WASHINGTON-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, just can’t seem to keep his hands out of telecom. McCain’s targets last week were the incumbent telecom and cable companies opposing municipal-broadband systems.
McCain was joined by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in introducing “The Community Broadband Act of 2005” to ensure that no state prevents a municipality from offering high-speed access to its citizens.
“In the simplest of terms, this bill would ensure that any town, city or county that wishes to offer high-speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill would also ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed Internet services to do so in compliance with all federal and state telecommunications laws and in a non-discriminatory manner,” said McCain. “I recognize that our nation has a long and successful history of private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That history must be respected, protected and continued. However, when private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable for the people acting through their local governments to improve their lives by investing in their own future.”
The announcement of the bill, which is in direct contrast to legislation proposed last month by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), was made during a U.S. Chamber of Commerce event on municipal broadband last week.
“Being sure our children and families can compete in the future is a local issue,” said Dianah Neff, chief information officer for the City of Philadelphia.
Neff is one of the leading proponents of municipal broadband. Philadelphia is developing a municipal Wi-Fi system that will be used by the city for its own telecommunications needs, but will be also be open to all citizens of Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia project and others in both large and small cities have received strong criticism from telecom and cable companies that believe municipalities should let the private market offer these services.
“I just don’t think it is a wise use of assets,” said Michael Balhoff, managing partner at telecom consultancy Balhoff & Rowe L.L.C.
The Consumers Union praised the McCain/Lautenberg bill. “We can no longer allow the on-ramp to the Information Superhighway to be blocked for so many Americans. Congress needs to take this common-sense step to protect the rights of communities to offer their residents the benefits of high-speed Internet access. If they don’t, monopoly providers will continue to leave millions of Americans behind, and the digital divide will only grow wider,” said Jeannine Kenney, Consumers Union policy analyst.
The McCain/Lautenberg and Sessions bills come at a time when various states are acting on their own bills, some for municipal broadband, some against.
In Maine, the governor recently signed a bill that would allow municipalities to offer telecommunications. Bell and cable operators fared better in Florida and Nebraska, where bills banning municipal telecommunications were passed.
In Florida, Republican Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law legislation requiring local governments to approach incumbent telecom and cable companies before pursuing large-scale Wi-Fi deployments like those planned by Philadelphia; San Francisco; Corpus Christi, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; Spokane, Wash.; and many smaller communities. The Florida legislation is similar to a Pennsylvania law that went into effect soon after Philadelphia announced its plans to build a municipal Wi-Fi system. The law allowed Philadelphia’s project to go forward, but other Quaker state communities will have to wait for established players to offer broadband before considering municipal systems.
Sessions introduced his bill days before the Texas legislature ended its session last month without agreeing to a telephone and cable-backed measure to ban municipal-broadband networks.
The Sessions bill, which has been referred to the House Commerce Committee, would not impact municipal Wi-Fi systems that are already operating.
There also has been judicial activity resulting in a Supreme Court ruling. The high court ruled that a provision of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 forbidding states from barring “any entity” from providing telecom services does not include local governments. At the same time, the Supreme Court decision did not prohibit municipalities from providing Wi-Fi and other broadband services, but rather gave states the last word on the matter.
Though apparently not as active as wireline and cable operators in the states, mobile-phone carriers-several owned by regional Bell operating companies-also oppose cities treading on their turf. They argue municipalities are ill equipped to offer broadband service and actually could hinder uptake of high-speed Internet access in communities if citizens have unpleasant experiences with municipal Wi-Fi service or other telecom offerings.
