New Bill Would Kill State Laws Blocking Broadband Competition

from the Do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

For years we've noted how the United States has spent billions on broadband subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory favors for major ISPs, only to receive half-completed networks. That's largely thanks to lobbyists and the captured regulators who love them, resulting in a government that doesn't do a great job tracking where subsidy money is spent, refuses to seriously police fraud, still doesn't really know where broadband is or isn't available, and routinely approves terrible industry consolidating mergers.

The result: the US is mediocre in nearly every major broadband metric that matters -- some 42 million US consumers still can't get any broadband whatsoever, and Americans pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world. To fix this will require a deep look in the mirror, some significant campaign finance reform on the state and federal level, and the elimination of a revolving door regulator system that all but ensures the US broadband monopoly problem is perpetuated. Instead of doing that, we routinely try to thrown even more money at the problem in the hopes that this time will surely be different.

Enter the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (H.R. 7302), which would create an $80 billion fiber infrastructure program run by a new Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth, coordinating the US government's response to our broadband dysfunction. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, the bill is certainly filled with a lot of good ideas, including the elimination of the 19 state laws giant ISPs have lobbied for (and in many cases literally written) that prohibit or hamstring towns and cities looking to build their own broadband networks, even if the private sector has failed them:

"The bill will also free up local governments to pursue community broadband. The removal of state laws advocated by the major national ISPs that ban local communities from building their own broadband access network is long overdue. The public sector has long ago proven essential to the effort to build universal fiber as rural cooperatives, small cities, and townships are building fiber networks in areas long ago skipped by the private sector."

There's a lot of other helpful portions of the bill, including a section that upgrades the standard definition of broadband from 25 Mbps downstream, 4 Mbps upstream, to a more symmetrical 25 Mbps downstream, 25 Mbps upstream. The bill also widely advocates for fiber networks that are "open access," meaning the construction of fiber networks that can then be shared between multiple ISPs, creating a strange concept known as "competition." It would also mandate "dig once" rules that would require laying fiber and fiber conduit alongside any new highway build project.

The problem, of course, is that giants like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter Spectrum all but own more than half of the current US Congress and current White House leadership, so it's unlikely to pass in the Senate or be signed into law:

"The big ISPs, which fail to deliver universal access but enjoy comfortable monopolies and charge you prices at 200% to 300% above competitive rates, will resist this effort. Even when it is profitable to deliver fiber, the national ISPs have chosen not to do it in exchange for short-term profits. A massive infrastructure program, the kind that helped countries like South Korea become global leaders in broadband, aren’t just desperately needed in the United States, it is a requirement. No other country on planet Earth has made progress in delivering universal fiber without an infrastructure policy of this type."

As always, we can't pass effective broadband laws or ensure we have consistent regulators armed with policies that promote competition because government has been largely corrupted by lobbying and campaign contributions. And, unfortunately, fixing this isn't likely to happen under the current Congress, even before you get to the whole "raging pandemic and massive pile of resulting debt" thing. Should the bill pass the House, it's all but certain to meet a swift death in the Senate. A bill like this could eventually be approved, but it's going to require a massive shakeup in Congress and campaign finance reform first.

Filed Under: accessible, affordable, broadband, competition, internet connectivity, internet for all, open access


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Norahc (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:41am

    Given the current FCC's unwillingness to do their job, I don't see how a new Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth will be able to accomplish much either.

    Other than giving ISP's another "regulatory fee" to tack onto consumer bills.

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

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:24am

    To be fair, South Korea is a tiny country compared to the U.S. Laying down fiber everywhere is not such a big deal. A lot more people packed into a small area. So more bang for your buck.

    But all our company's are looking for shortcuts. Which is why pots phone lines are going away, not being maintained. Going wireless with CELL service which is not cheap and limited in speed and low CAP. As more get connected the speed gets slower and slower pretty fast.

    Fiber has a ton of benefits. It'll cost a lot to build out the network everywhere, but once done, it pays out over the long term. These companies are short sited.

