and he said he would be happy to schedule the inspection whenever convenient for the City but absolutely would not pay a fee so they could inspect his house. Consider this from a different perspective. The local government should make sure that rental properties meet certain standards (building and fire codes if nothing else). This means inspections. Who should pay for the inspections? It boils down to two choices: the property owner or the tax-base at large. It seems more fair to charge property owners at least a portion of the cost as they benefit the most from being able to rent out their property. I make this point to lead into another discussion about managing the Right-of-Way (ROW), the city-owned property used for utilities. An article in TribLive about a town near Pittsburgh fighting to keep its cable fees offers insight into a national discussion about fees for using the ROW.
Hempfield charges utilities $750 for a right-of-way permit, $500 for a renewal, and $250 for a construction permit, according to a township ordinance. Ferguson said without the fees, the township would not be able to monitor the work. "We use the monies, those permit fees, to pay staff to make sure they repair roads as they're supposed to," Ferguson said. "Part of the fee is ... for our inspectors to go out and make sure they (utilities) complete the job right." Ferguson said utility companies sometimes dig up new roads to install or repair lines and leave the road in shambles afterward. "Taxpayers should not be required to pay the staff to make sure utility companies do the right thing," he said.
FCC Logo Telecommunications providers have long claimed that local government fees are unreasonable and getting the necessary permits is too difficult. But when asked to document such claims, they rarely do. The FCC is currently examining whether it believes the fees charged by local governments are fair.
Read More
Subscribe to preemption