A State-By-State Guide To Restrictive Community Broadband Laws

blottsie writes On Tuesday, President Obama will unveil a dramatic push to improve broadband Internet service for people around the country through community-built municipal broadband networks. Problem is, state legislatures around the country have passed laws making it considerably more difficult for these public Internet projects to get off the ground. In some states, building municipal broadband is prohibited altogether. This piece dives into the state laws standing between us and more competitive Internet service markets.

Comments

Re:building municipal broadband is prohibited

[crunchygranola]

So if you support such nonsense, WHERE in the Constitution does it grant the Federal Government the power to regulate internet providers?

Its called the "commerce clause" and even "originalist" extraordinaire Anton Scalia has no problems with that (see his concurrence in Gonzales vs Rauch).

When you can show me an Internet system that only provides service within a state, and does not transmit packets across state lines, I will believe that that one particular system (but not others generally) should be free from Federal regulation. Otherwise the power to regulate interstate commerce in the Constitution provides the authority. This was uncontroversial in the 19th Century when the Interstate Commerce Commission was created (1886) to regulate railways, and did so within states, since they carried interstate commerce.

Re:building municipal broadband is prohibited

[bobbied]

You want to give a stab at my question? OR Are you saying the 10th amendment doesn't apply here? Do feel free to enlighten me with your take on history.

Re:What does it mean?

[BradMajors]

82% of households have access to two or more broadband providers:

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/...

Re:What does it mean?

[StatureOfLiberty]

I'm going to ask a question and risk downmod: I wonder how many saying, "Right on!" over that are bent out of shape over laws forbidding another competitor who doesn't have to play by the rules: local government, a "company" with the power to tax, and make you pay for the service whether you want it or not.

Let's see, shall we?

Wilson, NC built its network because there was no high speed internet available to local businesses. The existing provider refused to work with Wilson to move them to something faster. So, they built their own.

So, Wilson, NC now has fiber to the home. And, it is cheaper than the crappy service they had before.

You can't refuse to provide service to a community and then whine when they decide to serve themselves.

The legislature later passed ridiculous restrictions on community broadband. Wilson is grandfathered for the most part.

Re:What does it mean?

[dbreeze]

And 99.9% of that 82% are likely within a larger metroplitan area........
I also pulled this from your link.... "Given that approximately 96% of the population has at most two wireline providers, there are reasons to be concerned about wireline broadband competition in the United States."

(I've told this story on here before but it needs re-telling....)
  I moved to a rural NC area about 10-12 years ago and desired to start a computer shop but soon discovered that dial-up was all that was available. At that time satellite was prohibitively expensive for my meager funds and not that much faster. I heard about the state legislature enacting a new "E-NC" initiative to facilitate rural connectivity and with a cell tower only a few hundred yards across a field from me I decided maybe I could try a wireless internet service venture instead. I found a contact number and had a very interesting conversation with the director of the E-NC initiative at that time....
  I explained my situation and idea to him and asked about the possibility of getting funding to try a start-up to service my local areas internet needs. He told me that they had exhausted the funds set aside on 3 projects already. They had researched each proposed area, contacted the local phone/cable companies and verified that they had no plans of pursuing high-speed internet options in the area, and then released the funds for the start-ups. As soon as the funds were released the phone companies suddenly announced they would begin DSL service in 2 of the areas, effectively killing those start-ups. In both cases it was Sprint(later to become Embarq) who pulled the shenanigans. Of course, they also controlled the area I lived in. We didn't get a DSL option for another 6-7 years when the 3g wireless options came around and finally made them move.....
  Big money/corporations are(generally) evil...... jus' sayin'........