Cybertelecom
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

Municipal Broadband

Navigation Links:
:: Home :: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer :: Sitemap ::

- Broadband
- Sec. 706
- Stimulus Plan
- Natl BB Map
- FCC Natl Broadband Plan
- Dial Up
- DSL
- - Naked DSL
- - UNE
- - Net over Wireline (Info Service)
- Cable
- - Open Access
- Fiber
- Wireless
- - 3G
- - Wifi
- - WiMax
- - 700 Mhz
- Powerline
- Satellite
- Muni Broadband
- - Reference
- Telecom Services
- Computer Inquiries
- Network Neutrality
- Consumer Protection
- Forbearance
- Backbones
- - ICAIS
- Layers
- Interconnection
- - Negotiation
- Reciprocal Comp
- Mergers
- Federal Advisory Committees
- FCC
- Universal Service
- Statistics: Broadband

"Cities are [taking advantage of broadband technology.] Spokane, Washington, yesterday established a wi-fi hot zone that allows users within a hundred block area of the city to obtain wireless broadband access. Imagine if you’re the head of a chamber of commerce of a city, and you say, ‘Gosh, our city is a great place to do business or to find work. We’re setting up a wi-fi hot zone, which means our citizens are more likely to be more productive than the citizens from a neighboring community.’ It’s a great opportunity . . . [T]his is a very exciting opportunity for the country. - The White House, President Bush: High Tech Improving Economy, Health Care, Education (June 24, 2004).

“I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. Why don’t we encourage [municipal broadband] instead of having bills introduced [saying] – ‘Oh, you can’t do this because it’s interfering with somebody’s idea of the functioning marketplace’ – but the marketplace is not functioning in those places. - Michael Copps, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

To put this in context, imagine if Borders and Barnes & Noble, claiming it was killing their book sales, asked lawmakers to ban cities from building libraries. The legislators would laugh them out of the State House. Yet the same thing is happening right now with respect to Wi-Fi and other municipal broadband plans, and it is being taken all too seriously. - Municipal Broadband: Should Cities Have a Voice, Jon Leibowitz, FTC Commissioner Sept. 2005

History: Municipality involvement in communications has a long history.

  • The USG funded part construction of the early telegraph network, funded its coast to coast expansion, and gave 1500 miles of telegraph line to Western Union after the civil war.
  • Before the turn of the century, when Alexander Graham Bell's telephone patent expired, there was an onslaught of new independent telephone companies. Municipalities were involved in franchising the new local telephone services, finding them to be common carriers, granting them authority to operate, and setting fair rates.
  • During World War I, AT&T was nationalized, and competition was illegal.

FTC

FCC

  • STATEMENT FROM FCC CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI ON PROPOSED MUNICIPAL BROADBAND LEGISLATION.  STMT. pdf Word TXT
  • Statement by FCC Commissioner Mignon L Clyburn on Proposed Anti-Municipal Broadband Legislation, April 4, 2011“I recently learned that several state legislatures are considering bills that are contrary to the deployment objectives of the Broadband Plan. For example, in North Carolina, the state legislature is currently evaluating legislation entitled ‘Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition.’ Last week the North Carolina Ho use passed the bill, and it currently awaits consideration in the Senate. This piece of legi slation certainly sounds goal-worthy, an innocuous proposition, but do not let the tit le fool you. This measure, if enacted, will not only fail to level the playing field; it will disc ourage municipal governments fr om addressing deployment in communities where the private sector has failed to meet broadband service needs. In other words, it will be a significant barrier to broadband deployment and may impede local efforts to promote economic development.""
  • National Broadband Plan Rec. 8.19: Congress should make clear that state, regional and local governments can build broadband networks.
    • "Local entities typically decide to offer services when no providers exist that meet local needs. These local entities do so only after trying to work with established carriers to meet local needs.141 This experience is similar to how some municipalities responded in the early part of the 20th century when investor-owned electric utilities left rural America in the dark while they electrified more lucrative urban centers. Public and cooperatively owned power utilities were created to fill the void. More than 2,800 public and co-op operators still provide electricity to 27% of Americans today.142 Many of these same rural areas now face similar challenges attracting private investment to connect civic institutions, businesses and residences to high-speed data networks. In some areas, local officials have decided that publicly-owned communications services are the best way to meet their residents’ needs (see Box 8-5).

      Municipal broadband has risks. Municipally financed service may discourage investment by private companies. Before embarking on any type of broadband buildout, whether wired or wireless, towns and cities should try to attract private sector broadband investment. But in the absence of that investment, they should have the right to move forward and build networks that serve their constituents as they deem appropriate.