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

  3. identicon
    Pixelation, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:40am

    The big problem for the major ISP's is, community broadband exposes their lies and greed. We can't have that now, can we?

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

  4. icon
    Richard M (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:46am

    Never going to happen

    This will never pass, too many politicians accepting bribes (sorry campaign contributions I get the two mixed up) from the telecom industry. Just one more useful bill that never comes close to being a law.

    I think we are at ~480 starlink satellites and Elon has said he needed ~600 to start limited service so getting closer. I imagine it will take at least another year or so to work out the kinks before SpaceX can start making it more widely available but that is not really all that long considering how long we have been getting screwed.

    Even if takes a couple of years it is better late than never.

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

  5. icon
    Mark Gisleson (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:57am

    Who are the bill's sponsors?

    It seems incredibly disingenuous that you would fail to mention that ALL the bill's sponsors are neoliberal Democrats: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7302/cosponsors?s=1&r=24&overview=cl osed&searchResultViewType=expanded

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

  6. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:11am

    Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    Could it be that those sponsors might have another label in common, such as fiscally independent of the Telecom/Broadband provider industry?

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

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:14am

    Re: Never going to happen

    Currently a little under 540 version 1 starlink satellites (I think there may have been some duds - though that might have been in the pre-version-1 test batch, and the last batch was 58, I think, rather than 60, to leave room for the ride-sharing planet satellites). Also, I think the magic number was 800, which should be reached after 5 more batches, maybe 2-3 months from now.

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

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:33am

    Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    Why do I suspect that if KB had mentioned the political leanings of the sponsors, the article would have been attacked as an example of liberal-pinko-commie sucking up?

    I am coming to seriously distrust the intellectual honesty of the US right. This is a great shame, because just like the so-called US left (much of which would be called right-wing in a lot of the world), they do have some important points which we would be best served not to ignore. Even the outright loonie, sometimes genuinely marxist, left do have some important points worth pondering (after all, a stopped analog watch is right twice a day, isn't it).

    I know that hoping for us all to get along and agree is a pointless wish, but is it really too much to ask for some honesty and civility in public discourse?

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

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:39am

    Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    That's kind of irrelevant to whether the bill is a good idea. Both sides come up with good and bad ideas. It would be nice, for a change, to evaluate these ideas on their merits rather than their partisanship.

    It seems you'd prefer to automatically label anything red as good and anything blue as bad. Shame on you.

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

  10. icon
    Mark Gisleson (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    I doubt very much a good 'red' bill could be drafted.

    I've worked for the Democratic party. Throwing up a 'perfect' bill when you know it cannot pass the other chamber is virtue signaling. They're taunting us with a bill they would have never submitted if the D's controlled the Senate.

    Shame on you for buying into this fraud. Republicans may be the perps, but Democrats enabled them every inch of the way.

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

  11. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:55am

    Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    It seems incredibly disingenuous that you would think of Ro Khanna as a "Neoliberal".

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

  12. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:00am

    It is well to remember that the pushback on malignant-patent and copyright decisions was primarily driven by Scalia, who is generally labelled "right-wing" and most opposed by Ginsberg, who is most generally labelled "left-wing". Among people who try to think about individual issues, and HAVE to talk about specific sets of facts (such as, say, most Supreme=court judges), those labels are less than useful.

    However, I see this as a useless idea, and probably unconstitutional to boot. Certainly, experience has shown that municipal broadband can be a very good thing (as in Chattanooga), it has also resulted in loss of competition and increased prices in other places (say, Poplar Bluff, MO). And Tennessee, home of Chattanooga as well as a plutocratic state, sent one of the two most-wholely-pwned-by-the-monopolists representatives to Congress, California, a demagogic stronghold, sent the other.

    Focus on the individual facts!

    This bill sounds seriously separation-of-powers unconstitutional to me, though. Cities are figments of imagination, but they are figments of the STATE imagination, not of the federal government. The federal government cannot authorize a state agency to do anything!

