Christopher Mitchell

As schools and businesses ask people to stay home to reduce the spread of Covid-19 coronavirus, I wanted to share some thoughts about how I expect broadband Internet access networks will handle the change and increase in broadband traffic in residential areas. Our first reaction is that, as with so many areas with network effects, the rich will get richer.

More than 110 rural electric co-ops have embarked on fiber optic projects to increase Internet access for their members, a number that is growing rapidly from just a handful in 2012. Thirty-one percent of the fiber service available in rural areas is provided by rural cooperatives. Personal anecdotes from Michigan, Virginia, Minnesota, and Missouri residents attest to the far-reaching benefits of cooperatives’ expansion into Internet service. A new map shows where rural cooperatives are planning to expand fiber Internet service. Co-ops have proven that this is a model that works.

Decades after bringing electricity and telephone services to America’s rural households, cooperatives are tackling a new challenge: the rural digital divide. New updates to the Community Broadband Networks initiative’s report Cooperatives Fiberize Rural America: A Trusted Model for the Internet Era, originally published in 2017, illustrate the remarkable progress co-ops have made in deploying fiber optic Internet access across the country. The report features new maps showing overall growth

At least 100,000 San Francisco residents lack adequate Internet access and miss out on economic and educational benefits. A new model -- developed by Monkeybrains, a local Internet service provider (ISP), and the city of San Francisco -- successfully bridges this digital divide for public housing residents. Thanks to low start-up and maintenance costs, the solution will be financially self-sustaining for years to come. If you want to get a program like this going in your city, here are key points:

For several years now, Tacoma (WA) has pondered the fate of its Click! municipal open access network. In the spring of 2018, the community issued an RFI/Q searching for interested private sector partners that would lease the network from the Tacoma Power Utility (TPU). After reviewing responses, consulting experts, and comparing potential arrangements, Tacoma has narrowed the field of possible partners. The goal is to put the network on a sustainable and competitive footing both financially and technologically. Tacoma is following a path that will retain public ownership of the Click!

Most Americans do not have much of a choice in Internet service providers, even in big cities. But for a lucky few, they have not only a robust gigabit connection but also a choice of many providers. This is most common in an arrangement called “open access.” Some 30 communities spread across the United States have embraced this model — where the local government builds a fiber-optic infrastructure and acts as a wholesaler, allowing independent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer the actual service to households and businesses.

For years, national cable and telecom companies have complained that they work in a tough industry because “there’s too much broadband competition.” Such a subjective statement has created confusion among subscribers, policymakers, and elected officials. Many people, especially those in rural areas, have little or no choice.

Maine State Representative Nathan Wadsworth (R-Hiram) introduced a bill to revoke local authority over building Internet networks needed by local businesses and residents. The one-time Maine state American Legislative Exchange Council chair introduced HP 1040 (also cross filed as LD 1516) to advantage the big cable and telephone monopolies. This bill will introduce procedural hurdles to discourage local governments from investing in modern broadband networks, including public-private partnerships with companies rooted in Maine – like GWI.

Little has changed since 2014, when Gizmodo rated Maine 49th in terms of broadband Internet service. Rather than finding ways to encourage investment, this bill would have the state actually slow it. “This effort joins a national trend of big cable and telephone companies, like Time Warner Cable and FairPoint, leaning heavily on state legislatures to protect themselves from competition,” says Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. “Communities do not make these investments when they are well served. If big cable and telephone companies want to preserve market share, they should invest in better services rather than crony capitalist laws.”

Next Century Cities released its 2017 Emerging Issues Policy Agenda, offering policy recommendations that support the expansion of high-quality, affordable broadband access to all. The agenda also explores some of the latest challenges to expanding next-generation internet access and innovations to tackle such barriers.

Next Century Cities communities are leading the way in implementing these policies and practices across the country. The policy agenda includes information and recommendations on issues such as local municipal authority, competition in multiple dwelling units, high-quality access for low-income households, small cell deployment, and One Touch Make Ready policies. For each policy issue, this new resource gives examples of local innovation and success, as well as policy recommendations to drive better competition and increased broadband access locally. The policy agenda also explores principles for government when developing legislation and undertaking broadband infrastructure investments, which is timely given the interest in Congress and at the state level for new investments in broadband.

[Commentary] If you were tasked with improving the internet access across Tennessee, a good first start would be to examine what is working and what’s not. But when the General Assembly debates broadband, it frequently focuses on what AT&T and Comcast want rather than what is working.

Broadband expansion has turned into a perennial fight between Tennessee’s municipal broadband networks and advocates of better connectivity on one side and AT&T and Comcast on the other. On one side is a taxpayer-subsidized model, while the other depends solely on the revenues of those who choose to subscribe. But which is which? AT&T has received billions of taxpayer dollars to build its networks, whereas Chattanooga, Tullahoma and Morristown, for example, financed their fiber-optic networks by selling revenue bonds to private investors and repaying them with revenues from their services. The big telephone companies are massively subsidized, whereas municipal networks have generally not used taxpayer dollars.

[Christopher Mitchell is the director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis.]