Community Broadband

The U.S. has fallen behind other countries both in the percentage of our population that has access to high-speed Internet connections, and in what we consider “high speed.”  Almost all homes and businesses in Japan and South Korea have access to connections that are literally thousands of times faster – for which they pay considerably less than do we.

Realizing that broadband is to this century what electricity and phones were to the last, many communities are building their own telecommunications systems just as they once provided their own electricity infrastructure. The vast majority of public electrical utilities in the U.S. are located in cities with fewer than 10,000 residents, and some serve just hundreds of homes. These municipal utilities are in a unique position to provide these services because they have earned the trust of their community and have some relevant expertise in building/maintaining networks.  A modern broadband network differs in many ways from providing electricity, but municipal utilities across the country have proved they can build and maintain fiber-to-the-home networks.

Some communities have pursued wired networks, often in the form of fiber-to-the-home systems (the gold standard in networking) whereas others have built wireless systems.  We believe these technologies are complimentary, not substitutes and that communities ultimately need both.  Fiber optic networks offer the most reliable and fastest speeds whereas wireless solves mobility needs.  Investments in fiber-optic networks are long term investments, often lasting for many decades and forming a potential base for wireless solutions.  

But private cable TV and telephone companies - who are often loathe to make these investments - are lobbying state legislatures to eliminate competition from any publicly owned entity.  The cost of these networks and long payback period make little sense for private companies that seek to maximize short term profits.  Unfortunately, fourteen states either ban or restrict municipal telecommunications utilities, which means their communities may be the last to get modern networks.

(The American Public Power Association maintains a list of State Barriers to Community Broadband Services. )

Despite these efforts, community broadband networks are thriving in communities across the country. Burlington, Vermont (see our Case Study and Fact Sheet), has built an advanced fiber-to-the-home network that offers television (everything from HDTV to a greater channel selection than the competition, including extra local content), phone services, and Internet connectivity (at speeds previously unavailable in the community while keeping prices below the competition).  The network has also greatly increased the broadband speeds available to the local government and schools while greatly cutting telecom expenditures).  

In May 1999, after three years of lobbying by the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga and the Tennessee Municipal Power Association, the Tennessee State Legislature reversed Tennessee's ban, allowing public utilities to provide cable television, Internet and telephone services.  Now Chattanooga’s MetroNet, operated by the Electric Power Board, makes it one of only a few mid-sized cities with very high-speed digital data transfer as part of its municipal telecommunications infrastructure.

Chaska, Minnesota’s municipally owned and managed wireless network went live in November 2004. The city invested about $800,000 in the wireless network, which covers all 15 square miles of the suburban-fringe community. It offers an Internet connection for just $17 per month for homes, and starting at $25 per month for businesses. More than 20 percent of the city's residents are subscribers. In an interview with The Future of Wireless, Chaska’s Information Services manager advised other cities, “Do not underestimate the amount of customers you will have.”

In addition to broadening access, competition from municipal telecommunications providers has been shown to lower consumer rates. For instance, Chattanooga, TN and Glasgow, KY are both served by a private cable company, Comcast. But Glasgow's public power company began cable TV service ten years ago. As a result, Comcast's rates in Glasgow are 1/3 less than rates in Chattanooga.

Community Broadband networks hire locally and keep support jobs in town, not offshore.  Revenues stay in the community - net income can be used to better the community or go into supporting local community media.  

More information: 

• Freepress has an Internet Policy Section
• The American Public Power Association’s Community Broadband section includes an overview of the issue
• The Baller Herbst Law Group is the leading legal representative of municipal utilities. Their section on community broadband contains testimony, briefs and a number of excellent articles
• Muniwireless.com focuses on wireless networks
• Center for Digital Democracy
• Well Connected - Center for Public Integrity's excellent report and news library on telecommunications consolidation and democracy
• The New Rules Project is working with people in Saint Paul, Minnesoto who want a community fiber network.
• Cybertelecom offers a lot of resources, albeit in a rough and tumble format.

Rules

Community Broadband - Robust Core Network in Saint Paul, MN

Local

Building the core network (a network that will first serve the public needs of the city, schools, state, and Ramsey county but could later be the backbone of a network serving others in the city) correctly the first time offers the freedom later to expand at a reasonable cost, if the city chooses.  This is the smart decision because it does not commit the city to any further action but frees it consider what is best at a future date.  Should it later be expanded, the core will be ready; if it is never expanded, the city will still benefit from a more reliable and secure network than would be built if only looking to solve current needs. More

Community Broadband - Grant of Authority to Municipalities - Vermont

Local

State

Prior to June 2007, a Vermont town that wanted to create a community broadband network would have to amend the town charter and get it approved by the Vermont Legislature to gain the necessary authority to do so.  Public Act 79 of 2007 changed that, granting broad authority to communities to create their own networks.

The national telecommunications companies like Comcast and Verizon had largely ignored Vermont, like other upper New England states.  These companies invested little in the low density communities – preferring to invest where they could maximize profits.  Realizing the future required fast broadband networks, the Vermont Legislature and Governor Douglas partnered, forming an overwhelming majority to pass legislature to encourage broadband investment. More

Community Broadband - Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

Federal

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress set aside $7.2 billion to be used for expanding broadband availability and demand. The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program is designed to expand broadband access to those who do not have it, either because they are underserved or unserved [terms that were yet to be defined by the FCC and NTIA]. Additionally, some of the funds were marked to be used for educational purposes, such as training and support.

Crucially, it privileges entities accountable to the public for grants.  Though private companies are able to apply, they must be judged to be in the public interest to receive funds. More

Fiber Network Building Code - Loma Linda, CA

Local

Loma Linda has built a publicly owned citywide fiber optic network.  Originally, the city added this rule to the developer agreement but later also codified it in the Municipal Code.  Any new building (or substantial re-model) must be built ready to interface with the network and meet a wiring requirement to allow the occupants to take full advantage of the network. More

Public Broadband Ballot Initiative - Nebraska

State

Nebraska is the only state in the union served entirely by public power utilities. In 2005, the Nebraska Legislature passed a law prohibiting public power utilities from selling broadband or other telecommunications services for a two year period (Legislative Bill 645). The bill also created a task force to investigate broadband access in Nebraska and the implications of allowing public entities to provide broadband. A report from the task force is expected in late 2006. More

Smart City Initiative - Fredericton, New Brunswick

International

In 1999, Fredericton (population 80,000 and the capital of New Brunswick, Canada) began building a high-speed information infrastructure. The City was looking to reduce its internal communications costs. There was no local competition. "We were paying three times the prices people in Toronto were paying," says Maurice Gallant, the City's chief information officer. It came up with a strategy to build its own fiber optic network, and cover some of the costs by selling spare capacity to other organizations and businesses in the city. More

Municipal Telecommunications Enabling Legislation - Maine

Local

State

In late-May 2005, Maine’s governor signed LD 1128, which clarifies local government authority to offer Internet services. The act also instructs the State Planning Office to study the “economic, technological and funding issues associated with municipalities providing wireless Internet services to their communities.” More

Municipal Internet Service - Chattanooga, TN

Local

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERNET DIVISION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER BOARD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL SERVICES. 

WHEREAS, The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, an independent board of the City of Chattanooga, (“Electric Power Board”) has developed a detailed business plan for the provision of internet services directly and through MetroNet, Incorporated; has submitted the business plan to the State Director of Local Finance; and has considered the State Director of Local Finance's analysis of the business plan; More