Town Loses Gigabit Connections After FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss

from the don't-build-it-and-they-won't-come dept

Back in February the FCC voted to use its Congressional mandate to ensure speedy broadband deployment to dismantle protectionist state laws intentionally designed to hinder broadband competition. But the FCC recently found itself swatted down by the courts, which argued the agency lacks the authority to pre-empt even the worst portions of these laws. As a result municipal broadband providers continue to run face first into protectionist provisions written by incumbent ISP lawyers and lobbyists solely concerned about protecting the current broken broadband market.

The impact of the FCC's loss is very real. Ars Technica notes that one of the broadband ISPs that originally asked for help from the FCC, Wilson North Carolina's Greenlight, has had to disconnect one neighboring town or face violating state law. With state leaders tone deaf to the problem of letting incumbent ISPs write such laws, and the FCC flummoxed in its attempt to help, about 200 home Internet customers in Pinetops will thus lose access to gigabit broadband service as of October 28:
"We must comply with our state law," Agner said. But city council members were very vocal in their opposition to the law and regret having to disconnect the service, she said. "We have not identified a solution where Greenlight can serve customers outside of our county," Wilson City Manager Grant Goings told The Wilson Times earlier this week before the city council vote. "While we are very passionate about reaching underserved areas and we think the laws are atrocious to prevent people from having service, we’re not going to jeopardize our ability to serve Wilson residents."
Greenlight's fiber network provides speeds of 40Mbps to 1Gbps at prices ranging from $40 to $100 a month, service that's unheard of from any of the regional incumbent providers (AT&T, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable) that lobbied for the protectionist law. Previously, the community of Pinetops only had access to sluggish DSL Service from CenturyLink:
Wilson already had fiber in Pinetops, which has been an electric customer of Wilson's for more than 40 years. Before deploying Internet access to Pinetops, Wilson was laying fiber in the town to support smart grid initiatives. After the FCC voted to let city Internet services expand outside their boundaries, Wilson extended the fiber network to pass the roughly 700 homes in Pinetops, Agner said. Prior to this, Pinetops residents' only option was CenturyLink DSL, she said.
That's the same CenturyLink that's currently using the lack of competition in its markets to begin saddling already slow and expensive DSL service with usage caps and overage fees. ISPs have been very successful in sowing partisan discord by framing municipal broadband as a partisan issue (pesky government interfering in private enterprise!). In reality, most municipal broadband networks have been built in Conservative areas and see broad, bi-partisan support. Disliking the local phone and cable company (and the market failure that built them) is actually something that tends to bring bickering partisans together.

Still, with the FCC's loss there's nothing really stopping ISPs from continuing to use state legislatures as their personal playthings. Currently there's twenty such laws protecting broadband duopolies in place, and despite growing attention to the practice, new protectionist laws are being passed each year.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Nicolas, 19 Sep 2016 @ 10:45am

    Govt meddling

    The solution would be to let the free market provision internet service, not to try to adjust regulatory distortions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anony Mouse, 19 Sep 2016 @ 10:50am

      Re: Govt meddling

      Funny that people complain when the FCC tries to preempt restrictions on the free market.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re: Govt meddling

        That's actually the ISPs robosigning on behalf of their mugging victims.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:45am

        Re: Re: Govt meddling

        They always call for privatization to cut bureaucracy and undue restrictions. But what we always get are corporations rigging the marketplace for their sole advantage. There are some services that demand public administration.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:08am

      Re: Govt meddling

      The free market has not deemed these people to be worth their money since they are rent seeking. The free market does not want competition.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: Govt meddling

        you have it backwards ass clown. Free Market's nature encourages competition. It is the regulation spurred on by the FCC throughout history that caused this.

        Regulation will become nothing other than once stop stopping in the quest for corrupt people to create an oligarchy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), 20 Sep 2016 @ 12:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Govt meddling

          You have it backwards (um...ass clown...I guess?)

          Some sectors of the economy are what are called Natural Monopolies. These sectors are defined by barriers to entry and cost advantages to incumbency and scale. Telecoms fits tidily into the category. If you don't understand Natural Monopoly, then you're not qualified to enter this discussion.

          In a Natural Monopoly, a free market is distorted not by regulations, but by the price control of the incumbents. Most new entrants are scared off by the price control power of the incumbent.

          Any new entrants in telecom must dig ditches, or pay to use the incumbent's poles. You need permission to dig into hundreds of properties and rights-of-way, then you have the cost to dig and lay cable. They you need to connect each house, pay for marketing, and only then can you collect some revenue from your first customers. Meanwhile, the incumbent (with a lower cost basis, amortized long ago), simply drops price below the new entrant, and kills them off, then buys up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Thanks.

          The reason you are wrong is because regs aren't the only things that can distort a free market. Naturally occurring things do, too. Sometimes, regs can bring us CLOSER to a free market, not farther. It's hard for absolutists to understand.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:39am

      Re: Govt meddling

      Uh, what free market are you dreaming of?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:00am

    what on earth is wrong with voters? about a ton of incumbent blood would fix this problem and serve notice on many others.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      um, have you been paying attention ? ? ?
      your 'choice' (sic) boils down to :
      D) bought-and-sold korporate money party candidate with the smiley face...
      R) bought-and-sold korporate money party candidate with the frowney face...
      i would add, about the only way out of this mess, is 'ranked choice voting' which is about the one method left for non-korporate money party factions to get in the mix...
      (oh, you have to ditch the computer-based voting systems, too: paper ballots, hand counted, locally reported...)
      then, you *might* have a chance of reclaiming small-dee democracy...
      otherwise, it is police states all the way down...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:20am

    Perhaps the city could sell it's fiber network to Google for cost, then google can expand it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ben S (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:58am

      Re:

      That is a great little plan actually. Gives an ISP that can provide real competition a foot in the door.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), 20 Sep 2016 @ 12:24pm

      Re:

      How'd that comment get "insightful"?