    • FTTH Council Comments to FCC on Muncipal FTTH Deployment and the National Broadband Plan
  • Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability: Second Report, ¶ 181 Best Practices (FCC August 2000) PDF (See Section 706)
    • 171. In addition to the geographic area case studies, we have also conducted, in conjunction with the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services, a review of community-based deployment efforts to identify best practices which have led to increased access to advanced telecommunications capability. This information has been developed through the series of hearings and site visits sponsored by the Joint Conference, the development of the database on project characteristics and literature review. The field hearings, site visits, and the Joint Conference’s growing database of community deployment efforts,220 have provided important insights into the kinds of efforts that can successfully bring advanced services to a diverse range of communities. This section outlines some of these successful strategies.....
    • Public Investment
    • 181. Direct public investment in desired infrastructure has also been used. There are many instances where a municipality, usually one that already provides another utility service like cable or electricity, builds its own high-speed telecommunications facilities and directly serves customers. In other instances, states have invested in substantial fiber networks to schools or other customers.
      182. Hawarden, Iowa took this approach. The City of Hawarden operated a successful electric and cable utility. Unhappy with the telecommunications service options available to them, the City decided to build its own advanced telecommunications facilities. They have now built a hybrid fiber coaxial cable network throughout the town. Businesses in the community that previously feared being left behind in a digital age, no longer fear being forced to relocate to have access to the modern communications they need. 229 In Orange City, Iowa the town government formed a partnership with its local telephone companies and is building a wireless system that is bringing high-speed Internet to its citizens. The case studies of both Waltham, Massachusetts and the Muscatine, Iowa illustrate the strong role public investment has played in those communities
  • FCC, CONNECTED & ON THE GO, BROADBAND GOES WIRELESS, REPORT BY THE WIRELESS BROADBAND ACCESS TASK FORCE p 32 (2005) (“FCC Report”) PDF
    • P. 32 “community networks can act as a low-cost alternative where access to cable modem or DSL service is either unavailable or too expensive.”
    • p 33 “Ensuring that all citizens have access to broadband services is of increasing importance to local governments.”
Debating Municipal Broadband with Christopher Mitchell June 19, 2008
Community Fiber Networks Are Faster, Cheaper Than Incumbents

Killer Applications: The use of VoIP has been described as a killer application for Muni Wifi. [Aaron Kaplan, Funkfeuer Network presented at NAF (Feb. 6 2008)] It could present a compelling alternative to over priced mobile telephone service with the use of such things as Skype Wifi phones.

States (this chart is out of date)

Municipalities are under the authority of state governments. Therefore, state governments can say whether or not it is permissible for a municipality to offer broadband services. This is true even though the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 USC 253(a), stated that no state could prohibit "any entity" from offering telecommunications service. The Supreme Court in Missouri Municipal League v. Nixon (SCt 2003) upheld that a municipality is not an "any entity" and that a state could limit the municipalities authority.

A plethora of states have passed laws restricting, conditioning, or prohibiting municipalies from offering broadband services. Some of these laws constitute nothing more than "don't stick your finger in your eye." These are requirements that states do due diligence, find out what the demand for broadband is and find out what service providers currently offer service in their market. Other states out right ban municipal action. And then there is the truly wierd Pennsylvania law which gives Verizon the right to veto any municipality, except Philadelphia, from offering broadband. Jim Baller points out that in the year 2005, there was a backlash against these laws; of the 14 legislative proposals introduced in 2005 to place barriers in the way of municipal broadband, 13 failed.

There is an important twist to these municipal broadband laws. Many of these laws prohibit the offering of "telecommunications service." However, as demonstrated in the Supreme Court case BrandX, broadband Internet services are information services, not telecommunications service. Thus, a law that prohibts telecommunications service would not block the offering of broadband Internet services by a municipality.

State
Law
Service Restriction
Networks
Alabama       Scottsboro (c)
Sylaugua (f)
Arkansas Prohibited basic local exchange service Exchange service prohibited. Facilities may be provided after hearing. Paragould (c)
Arizona       Chandler (w)
Phoenix (w)
Tempe (w)
California      

Alameda(f)
Anaheim (w)
Cerritos
Cupertino (w)
Fullerton (w)
Galt
Hermosa Beach (w)
Loma Linda (f)
Lompoc (w)
Long Beach (w)
Palo Alto (f)
Sacramento
San Francisco (w)
San Manteo (w)
Santa Clara (w)
Sunnyvale (w)

Colorado Regulated Cable, Telecom and advanced services Referendum required before entrance. Denver
Connecticut      
District of Columbia       Broadband Bridge (CN)
Florida Regulated Communications service

Referendum, hearings, and business plan required before entrance

Required annual hearing to report on Muni's progress towards objectives.