    (That is somewhat of a generalization. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government (construed as including state governments) doing some things, but that is a far cry from REQUIRING that a state offer particular services, let alone specifying which state agency must offer them.)

    And, unfortunately, no law can make a government agency competent. That depends on the will of the people who are actually doing the work.

    There is certainly a problem. I am just not

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

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:07am

    Re:

    This bill sounds seriously separation-of-powers unconstitutional to me, though. Cities are figments of imagination, but they are figments of the STATE imagination, not of the federal government. The federal government cannot authorize a state agency to do anything!

    Washington DC being an exception...

    However, I was wondering about the separation of powers issue too. The "Interstate Commerce" clause can be used to justify the "dig once" rule (but only for interstate highways), but I don't see how the Federal government can overturn state laws in this case.

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

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 10:58am

    Lets get those meddling teens (and the K-Pop scene) to help out

    All we need is MASSIVE public pressure on all state legislators. If we could mobilize the same groups that help with The Donald's fake 1 Million ticket requests, we could get some massive pressure on our legislators.

    So quick, lets get some meddling teens to build an app to contact our legislators with a template message that can be tailored by the individual. Select your legislators, select your message, and the app e-mails the legislators, easy peasy... and how great would it be to hear AT&T complaining about those 'meddling teens' and how they would have gotten away with it forever if not for us (the public).

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

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:04am

    Re: Re:

    because they are anti-competitive and intended to generate a monopoly (or close to one between the 'big three' who generally only have ONE serving a specific area, thus a MONOPOLY).

    The federal governments can remove impediments that are intended to create monopolies, as part of their anti-trust rules.

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

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    I doubt very much a good 'red' bill could be drafted.

    There's nothing particularly anti-conservative about allowing competition, or having governments run infrastructure—even Texas has municipal electric, water, and gas utilities, and of course roads. A "representative" that's stubbornly against any version of this idea for internet isn't doing a good job of representing the interests of their constituents.

    If I wanted to make a "red"-friendly version, I might make a larger distinction between service and infrastructure. If a state wants to ban government-run internet/TV/phone services, let them, as long as they'll provide reasonable access to the infrastructure—i.e., let competing private services lease access to the last-mile lines at least (probably also poles, ducts, and non-last-mile backbones). Cut all the stuff about affordability, transparency, wi-fi hotspots, etc.—cut 90%+ of the text (this is a 204-page bill!), making this one short bill about one problem: infrastructure costs that make competition impractical.

    Of course, the idea of forcing a company to help their competitor might offend some people; so it's important to let municipal governments build that infrastructure, when private companies are not willing to compete in the field of open-access-network services. Even if the government won't be able to provide subscriber-level services on the network, a private company could do that as in Ammon, ID.

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

  17. identicon
    teka, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    the wafting scent of Whataboutism, rising like mist over the fields

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

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:37am

    Re: Re:

    The "Interstate Commerce" clause can be used to justify the "dig once" rule (but only for interstate highways), but I don't see how the Federal government can overturn state laws in this case.

    SCOTUS have ruled that the clause covers anything that has the potential to affect interstate commerce, even if the actual activities are noncommercial and entirely within a state. Also see This is Your Constitution on Drugs.

    While internet service has a strong relation to interstate commerce, regulating municipal wires is certainly a questionable use of this power (too rarely questioned by courts). I'd say the feds could regulate actual internet services provided by the states, but not wires, poles, etc.

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

  19. identicon
    MathFox, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:39am

    And, unlike a small corporate ISP, those community broadband ISPs can not be bought up with their customers shoehorned in one of the overpriced plans of the monopolist.

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

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:52am

    Although i know the answer, i have to ask, how much of the $80billions will be given on top of the billions already given to the same 'providers' that have promised and promised everything but done the exact opposite, kept the monies, never been accused, let alone charged with misappropriation of public funds and will do so again? When is this crap gonna stop? When will these companies and 8n particular the top guys gonna be held accountable? Instead of backing them for a price, when will those in Congress also be held to account coz its no good getting half of the problem sorted, is it!

