Cybertelecom
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project

Municipal Broadband
Navigation Links:
- Broadband
- Sec. 706
- Dial Up
- DSL
- - Naked DSL
- - UNE
- - Net over Wireline (Info Service)
- Cable
- - Open Access
- Fiber
- Wireless
- - 3G
- - Wifi
- - WiMax
- - 700 Mhz
- Powerline
- Satellite
- Municipal Broadband
- 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
:: Home ::
:: Feedback ::
:: Disclaimer ::
:: Sitemap ::

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.

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.

As this is a state issue, the Federal Communications Commission would appear to lacks jurisdiction over municipal broadband. The FCC has taken two important actions relevant to municipal broadband. First, the FCC created the Unlicenced Licensed Information Infrastructure, aka WiFi, for the purpose of creating broadband networks in cities. Second, the FCC has spoke on municipal broadband only once, listing it as a "Best Practice" and describing it as "the kinds of efforts that can successfully bring advanced services to a diverse range of communities."

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.230
  • See also FCC, CONNECTED & ON THE GO, BROADBAND GOES WIRELESS, REPORT BY THE WIRELESS BROADBAND ACCESS TASK FORCE p 32 (2005) (“FCC Report”) PDF (“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.”")

There are multiple federal legislative proposals addressing municipal broadband, likewise running the gamut of ensuring that they are permitted to declaring that they are prohibited. The Telecommunications reform proposal that was passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee in June of 2006 would prevent states from prohibiting their own municipalities from offering broadband services; municipalities who do plan to offer broadband must solicit bids for service, although they would not be obligated to accept any of these bids. [Senate Moves to Ease Muni Wifi, ZDNet June 29, 2006]

Senate Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act
Commerce Committee Press ReleaseJune 2006

S 2686 Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)[S.2686.IS]
Community Broadband Act - Amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to prohibit any state or local government statute, regulation, or other legal requirement from prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced communications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced communications capability provided by such provider. Provides safeguards, including that a public provider may not provide advanced communications capability to the public unless the provision of such capability by that public provider is subject to the same laws and regulations that would apply if the advanced communications capability were being provided by a nongovernmental entity.

S 1294 Community Broadband Act
Title: A bill to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 6/23/2005)
See Topic Muni Broadband
[PDF]COMMUNITY BROADBAND COALITION December 13, 2005 Dear Senator:

HR 2726 Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005
Title: To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by private enterprise to provide such services.
Sponsor: Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] (introduced 5/26/2005)
See Topic Muni Broadband

S.1504 Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act
Title: A bill to establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to eliminate government managed competition of existing communication service, and to provide parity between functionally equivalent services. Sponsor: Sen Ensign, John [NV], Thomas 8/5/2005
See Topic Muni Broadband
 Jim Baller’s response to Senator Ensign’s municipal networks provision

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

State
Law
 Service Restriction
Public 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  
Florida Regulated Communications service Referendum, hearings, and business plan required before entrance 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  
Nevada Prohibited Telecom Service Prohibition is based on size
Ohio Regulated

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

Oklahoma       Sallisaw (f)
Oregon   Ashland (f)
Portland (w)
The Dalles (f)
Pennsylvania Restricted 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 Cristi (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.

Anti Government Sentiment

See History of the Internet and Timeline. An argument lodged against Municipal Networks is that governments can not be trusted to run a network - they will botch things up and they will not innovate. Contrast this argument with the reality that the Internet (aka the ARPANet) was funded and operated at some level for the first 30 years of its existence. The Innovation, the evolution, the success of the Internet was founded on a partnership between government and academics. - Genny Pershing.

Papers

Statistics

  • Number of Municipal Electric Utilites doing Communications. Source: APPA - Sharon Gillett, Municipal Trends, Broadband Properties Sept 2004
    • 2000: 300+ - 2001: 450 - 2002: 511 - 2003: 569
  • FTTH Homes Passed in US - Sharon Gillett, Municipal Trends, Broadband Properties Sept 2004
    • 2002: 27% Muni, 67% CLEC, 5.4% Small ILEC, 0.6% Other (including RBOC)
    • 2003: 32% Muni, 42% CLEC, 6% Small ILEC, 3% Other (including RBOC)

Links

get involved: www.freepress.net

Links

News & Blogs [Recent News]

 
Web services provided by Wyoming.com
: Home : About Us : Contact Us : Sitemap : Discussion : Search : Newsletter : RSS :
: ADA : Broadband : Crime : Copyright : DNS : ECommerce : EGovt : First Amendment :
: Intl : Privacy : Security : SPAM : Statistics : VoIP : Vote :
:: Feedback : Disclaimer ::
© Cybertelecom.