      - Google would be subject to the same stupid state laws
      - Google is currently suffering with the high cost of deploying fiber, is less keen on expanding the fiber footprint, and is shifting towards wireless last-mile technologies

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    djl47 (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:51am

    Do such laws violate the commerce clause?

    Could these protectionist laws be an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce? Someone who wants to stream Netflix, listen to tunes on Pandora or watch the latest cat videos on YouTube needs broadband to do so. A law preventing deployment of broadband in locations where broadband isn't available prevents these prospective users from engaging in commerce on the internet, most of which is interstate commerce.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 19 Sep 2016 @ 1:34pm

      Re: Do such laws violate the commerce clause?

      That might be where Google would have leverage, since it would be an inter-state business. Sounds like Greenlight would be intra-state, and wouldn't qualify.

      Of course, Supreme Court ruled once that you couldn't grown your own wheat for your own use, since that could impact the amount of wheat you might buy inter-state. So given the services you would 100% be wanting to use, the same concept could force this to a inter-state issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2016 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re: Do such laws violate the commerce clause?

        wouldn't the local isp get traffic coming in from out of state and vice versa? I get that the infrastructure is intrastate but I would imagine it could qualify as interstate in the sense I mentioned.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:52am

    No! The Government is for the people, the laws too! Losing the Givabit connection is ok, no American needs more than 3 megabits. It also helps decreasing the mind-melting habit of surfing porn. Rejoice America, the Govt is saving you!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:52am

    Win for CenturyLink

    Now they can double their prices, and charge these poor saps a reconnection fee on top.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Placebo, 19 Sep 2016 @ 11:59am

    Remember folks, multiply the "paid for" bandwidth by 328725.

    That tells you how many "bytes" of download bandwidth you've paid for..

    That number is derived in the following manner.

    ((( 60 * 60 * 24 * 365.25 ) / 12 ) / 8 )

    60 Seconds
    60 Minutes
    24 Hours
    365.25 Days per year
    12 Months
    8 Bits per Byte

    For a simple 20Mbit/S VDSL2 subscription, that equates to
    6,574,500,000,000.00 or just under 6 TiB (exabinary) or just over 6.5TB (decimal).

    Let your ISP know that they can start charging for "over usage" once you've reached the contracted for data value.
    Then mention that you're keeping track of "roll-over" data :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 12:06pm

    Oops

    >With state leaders "tone deaf to" the problem of letting incumbent ISPs write such laws

    You misspelled "complicit in"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 2:05pm

    laws designed to hurt the average american and benefit the already wealthy. How on earth could that ever be cause for civil strife in the future I wonder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Sep 2016 @ 6:44pm

    The much vaunted free market, that somehow magically needs laws passed to protect their place in a market they abuse rather than serve.

    Pity that it doesn't take that much cash in 'contributions' to get legislators to sell out their constituents to the lowest bidder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 20 Sep 2016 @ 10:43am

    Time to Grow a Spine

    "We must comply with our state law," Agner said.

    In face of such overwhelming injustice the "law" is meant to be broken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 20 Sep 2016 @ 12:27pm

    TPP for States

    Isn't it funny how so-called "trade deals" like TTIP or TPP have Corporate Sovereignty clauses, that allow multi-national companies to knock-back nations' regulations when it impedes their business...and we get hurt.

    But when states of the Union pass true protectionism laws, there is no similar Sovereignty protections...and we get hurt.

    When do we win?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Milliman, 25 Sep 2016 @ 8:44am

    Larger Government

    Carl's opinion piece is clearly in support of an industry that is very happy to sell equipment to these new customers because the incumbent telco business is not growing very fast if at all. Allowing government in a particular market is not competing; it is taking it over because they can use bonds (low interest) and taxpayer money to fund these networks. State legislators have created these laws to prevent just these things from happening along with providing protection when half of these ventures go bankrupt.

    Telcos aren't clean on this because they are using crony capitalism to protect their monopoly or duopoly. If legislators enact such laws they should hold incumbents to the universal service agreement that AT&T adhered for decades.

    What is missing in all of this protectionism and governmental expansion is a discussion on how we can make the market competitive. There is one simple answer that has been used around the world to stimulate competition: open access. Allow the government, PPP, or consortia to build and operate the last-mile fiber access so multiple commercial service providers can offer communication services to customers. Think of it like cities build roads that people can use to deliver goods and services.

    The open access infrastructure is shared between several carriers so it can be economically feasible and the incumbents can either utilize the network or build their own. In any case multiple carriers can offer services on the fiber which benefit consumers from greater choice and lower prices. It puts the incumbents on notice to be competitive or lose market share.

    Governments are not savvy enough to comprehend this option and incumbents are wary of competition so the battle goes on to the consumers' detriment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.