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

  21. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 12:03pm

    Want to motivate Congress??

    Tell their constituents the average speed & prices in those "third world shit holes" they mock.
    I think MAGA is stupid, but its motivating people to come out in public & try to kill themselves & others... so lets abuse it for good.

    How can American be great again when less developed nations, some in the middle of decades of civil war, have higher speeds & lower prices?

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

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    Who the fuck, may i ask, would be acceptible sorts of people to draft such a bill?

    Pretty sure you are being disingenuous out of the gate here.

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

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 12:24pm

    Re:

    I am more interested in who gets to "buy" it later when it gets forced into privitization.

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

  24. icon
    Ninja (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 12:44pm

    I'm amazed on how American, specifically at the R side keep swallowing the bullshit pill every time to the point even a "3rd-world-shithole" has better, cheaper broadband than Great America (tm).

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

  25. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:16pm

    'Oh, you didn't think we'd say okay? Bad look for you.'

    I've worked for the Democratic party. Throwing up a 'perfect' bill when you know it cannot pass the other chamber is virtue signaling. They're taunting us with a bill they would have never submitted if the D's controlled the Senate.

    In which case the republicans should call their bluff and pass the bill, and should it bomb they can then point out what a failure it was. If the goal really is to get the bill shot down and the democrats supporting it are banking on that then all the republicans need to do to cause it to backfire is to refuse to play along.

    Sometimes even an effort doomed to failure is worthwhile if it highlights a massive point of failure, and putting forth a bill aimed at addressing a problem affecting tens if not hundreds of millions' only to have it shot down by politicians who care more about ensuring continued donations from the companies that would have their profits dinged than they do the public seems like a relatively harmless but good thing to show the public.

    As for the 'they'd never do this if they controlled the senate' there's nothing stopping the republicans from returning the favor down the line. Find a real issue that needs to be addressed, write up a bill to address it that serves the public but which democratic donors may not be happy about and then throw it out. If the democrats tank it merely to be obstructionists then they can use the opportunity for cheap PR themselves, and if they don't then oh darn, a real issue has been addressed and hopefully improved.

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

  26. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:25pm

    Re:

    'Oh, you want to 'make america great again'? How about you start with internet service and price, because right now there are lot of countries out there that blow US availability and price out of the water, leaving the US looking like chumps, and you wouldn't want that now would you?'

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

  27. icon
    Mark Gisleson (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    They never offer these bills when they can pass. This bill is being offered because they know the Senate will vote it down. It's just politics. If by some chance the Democrats win the Senate and White House this fall, I guarantee a "different" bill will be offered.

    I've been watching them do this since 1978. It's a head fake. If this was real, they'd have some Republican cosponsors to help get it through the Senate.

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

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    It seems you'd prefer to automatically label anything red as good and anything blue as bad.

    That's one way to read the message. The "realpolitik" interpretation would be that it's inappropriate to use the phrase "would kill" in the headline, when we know that the unipartisan nature of this bill leaves it with little chance of passing. The article itself says "it's all but certain to meet a swift death in the Senate."

    So, yes, "would kill", in an alternate reality where political decisions are based on whether bills are good ideas.

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

  29. icon
    R.H. (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:12pm

    Re:

    Even with the "small country" excuse, this country has areas that are just as dense as South Korea or Japan that still don't have proper broadband coverage. Also, our government has easily paid the various ISP's more than enough to have covered the entire nation in fiber by now. They simply haven't.

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

  30. icon
    R.H. (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:15pm

    Re: Never going to happen

    So far, it looks like SpaceX is still trying to start the Starlink private beta this summer and the public beta "later" this year. I live at a "high-latitude" and I've signed up to be informed when the beta opens for my zip-code.

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

  31. identicon
    Talmyr, 2 Jul 2020 @ 6:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the bill's sponsors?

    So like the goodness-knows how many hopeless Republican attempts to break ACA during the last decade?

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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