Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project
76-6-703 . Computer crimes and penalties.
(2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a person who intentionally or knowingly and without authorization gains or attempts to gain access to a computer, computer network, computer property, or computer system under circumstances not otherwise constituting an offense under this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
76-6-702 . Definitions.
As used in this part:
(1) "Access" means to directly or indirectly use, attempt to use, instruct, communicate with, cause input to, cause output from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, computer network, or any means of communication with any of them.
(2) "Authorization" means having the express or implied consent or permission of the owner, or of the person authorized by the owner to give consent or permission to access a computer, computer system, or computer network in a manner not exceeding the consent or permission.
76-10-1204, -1206 (posting material online that is harmful to children where host is located in Utah)
76-10-1231 . Data service providers -- Internet content harmful to minors.
(1) (a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall filter content to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer.
(b) A service provider complies with Subsection (1)(a) if it uses a generally accepted and commercially reasonable method of filtering.
(2) At the time of a consumer's subscription to a service provider's service, or at the time this section takes effect if the consumer subscribes to the service provider's service at the time this section takes effect, the service provider shall notify the consumer in a conspicuous manner that the consumer may request to have material harmful to minors blocked under Subsection (1).
(3) (a) A service provider may comply with Subsection (1) by:
(i) providing in-network filtering to prevent receipt of material harmful to minors, provided that the filtering does not affect or interfere with access to Internet content for consumers who do not request filtering under Subsection (1); or
(ii) providing software, engaging a third party to provide software, or referring users to a third party that provides filtering software, by providing a clear and conspicuous hyperlink or written statement, for installation on the consumer's computer that blocks, in an easy-to-enable and commercially reasonable manner, receipt of material harmful to minors.
(b) A service provider may charge a consumer for providing filtering under Subsection (3)(a).
. . . . .
76-10-1230 . Definitions.
(4) (a) "Internet service provider" means a person engaged in the business of providing a computer communications facility in Utah, with the intent of making a profit, through which a consumer may obtain access to the Internet. [Editor's note: that would appear to exclude coffee houses offering free WiFi]
(b) "Internet service provider" does not include a common carrier if it provides only telecommunications service.
. . . . .
(7) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (7)(b), "service provider" means an Internet service provider.
(b) "Service provider" does not include a person who does not terminate a service in this state, but merely transmits data through:
(i) a wire;
(ii) a cable; or
(iii) an antenna.
(c) "Service provider," notwithstanding Subsection (7)(b), includes a person who meets the requirements of Subsection (7)(a) and leases or rents a wire or cable for the transmission of data.
- UTOPIA project Utah Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency
- DynamicCity "creates community-owned Open Service Provider Networks that bring complete availability of true broadband connections, service provider independence, economic infusion, and life-enhancing services to residents and businesses."
- Consortium of 18 cities | Fiber | Not suppported by Salt Lake City | Feasibility Study |
- Dean & Company, Utopia Feasibility Assessment, (2004) PDF
- The Information Sector, New Rules Project ("AT&T challenged Provo and UTOPIA at the state legislature in 2001. Compromise legislation was passed that bans cities from selling retail broadband services, but allowing them sell wholesale access to publicly owned networks. AT&T eventually became the anchor tenant on the UTOPIA network, after it sold its own cable assets.")
- Qwest has brought a lawsuit challenging Utopia.
- Formed in 2002
- Capital Investment $340 m.
- Fiber optic services to res/bus. Cap Invesment $340 mil. total; phase 1 is $85 mil. $3,500/sub at 60%/homes passed. First of three phases (7/04): (1) connecting metro backbone, (2) pilot to gauge demand, (3) services to 33,000 premises. -Municipal Broadband: Digging Beneath the Surface, Balhoff & Rowe, LCC, p. 34 (Sept. 2005)
- Utah’s multicity FTTH project enters phase two, Telephony 12/19/2006
- Utopia: Capped and Throttled?, Broadband Reports 7/21/2006
- Municipally funded fiber-optic network UTOPIA may be struggling, but its impact is growing., Salt Lake City Weekly 10/6/2006
- Spanish Fork
- the Municipal Cable Television and Public Telecommunications Services Act Utah UTAH CODE ANN. §10-18-105 (West 2001) (municipalities may only offer broadbahd on a wholesale basis).
- UT Code § 10-18
- UT Code 10-18-201. Limitations on providing a cable television and public telecommunications services.
(1) Except as provided in this chapter, a municipality may not:
(a) provide to one or more subscribers:
(i) a cable television service; or
(ii) a public telecommunications service; or
(b) for the purpose of providing a cable television service or a public telecommunications service to one or more subscribers, purchase, lease, construct, maintain, or operate any facility. . . . . .
- [Translation: This is a restriction on providing retail service - as opposed to wholesale]
- 10-18-202. Required steps before a municipality may provide cable television or public telecommunications services.
Before a municipality may engage or offer to engage in an activity described in Subsection 10-18-201(1), the legislative body of the municipality shall:
(1) hold a preliminary public hearing;
(2) if the legislative body elects to proceed after holding the preliminary public hearing required by Subsection (1), approve the hiring of a feasibility consultant to conduct a feasibility study in accordance with Section 10-18-203;
(3) determine whether under the feasibility study conducted under Section 10-18-203, the average annual revenues under Subsection 10-18-203(2)(f) exceed the average annual costs under Subsection 10-18-203(2)(e) by at least the amount necessary to meet the bond obligations of any bonds issued to fund the proposed cable television services or public telecommunications services:
(a) based on the feasibility study's analysis:
(i) for the first year of the study; and
(ii) the five-year projection; and
(b) separately stated with respect to:
(i) the proposed cable television services; or
(ii) the proposed public telecommunications services;
(4) if the conditions of Subsection (3) are met, hold the public hearings required by Section 10-18-203; and
(5) after holding the public hearings required by Section 10-18-203, if the legislative body of the municipality elects to proceed, adopt by resolution the feasibility study.
- Free Press
- Project Utopia: Utah Law
- UTOPIA, Perfection or Fantasy: Partnering Public-Private Sectors With Broadband, Circleid 5/12/2010
- Report: Utah Has the Best Broadband in the U.S., Internet News 1/19/2010
- Utah Information Gathering Report collecting information on VoIP
- In re an Investigation in the Regulation of Voice over the Internet Telephone Service (VoIP), Docket No. 04-999-02, Order Opening a Docket (Issued: 1/22/2004)
- Thursday, March 4 9:00 a.m. Technical Conference Instruct Protocol Issue VOIP 04-999-01 Rm. 427
- THE STATE OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY IN UTAH, p. 32-33 Utah PSC Oct 2003
- Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) is poised to revolutionize the scope of traditional voice communications. VOIP is simply the transport of voice traffic using the Internet Protocol (IP), which also enables file sharing, shared printers, e-mail, the world wide web, streaming audio and video, instant messaging, and numerous other applications. IP is a packet-based protocol which means that the traffic is broken into small packets that are sent individually to their destination, rather than utilizing circuit switched telephony to process voice calls, as we know it today. ILECs, CLECs, and Internet Providers are readily adopting VOIP because their companies will realize tremendous cost savings in the administration of their networks.
Although providing VOIP is desirable to telephone companies and Internet providers, it may not be classified as a telecommunications service by the FCC and therefore may not be subject to common carrier regulation. Both ILECs and long distance providers are petitioning the FCC to classify IP technology as telecommunications, seeking authority to collect access charges from IP providers. However, there is still widespread regulatory forbearance in relation to
Internet and broadband services.