Local public broadband networks continue to get more attention in Washington. On June 10th Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote a blog post “Removing Barriers to Competitive Community Broadband.” As the title suggests, many communities today are prevented from building network like those in Chattanooga, TN, and Wilson, NC. Twenty states have passed laws that ban or place restrictions on local governments’ ability to build or own their communities’ broadband networks. Chairman Wheeler recognizes this problem and indicates an interest in a stronger FCC role in removing these barriers to broadband investment.
It is a positive development to have leaders in Washington recognize the importance of local choice for broadband. The Open Technology Institute (OTI) is a strong supporter of local public broadband networks and the right for communities to have the choice to build this kind of infrastructure. However, public broadband projects are about more than just competition.
Public broadband projects allow communities to help guide decisions about how, when, and where to invest in a critical resource. Naturally, the needs of each community are different. Local investments in infrastructure allow local officials and community members to work together to consider community needs and the level of resources they have available to meet those needs. The importance of local investments to meet local needs is particularly evident in cases where existing service offerings have proven inadequate. In June 2013, a town council member in Holly Springs, NC, explained that the reason the town was building a network to serve local government offices was because other broadband options available were “less than we need and more than we can afford.”
OTI examines in greater detail the topics of local control and local decision making over broadband infrastructure in its recent report “The Art of the Possible: An Overview of Public Broadband Options.” Co-authored with CTC Technology & Energy, the report serves as a primer for local government and community leaders on different approaches to public broadband networks. The report also highlights “benefits beyond the balance sheet,” which include the positive impacts that reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband can have on a community. These benefits include improving efficiencies for local businesses and increasing capacity to ensure, for example, that schools have the necessary bandwidth to support robust digital learning and that health centers have bandwidth to support remote patient monitoring and online consultations with health care professionals. Other benefits can include the ability to integrate public tools such as transportation and energy monitoring into public design, as well as services to increase civic engagement. While these benefits are not always reflected in the standard revenue and expense financial metrics of a network, locally-owned, community broadband networks can account for these kinds of positive externalities in a way that other networks historically do not.
OTI’s recent event “Localism over Consolidation: An Exploration of Public Broadband Options” expanded on this discussion of locally-owned networks and the importance of local choice. Panelists talked about the history of local governments investing in broadband infrastructure, and the challenges they face from harmful state legislation. Will Aycock, manager of the local public Greenlight Community Broadband network in Wilson, NC, shared how the project has benefited his community. Since the network came online in 2008, Wilson’s population has increased, and the network has helped spur economic development by drawing those who want to take advantage of the community’s high-bandwidth infrastructure for their businesses. The Greenlight network has also been an important resource to public sectors, serving local public safety officers, first responders and smart grid applications. Aycock emphasized that local leaders in Wilson view broadband as a critical resource. Local control over that infrastructure allows Wilson to ensure area resources meet local bandwidth needs. Joanne Hovis also underscored the need for local choice in broadband investment decisions, asking, "Who is going to decide the economic destiny of our communities? The elected leadership and people who live in the community? Or a company that is located nine states away?"
Announcements of new, multi-billion dollar mergers between large telecom companies happen seemingly every week, and this consolidation - which increases the distance between local communities and the companies that control the broadband infrastructure - underscores why local decisionmaking and local control over broadband infrastructure is so important. As multiple panelists at the “Localism over Consolidation” event noted, communities that have built their own broadband infrastructure, including Wilson, NC, were unable to find an existing service provider to invest and offer services at a level to meet current and future bandwidth needs. In a time of growing consolidation in the telecom industry, the ability for communities to be able to exercise the right to local choice over broadband investment is more important than ever. While local networks alone do not solve all of the problems that exist in the U.S. broadband market, particularly the need for strong network neutrality protections, the Chairman's commitment to improving community-driven broadband investment opportunities is a welcome step in preserving local choice.
