A holiday poem in the style of “How The Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss. Every American on the Internet liked network neutrality a lot But the FCC’s Grinchy Pai, former lawyer for Verizon, did not! Pai hated net neutrality! He despised it, he dreaded it! And on December 14th, he and his cronies,… Continue reading
Viewing the municipal broadband tag archive
For more than two years, the prospect of expanding to two nearby communities has been on the LUS Fiber to-do list in Lafayette. Now that the municipal fiber optic network has achieved at least a 40 percent take rate, the time is right to reach Youngsville and Broussard. In 2016, the utility generated $36 million… Continue reading
To be fair, “not feasible” could also mean that you are asking the wrong questions. Nothing rules out that the problem lies with both the consultant AND the questions. It’s hard to tell from the outside which of these factors dominates. An Incomplete Path For years, Iowa’s Decorah has been considering a municipal fiber network and… Continue reading
The Fort Collins’ ballot measure that could amend the City Charter allowing high-speed Internet to become a municipal utility moves forward after a short legal scuffle. The question will be decided at the November 7th special election. Failed Legal Petition After the language of the ballot question was released following approval by City Hall, local… Continue reading
When local communities look for ways to improve connectivity, they may consider investing in a municipal fiber optic network. As they begin to review possible options, local officials, their staff, and community groups will realize that there are a number of potential models. We’ve put together the Muni Fiber Models fact sheet that takes a brief look at… Continue reading
In addition to studying how and where local communities examine the potential for publicly owned Internet networks, we’ve looked at rates over time in select areas of the country. We recently put together a comparison of historical rates for municipal networks in Tennessee. Our findings are consistent with what we’ve seen all over the country… Continue reading
Preemption at the state and federal level threatens local telecommunications authority, as we’ve seen in about 20 states. When state laws usurp local governments’ ability to decide how they improve poor connectivity, they disregard an understanding of local affairs that is unique to each community. Some states are threatening to take preemption another damaging step… Continue reading
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – Another year in Missouri and another bill from the big telephone companies to limit broadband competition in the state house. The bill introduced by Senator Ed Emery (R-Lamar), SB 186, seeks to limit the power of municipalities to provide competition to entrenched incumbent Internet Service Providers.
SB 186 imposes unworkable restrictions on local governments to prevent “competitive service,” which includes both retail and wholesale models – preventing municipalities from working with private sector partners. The bill establishes onerous hurdles for communities attempting to engage in a feasibility study and discourages them from pursuing a chance to serve their residents, businesses, and municipal facilities. Much of this bill’s language comes from last year’s rejected HB 2078. Continue reading
On February 7th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 72 – 24 to pass HB 2108, otherwise known as “Byron’s Bad Broadband Bill.” The text of the bill was a revised version substituted by Del. Kathy Byron after Governor Terry McAuliffe, local leaders across the state, and constituents very handily let her know that they… Continue reading
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – The latest chapter in efforts by the big cable companies to limit broadband competition just began in Virginia. The introduction of HB 2108, the “VirginiaBroadband Deployment Act,” by Delegate Kathy J. Byron (R-Forest) seeks to limit the power of municipalities to provide competition to entrenched incumbent Internet Service Providers.
HB 2108 imposes very specific requirements on local governments when they begin to solicit proposals for better Internet service, surprising local leaders that are desperate for more investment, not restrictions on investment. These burdens include soliciting proposals from existing incumbent providers, waiting six months for a response, and, if they even get this far, holding public hearings and a vote on whether to provide services within one year of the assessment. If these municipalities don’t comply with the timeline, they must obtain a costly new assessment. Continue reading