25
State laws are trumped by FCC on local broadband limits
The Federal Communications Commission has fired the opening shot at state governments that limit local municipalities from constructing their very own broadband networks.
The FCC reasoned that certain provisions of laws in those states are obstacles to competition and broadband investment, and that it’s power to strike down the laws.
Thursday’s decision establishes a precedent that may be used across the nation to facilitate the deployment of broadband services. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said if Americans are to anticipate more competition in broadband, this should change, and noted that few communities have access to high speed Internet. He considers communities should possess the right to select whether municipally owned utilities or their local governments should construct broadband networks to supply these services.
“What we’re doing is cutting away that red tape.”
The FCC’s vote comes on the exact same day the bureau is, in addition, voting to reinstate Net neutrality rules made to defend the Web from broadband suppliers which could benefit from their market power to may slow down or squeeze competitors out of business. The reason this regulation is required, the FCC has claimed, is because competition is mostly lacking in the broadband marketplace.
With this new speed condition, cable companies are the sole authentic providers of broadband in many marketplaces because DSL service from phone companies does not get that new pub over.
The President and FCC Obama, who also supports striking down state laws that restrict or prevent municipal broadband networks, consider that community-owned broadband networks can help bridge this gap and provide consumers more competition.
“In too many areas across America, some large businesses are doing everything they can to keep out competitors,” Obama said last month. “In some states it’s practically not possible to make networks such as the one you’ve got in Cedar Falls. Enough is enough; we are going to alter that.”
The FCC activity of now signifies just a beginning step toward dismantling all state laws that seriously restrict expansion or the installation of community owned networks, together with the choice just applying to Tennessee and North Carolina. Other communities impacted by similar laws in other states will need to petition the FCC individually.
The Electric Power Board in Chattanooga, Tenn., and the authorities of Wilson, N.C., filed their requests with the FCC in July. Each had constructed a gigabit broadband network, and each was looking to expand those networks. But their capability to enlarge was restricted by state laws.
The Tennessee law bars communities from offering discounts on their broadband services which are not dissimilar to promotions provided by private sector firms. And it inflicts extensive delays by requiring a voter referendum for virtually any debt that’s used to fund construction or expansion of municipal networks to constructing the infrastructure.
Jim Baller, senior principal of Lide Baller Herbst Stokes &, the law firm that represented Chattanooga’s and Wilson EPB within their proceeding before the FCC, applauded the choice of the agency.
“This is an essential moment for communities in North Carolina, Tennessee, and other states which have obstacles to local investments in state-of-the-art communications networks,” he said in a statement. “Not only has the Commission affirmed that it’s power to remove such obstacles, but it’s also compiled a substantial record documenting the crucial role that local Internet selection can play in nurturing powerful, vibrant communities and in making sure that America will continue a leading country in the emerging knowledge-based international market.”
In addition, it says the bureau should utilize that power to “promote competition” in local marketplaces and “remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”
But adversaries, including Republican FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, say the FCC doesn’t have this ability.
“Judicial precedent makes clear that the FCC just will not possess the ability to get this done,” he said during the Thursday meeting. “In taking this measure, the FCC usurps essential facets of state sovereignty.”
I’m trying to prtomoe the idea of a utility broadband channel, separated off from the bandwidth used to deliver consumer services.The point is that,up until now, broadband has been used simply to provide Internet access, telephony and television. However broadband can be also used for a range of other purposes. Broadband is basically an always-on channel for data. It can therefore be used to, for instance, support smart metering, allow remote management of electricity use to manage peak energy demand, deliver telecare and telehealth services, and support local security services. It also could be used to provide access to local services and information; including for instance local educational resources for schools, without data needing to be sent onto the internet and back.Many of these services are becoming increasingly important to deliver key Government Policy Agendas such as Smart Metering, Renewable Energy, fuel poverty, health and social care of the aging population and so on, and have a clear and growing economic valueSome of these can be done over wireless or the normal telephone line, but the low bandwidth and, more importantly, poor quality of service, limit the capabilities of the services offered.The problem is that there are a number of barriers to broadband being utilised in this way: Many people do not have broadband so a ubiquitous service cannot be provided At the moment these services could only be delivered over the Internet, which means that QoS is more difficult to guarantee. It also adds unnecessarily to the data transport costs of Communications Providers The Communications Providers could offer this over a VPN via their existing broadband service to customers, but this would require service providers to make arrangements with each Communications Provider separately It would also challenge the Communications Providers business model in that they are paid by the end customer to provide broadband internet access, but if service providers such as Hospitals paid for dedicated bandwidth to provide a channel into people’s homes to deliver healthcare services, this would have to be taken away from the bandwidth they provide to the end userThe result Consumers are losing the benefits of valuable services Public policy objectives are more difficult to achieve Important revenue streams are being lost which could significantly contribute to the business case for upgrading the broadband infrastructure in the UK Business opportunities are being lostA PropositionThat a universal service obligation be laid on all owners of networks providing superfast broadband services to customers to provide a dedicated and firewalled channel to all homes, separate to that used to deliver conventional triple play. The channel would be funded through the providers of services over it and could potentially provide a significant income stream to the network owner.The bandwidth required is for negotiation and may depend partly on the capacity of the network, but could indicatively be 2Mbs symmetrical.It would need to be managed as an open access network and used to deliver services from a range of providers, who would pay according to a clear and transparent funding mechanism.The time is ripe for this, as the extra revenues it would provide would add to the business case for the move to superfast broadband, which, in turn would provide spare capacity to make it easy to provide an open channel to deliver these services.