Christopher Mitchell

[Community] Google Fiber has finally announced its plans for the future after weeks of dramatic speculation that it will lay off half its workforce and give up on fiber-optics entirely. Google has now confirmed our expectations: they are pausing new Google Fiber cities, continuing to expand within those where they have a presence, and focusing on approaches that will offer a better return on investment in the short term.

This is not a surprise: Google is fundamentally a private firm focused on its shareholder value. And as such, it does not have the right incentives to deploy what has become essential infrastructure.

Fiber Remains A Good Municipal Investment: If anything, Google Fiber's change in focus reinforces the importance of smart municipal investments.

Waiting Can Only Hurt You: Whether a community intends to offer services directly or simply to encourage more independent service providers, it is now clear that they need to take action. The "Google Lottery" is temporarily suspended. Get busy finding an approach that fits your needs and challenges.

Wireless Is Not Killing Fiber: 5G is not magic and won't meet all of our needs.
The Private Sector Needs You: The private sector, Google included, simply cannot solve this problem alone but cities can change the calculus.

[Commentary] The high-capacity broadband lines that connect our banks, airlines, schools, libraries and hospitals, referred to as “business data services”, are critical to each and every community. But today, 97 percent of this high-capacity broadband market is controlled by one — and sometimes two — providers. Roughly one-fifth of all Americans live in rural areas where wireless broadband coverage – and competitive options – is severely limited.

Though smart policies can heal this gap over time, they are currently stuck with few choices and no real hope for more investment in the short term. For well over a decade, groups like mine have urged the Federal Communications Commission to fix this broken market because we have seen the impact it has on businesses and residents looking to compete in the 21st century economy. In our advocacy, we’ve faced roadblock after roadblock from the largest entrenched telephone companies that have very little incentive to deliver high-speed Internet to the rural communities. However, after ten years of battles with these dominant Internet and cable companies, we are hopeful for an important victory. The FCC has undergone a proceeding that can make an immediate difference, requiring that the big monopolies charge reasonable rates for the connections that libraries, schools, and even smaller Internet Service Providers need to keep their doors open. In many small communities, the only path out to the greater Internet is via the big telephone companies’ networks. Following the most exhaustive data collection in the FCC’s history, the Commission is poised to introduce a technology neutral framework that will promote broadband competition and investment to the benefit of all Americans. The gatekeepers are not going quietly and are engaging in a last ditch Hail Mary effort to derail the FCC’s progress and protect their profits. Although great for their shareholders, these profits are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy $150 billion in the last five years. That is money that should have stayed in local communities, supporting main street businesses.

[Christopher Mitchell is the Director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and the Policy Director at Next Century Cities]

Smart cities are realizing they need to act or risk being left behind. However, many do not want to embrace the purely-municipal broadband network model, where the city would engage in direct competition with existing providers. One way for those communities to move forward is with a public-private partnership (PPP). But for all the excitement around this model, there are few concrete examples from which to draw lessons. This paper explores lessons from PPPs and offers in-depth case studies of three high profile models: Westminster and Ting in Maryland, UC2B and iTV-3/CountryWide in Illinois, and LeverettNet in Massachusetts.

Local governments in Minnesota have been at the forefront of expanding fast, affordable, and reliable Internet access - often in some of the most challenging areas of the state.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance has just released a policy brief to explore some of these approaches: . The brief examines five communities that have taken different approaches to expanding access, from working with a trusted local partner to creating a new cooperative to building community-wide fiber-to-home networks.