Montana Tweaks Law, But Still Bans Communities From Building Better, Faster Broadband Networks
from the get-the-hell-out-of-the-way dept
Montana is currently one of seventeen states that have passed laws—usually ghost written by telecom monopolies—banning local community broadband networks. As a result in many states, entrenched incumbent monopolies see zero incentive to lower rates, expand access, or improve service, thanks to muted competition and regulatory capture.
COVID lockdowns highlighted the counterproductive stupidity of such laws, causing Washington and Arkansas to eliminate their restrictions. But efforts to roll back Montana’s law haven’t been able to survive industry lobbying. Said lobbyists, whose companies receive billions in unaccountable taxpayer subsidies for networks they routinely only half deploy, love to frame such efforts as auto-boondoggles:
At the bill’s hearing, large telecom companies showed up in opposition, warning that municipal broadband could really mean a foolhardy taxpayer-funded business venture with no guarantee of success, and that it could crowd private providers out of the market.
In reality, community broadband proposals are like any other business plan, depending on the quality of the plan and local leadership. Generally speaking though, studies show they’re a net improvement for local economies, are more accountable to locals (as local residents themselves), and are routinely some of the only efforts genuinely prompting monopolies to try harder.
While such state bans are a huge gift for local monopolies, they’re causing problems as states vie for more than $50 billion in both COVID relief and infrastructure broadband funding.
Last week the Montana government eased their restrictions slightly via SB174, but only so that the government could distribute looming funds to completely unserved areas. The law still bans community broadband if an entrenched monopoly claims they can provide service to a target area:
(a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if:
16 (i) no private internet services provider is available within the jurisdiction served by the agency or
17 political subdivision; or
18 (ii) the agency or political subdivision provided services prior to July 1, 2001.
19 (b) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing
20 advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider within the
21 jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision
Here’s the problem: the FCC’s broadband maps have long been crap, so regional monopolies routinely overstate coverage, meaning many communities are still banned from building their own networks due to inaccurate data. Regional monopolies also fight tooth and nail to derail communities that apply for grants and funnel the lion’s share of taxpayer funds to themselves.
There’s still zero reason for these restrictive laws to exist. If entrenched monopolies don’t want local municipalities (or cooperatives and city-owned utilities) involved, they could build better, faster, more reliable networks. But it’s far cheaper in many states to just throw a few hundred thousand at a corrupt state legislature for laws ensuring you don’t have to try very hard.
Filed Under: broadband, broadband maps, competition, cooperatives, digital divide, fcc, high speed internet, montana, municipal broadband, utilities
Comments on “Montana Tweaks Law, But Still Bans Communities From Building Better, Faster Broadband Networks”
I’d be willing to concede that there are (at least) two credible sides to this issue, despite the horrendously asymmetric invasion of lobbyists.
With a municipal/community provider, there is always a chronic problem of staffing competent, motivated people when private industry always pays better. And you could well imagine that a public utility would somehow become politicized in some way that some fringe group would try to defund or sabotage it as a conduit of liberal indoctrination blah blah blah. And let’s not get into what happens at town meetings when it comes to funding these things with TAXES.
At least with a private company, there is a semblance of recourse, a smidgen of competition, and a shadow of competence.
Sure, there are patches of private company badness – I don’t doubt that. (I have not seen any problems in 25 years). I just don’t see a better municipal-based solution until providing decent broadband is so turnkey that even the slouchiest government zhlub can shove a PC board into a slot and press the ANY key to make it work.
Re:
Mistake “I haven’t seen those problems” for “those problems don’t exist” at your own peril.
Are you a telco lobbyist, by any chance?
Re: Re:
There’s also “have seen it but not recognized it as a problem”. Americans might not see a combined phone/internet/TV cost of $200/month as problematic; that’s just normal, right? Someone who used to get that stuff combined for $30/month in France is likely to have a different opinion, as will anyone under financial stress.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I will say, however, that I haven’t paid for landline phone or cable TV service since 2007. Who uses a landline?? And f*** TV. I cut the cord and won’t go back. But that’s just me. I pay $82/month for broadband fibre at the lowest tier and it does what it needs to do.
All of that is besides the larger issue of bringing broadband to 100% of the population. A basic municipal service would be great if it was reliable, funded, maintained, staffed, and affordable. IMHO, it seems like one of those “pick two” situations.