Gainsville (f)
Lake County (f)
Orlando (w)
Miami Beach (w)
Quincy (f)
St. Cloud (w)
Georgia       Adel (w)
Atlanta (w)
Dalton (f)
Ellaville
Houston County (w)
Hawaii       Honolulu
Illinois     Referendum required?? Aurora (w)
Indiana       Auburn (f)
Fort Wayne (w)
Scottsburg (w)
Iowa Regulated Local Exchange Service Referendum required before entrance; rules against subsidization

Cedar Falls (f)
Harlan (c)
Sanborn
Spenser (f)

Kansas       Western (w)
Wheatland Electric Cooperative
Kentucky       Glasgow (c)
Owensboro (w)
Louisiana Regulated Cable, Telecom, or Advanced Services Referendum required before entrance Lafayette (f)
New Orleans (w)
Vivian (w)
New Mexico       Rio Ranch (w)
Maine Regulated    
Maryland       Allegany County (w)
Caroline County
Talbot County
Washington County
Massachusetts       Brookline
Michigan Regulated Telecommunications services Must solicit competitive private sector bids before entrance Grand Haven (w)
Grand Rapids
Minnesota Regulated Telephone exchange Referendum required before entrance Buffalo (w)
Chaska (w)
Minneapolis (w)
Morehead
Windom (f)
Missouri Prohibited Telecom facilities or service (Internet type services explicitly permitted)   Carthage
Nevada (w)
North Kansas (f)
Springfield
Nebraska Partial Prohibition Broadband, telecom, internet services Public power utilities may offer the service; no other public entity may. Municipalities may offer dark fiber.
New Mexico       Sandoval County (w)
Rio Rancho (w)
New York       New York City Wireless (w)
Nevada Prohibited Telecom Service Prohibition is based on size; Wholesale only
Ohio Regulated    

Akron (w)
Cincinnati (w)
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Falls (w)
Dalton (f)
Dublin (w)
Lebanon (HFC)

Oklahoma       Sallisaw (f)
Oregon       Ashland (f)
Portland (w)
The Dalles (f)
Pennsylvania Restricted   Incumbent service provider has right of first refusal Flinton
Kutztown (f)
Philadelphia (w)
Pittsburgh
South Carolina Regulated Telecom Service No subsidies; cost accounting restrictions Charleston
Columbia
Camden
South Dakota       City of Timber Lake
Tennessee Regulated Cable, video, telecom, or Internet services Office of Comptroller must prepare a report before entry Jackson (f)
Texas Regulated    

Addison (w)
Austin (w)
Burleson (w)
Corpus Christi (w)
Farmers Branch (w)
Granbury (w)
Houston (w)
Linden (w)
Plano (w)
South Lake (w)

Utah Restricted Cable or telecom services Retail offering prohibited. May do it wholesale. Hold hearing, conduct feasibility study, have legislative body adopt the feasibility study before entry iProvo (f)
Spanish Fork
UTOPIA (f)
Vermont       Island Pond (w)
Montpelier (w)
Virginia Regulated Telecom Service Must acquire certificate, have open facilities, and comply with accounting rules

Alexandria (w)
Arlington (w)
Bristol (f)
Dickenson (w)
Manassas (bpl)

Washington Restricted Telecom services Provide wholesale only Benton County (w)
Chelan (f)
Clallam (f)
Douglas (f)
Grant (f)
Mason Counties (f)
Pasco (w)
Tacoma (f)
West Virginia      
Wisconsin Regulated Cable, Telecom, or Broadband services Hold a hearing with a financial report, or referendum, or survey finds no service providers, or offers only facilities - and uses revenue to replay cost Jackson (w)
Madison
Milwaukee
Reedsburg (f)
Waupaca (w)
Wyoming      

Key:: Prohibited : Entrance is not allowed :: Restricted : Entrance is only partly allowed :: Regulated : Entrance allowed if conditions are met ::

See Muniwireless.com February 2006 list of US cities and regions Wifi Muni Wifi PDF

Free Press (good summaries)

Civitium (Excellent)

Network Neutrality

Some Municipality RFPs have explicitly stated Network Neutrality as a condition. See SF RFP Sec. 2.1 PDF

The Network Operator shall promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet by operating the Network in a neutral manner that ensures consumers are entitled to:
• Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law
enforcement
• Access the lawful Internet content of their choice
• Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
• Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Community Networks

Similar to municipal networks, these are local networks that are organized by the grassroots local communities instead of by the municipalities and local governments. Some of this movement emphasizes on ad hoc mesh networks.

 

Web services provided by Wyoming.com
:: Home :: About Us :: Contact Us :: Sitemap :: Discussion :: Disclaimer :: Search ::