City ISP Makes Broadband Free Because State Law Prohibits Selling Access (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A municipal ISP that was on the verge of shutting off Internet service outside its city boundaries to comply with a state law has come up with a temporary fix: it will offer broadband for free. The free Internet service for existing customers outside Wilson, North Carolina, will be available for six months, giving users more time to switch to an alternative. But Wilson also hopes that six months will be enough time to convince elected officials to change the state law that prohibits the municipal ISP from selling Internet service to non-residents. As [Ars Technica] covered previously, the Federal Communications Commission voted in February 2015 to preempt laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories. Greenlight Community Broadband in Wilson subsequently began offering service outside of Wilson. But officials in both states sued the FCC and in August won reinstatement of their laws that protect private ISPs from municipal competitors. In mid-September, the Wilson City Council reluctantly voted to turn off the fiber Internet service it provides to customers outside Wilson city limits. But that decision was reversed in a City Council vote last week, The Wilson Times reported. (The news came to our attention today via DSLReports.) A Wilson Times editorial reported: "City leaders are walking a tightrope as they balance their desire to keep Vick Family Farms in rural Nash County and 200 customers in the Edgecombe County town of Pinetops connected to Greenlight with their obligation to obey a federal court ruling that blocks the municipal broadband service from branching out beyond county lines. The council agreed Thursday night to provide six months of free internet access and phone service to Greenlight customers outside Wilson County while Wilson lobbies the General Assembly for permission to keep the town connected on a permanent basis."

Comments

no nothing important is mising from my comment

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pro municipal internet, but selling internet access outside your territories is something else entirely. And it is not needed. If the other municipality wants to provide its citizens with internet access as well they can decide to do it themselves.
However, at that stage they should be allowed to cooperate in order to work more efficiently and safe public money.

Re:no nothing important is mising from my comment

[GerryGilmore]

Why is it " something else entirely"? First, if the extended customers in question had any viable option, this would be a non-story. Second, if the ISP is providing good service and making money, what's the problem - other than offending some "Oooo, government, oooo - BAD" ideology. Again, if the "Free Market" were up to the task in these situations, we would not be having this discussion.

Re:no nothing important is mising from my comment

[geoskd]

Municipalities are incorporated for the benefit of the people that live in them, not to make a profit. They are not businesses.

Any profit that municipalities make is that much less in taxes they have to levy on their citizens. Even a moron can see the benefit to a municipality's citizens when they provide a profitable service to their neighbors...

The only loosers here are the hypothetical company that wants those 200 customers in the future.

The ISPs/telcos are not fighting this because they think those particular 200 people will ever be customers of theirs (they have no plans to *ever* provide service in those locations). They are threatened by the precedent this sets, and the they worry about the day when all citizens realize they should ask their local government to do exactly this same thing, and provide local utility services directly and use the profits to offset taxes. A few rural towns and counties do it, no big deal. Pittsburg does it and all of a sudden the established players are no longer profitable at all, and all of the profit they used to get goes to the local governments instead. Ultimately, it seems like a fitting punishment for the way the huge telcos/isps have been taking public money to provide infrastructure and have instead been dragging their feet and screwing the people. To all those who believe that government should be prevented from engaging in profitable business, I have just one observation. The only thing less effective at providing services efficiently than government agencies is government subsidized private industry providing those same services.

Even better idea, Put a 3 year moratorium on municipalities entering any market segment they are not already in. If the ISPs want those customers, they have three years to get there first. After that, its fair game for any local government...

That will teach them

[penguinoid]

Looks like the lobby that asked for an anti-competition law didn't do a good job.

Re:But Republicans believe local...

[Bookworm09]

...government is best, right? Right? Nope, actually they just suck up to the Corporations a bit faster than Democrats, sadly. If only they had not screwed up by forcing Hillary on us as the non-Trump instead of Bernie. Sigh....

Now, now. If you keep talking like that, you're going to cause migraine-inducing cognitive dissonance amongst a certain portion of the population. Although I do have to laugh at the irony of the "free market" resulting in "socialism"* as an act of defiance/desperation.

Kudos to the local City Council for coming up with this remedy, even if it's only temporary. Hopefully the absurdity of the situation will draw enough attention to it that the corrupt state lawmakers are forced to do the right thing.

Imagining the reaction of the local broadband providers' executives when they first heard about this plan makes me chuckle.

* Yes, I am perfectly aware that the "internet access"-market is anything but a free market, and the City Council's response isn't socialism.

Re:water or electrical service?

[PrimaryConsult]

I don't know about utilities, but this regularly happens with public trains, across state lines nonetheless.

The "Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail" serves several stops in Rhode Island, including connecting Providence to its airport. There have also been talks to expand service into New Hampshire.
The "Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority" serves several stops in Delaware.

These two are more operations inherited from predecessor private railroads, but including them for completeness' sake:
"New Jersey Transit" serves over 50 miles and about a dozen stops in upstate NY, inherited from the Erie-Lackawanna railroad.
New York's MTA serves most of the state of Connecticut in conjunction with the Connecticut Department of Transportation , inherited from the New Haven railroad.

Tax assessment

[bhcompy]

Don't sell it. Give it to them. Make maintenance a tax assessment, just like sewage, roads, etc.

Re:how about complying with the law?

[sims 2]

Our local muni fiber considered running fiber outside of city limits even got a quote from the surrounding electric coop but they apparently wanted too much money for pole attachment as that never happened.

However they did get a wisp started that now sells service outside of the city their coverage even overlaps with the existing wisp in the area.

In one place they are even both using the same tower thats behind a hill from my house so I STILL can't get service at home.

it also resulted in some rather strange pricing oddities.
When the city started their service they were offering 20Mbps and the local wisp only offered 10Mbps
Now It's swapped the city only offers 10Mbps and the local wisp offers 20Mbps and WTH....
The local wisp was bought out 4 days ago?!!! how did I miss that?!!!!

Re:water or electrical service?

[Aighearach]

Yes, in most places municipalities can sell water and electricity to anybody. Next question.

Re:water or electrical service?

[plover]

We have police departments contracting services to nearby cities, and even leasing themselves out to a neighboring state. No laws stop them.

purest idiotism

[l3v1]

"both states sued the FCC and in August won reinstatement of their laws that protect private ISPs from municipal competitors"

Competition at its finest, right, when the priority is to protect [i.e., give undeserved priority and undeserved advantage to] companies from municipal "competitors". Protecting companies by denying the people/communities to spend their own money to create their own services for their own benefit (which is basically, although indirectly, being done here). Dream come true, nicely done.