Re: Re:
Stone: Presume goodwill here. I am not an industry expert or lobbyist – I am just a guy who has worked from home for the past 15 years relying 100% on broadband/fibre Internet in two non-rural/non-urban areas of the country with zero problems. It is a sample of one. Thus, if the problem were so pervasive as described, perhaps I might have encountered it directly or indirectly? I haven’t.
On the other hand, I have dealt with MANY MANY MANY state and local government employees and their surrogates dealing with Medicaid for my mother, services for the aged, veteran’s nursing home services, and other areas where it is consistently evident that government employees are good-hearted but either ill-equipped to do their job, cannot do their job, can do their job but choose not to, or the employees for such services do not exist (but should) because they were not funded.
If you have a strong case for community/municipal run broadband Internet that contradicts this experience, by all means offer it instead of snark. I’m all ears.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you might want to have some reading material on the subject?
https://www.techdirt.com/tag/municipal-broadband/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/18/just-a-click-away-how-to-improve-broadband-competition/
That should get you up to speed.
Re: Re: Re:2
OK, you’ve changed my mind. Legit.
Allow me one last retort: I live in New Hampshire where the culture here is very much pro-libertarian and anti-community. There is constant pressure to defund public schools, deny any research into public transit solutions, and forget about any services for seniors.
There is no sales tax here and there never will be – it’s mostly funded by property tax which is argued in Town Meetings every year. Coming together in the common good is antithetical to the Don’t Tread on Me/Trumpian credo in most of the parts here.
It’s every Ayn Randian free-stater for himself and I could only wish that something like what you have referenced were possible but there just isn’t the oxygen for it. I suspect there are other areas of the country the same or worse.
Re: Re: Re:3
You can whine about that change never coming or you can find a way to start that change yourself. One takes courage; the other doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re:
Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. Again: Feel free to mistake “I haven’t seen those problems” for “those problems don’t exist” at your own risk.
Re:
Which part of communities not having broadband did you not understand. Any competition with incumbents would be at the boundaries between areas that they serve and areas that they do not serve.
Re:
The “better solution” you’re talking about is simple: provide infrastructure, not retail service. And as I posted in another message, it doesn’t seem to be forbidden before or after the amendment (am I misinterpreting, or did nobody notice that?).
Digging into the earth and burying stuff is something that municipalities can do. No one really doubts that, nor does it “become politicized”. They can and should drop several fibers whenever they install a water service pipe, dig up a road, or do anything with overhead wires/poles. Run those fibers through some pedestals/sheds/etc., over to a central city building in which any ISP can rent space for equipment. At signup time, a city employee brings an end-user’s fiber over to their ISP’s rack (or, alternately, uses software to make a virtual direct link), and that’s it. No service or support, except to the ISP which is the actual customer and will only be calling if someone accidentally disconnects or damages the link. And over the long term, this doesn’t cost money—it makes money.
Whereas assigning the funds to them guarantees that the money is well spent in bonuses. etc.
Hypocrisy much?
Wait, isn’t Montana a Republican state? Aren’t they the “Let the market decide” crowd? You know, less government?
Re:
Campaign contributions are what drive the decision in the market for regulations.
Re:
I think we’ve all realized that Republicans’ definition of “market decide” is a thoroughly hypocritical punchline they deploy solely when it advances their straight white male supremacy.
It’s odd that they say “internet services provider” rather than the more common “internet service provider (ISP)”. Here’s their definition:
(So, that basically encompasses ISPs and, for some reason, internet hosting providers.)
Have we been making a big deal out of nothing, or is the word “enables” the catch here? It’s not clear—it depends on the interpretation—whether this would prevent a municipality from running a broadband network, or just from providing retail internet service over it. Personally, I’d prefer governments stay out of retail service anyway, and stick to digging trenches and running wires like they’ve been doing for a hundred years. I wouldn’t mind them routing customer traffic to a datacenter, but don’t really want them dealing with peering, acquiring IP addresses, and the like.
I actually don’t see any interpretation, even pre-amendment, that would prevent governments from running dark fiber, and renting space to independent ISPs to run service over it. In that case, the government would not be selling anything to the public, nor running anything describable as a “service” for accessing the internet. And that would be a fine model under which to run a network.
The amendment, I think, is much more useful than it might seem, and perhaps more useful that its writers intended: “An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider”. Providing wholesale service (or dark fiber) to connect third-party ISPs to customers is something that’s often unavailable from the incumbents. Of course, one might wish to phrase that as something like “providing wholesale service whose cost is below the maximum subsidy available from the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program, for an urban non-tribal household, regardless of whether any particular household is actually eligible”—lest some incumbent claim service is “available” for some crazy price.