Colorado Voters Continue To Opt Out Of State's Protectionist, ISP-Written Broadband Law

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

For years we’ve discussed how ISPs like Comcast have spent millions of dollars quite literally buying shitty, protectionist laws in 21 states. Said laws either ban or significantly hamstring towns and cities from building their own broadband networks, or in some cases from even engaging in public/private partnerships. It’s a scenario where ISPs get to have their cake and eat it too; they often refuse to upgrade their networks in under-served areas (particularly true among telcos offering DSL), but also get to write shitty laws preventing these under-served towns from doing anything about it.

This dance of dysfunction has been particularly interesting in Colorado, however. While lobbyists for Comcast and CenturyLink managed to convince state leaders to pass such a law (SB 152) in 2005, the legislation contains a provision that lets individual Colorado towns and cities ignore the measure with a simple referendum, something telecom lobbyists have certainly come to regret. Not surprisingly, with frustration mounting over sub-standard broadband and awful customer service, more than a hundred Colorado cities have voted to exempt themselves from the state law over the last few years.

That happened again during the recent midterm elections, when eighteen additional communities voted to opt out of the restrictive, protectionist law. According to the Institute For Local Self Reliance (which helps communities help themselves to improve local connectivity) the votes weren’t even close in most of these towns and cities, with voter approval rates like 73%, 80%, and 90%. With this week’s votes, the group notes that more than 60% of Colorado communities have taken back their rights to make their own decisions on infrastructure for themselves:

“Within Colorado?s 64 counties, a total of 40 have brought the opt out question to their voters; all referendums passed. Now, 62.5 percent of counties in the state are free of SB 152, leaving only 37.5 percent or 24 counties subject to the harmful law.”

The stark voter approval again highlights how issues like better broadband and net neutrality aren’t actually partisan in the real world. ISP policy folks just like to pretend otherwise to sow division, hamstring consent, and stall meaningful reform. In reality, most everybody wants cheaper, better broadband. And some basic oversight preventing telecom monopolies from abusing their power to harm consumers and competitors. And the right to declare, via democratic vote, that you’d like your town or city to explore alternative options when the private market fails.

People are constantly looking for a place to begin when addressing the nation’s broadband dysfunction, and the 21 states ISPs conned into eroding local citizen rights are a wonderful place to start. The ISLR maintains a handy map that highlights precisely which states have passed such laws at ISP lobbyist behest. While municipal broadband shouldn’t be seen as a panacea, letting communities explore public or public/private networks as alternatives to a broken status quo is an organic way to apply a lit bit of pressure on an industry that all-too-frequently finds real competition to be an entirely alien affair.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Colorado Voters Continue To Opt Out Of State's Protectionist, ISP-Written Broadband Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
18 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Well, only one thing to do really...

Pass an ‘amendment’ to the original law, ‘clarifying’ that communities are not in fact allowed to opt out of the state-wide protectionist law. I mean really, companies like Comcast clearly know what’s best for those communities, and as such they’re only trying to save them from themselves with laws ensuring that only the major companies are allowed to offer service(theoretically, at some point in the future).

As more and more communities opt out I expect that the major ISP’s will get more and more desperate to shut the process down, as if one state does it then it would be all too easy for other states to follow suit, and we just can’t have that now can we?

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Well, only one thing to do really...

"…as if one state does it then it would be all too easy for other states to follow suit, and we just can’t have that now can we?"

While I understand your post was tongue in cheek I think we must most emphatically emphasize that we can, they can’t, with they being the ISP monopolies and we being everybody else who isn’t an investor in those ISP monopolies (or someone the ISP monopolies invest in, like politicians).

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Well, only one thing to do really...

Over the many years Iv watched the states DO THINGS..
They have 1 corner stone..
“If we F’ed up, we can always change it back”, Which is REALLY a bad way to think/do things..
We would get punished if we Messed up this way..
“I can do this until I get Caught.” is not a great idea for those not in control..

Oops I got caught…is not a solution..We need to look and solve the problems BEFORE they happen. not change our minds after the fact.(esp when we already have the Facts)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Well, only one thing to do really...

The logic usually goes “if we mess this up we can always change it back” later to be followed by “we can’t change back! We’ve already got other agreements that depend on that and we NEED those agreements!”

An interesting one happened in Canada a few years back where the Federal government wanted to move to a federal sales tax; some areas said “over my dead body” — then a politician got elected on the “over my dead body” platform and it turned out they’d been secretly working in the background to implement the tax. The province got a MASSIVE number of signatures required to kill the legislation, and it got dropped, despite politicians doing the “but we CAN’T change it back now!”

Just leave that as a reminder that there is no such thing as “too big/intertwined to fail.” The people in a democracy can always call a vote of non confidence and rescind a law or politician, if they want to badly enough.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Well, only one thing to do really...

The people in a democracy can always call a vote of non confidence and rescind a law or politician, if they want to badly enough.

Only if there’s a mechanism to do so. I think that’s a feature of the parliamentary system. In the US, at the federal level there is no provision to recall officials. Some states have such laws and some do not, and there is a lack of clarity on whether a state can pass a law allowing its citizens to recall their members of Congress.

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_recall

Similarly, there is no national ballot initiative system. Some states have them for state issues and some do not.

JohnnyRotten (profile) says:

Re: Well, only one thing to do really...

Colorado is a home rule state as per its constitution, so municipalities designated as “home rule municipality” (about 100 of em) has wide local powers delegated to it.

Also, our state assembly bill process is designed to slow roll changes in such a way that it can’t be “slipped” it under the table or quickly.

TL;DNR – State assembly can’t pass a law overriding this for the home rule cities, and our assembly system is built to avoid allowing crap bills through (at least quickly).

Anonymous Coward says:

The got two things right

They had the common sense to legalize weed, any coincidence that they are now voting out the broadband monopolies?

I meant that in a snarky kind of way, but really if you think about it, they are really one and the same. The State is forward/progressive/liberal enough (BYOL, bring your own label) to allow individuals the ability to choose what they feel is best for themselves. That is the kind of politics I like; when the government gets out of way.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The got two things right

The Colorado government needs to step up and provide cellular communications as well. Made even worse by the hilly terrain, most of the state has no cellphone service.

Perhaps by land area, but the vast majority of people living in the state have cell service. Personally I don’t think that would be a good use of public funds. If you want cellular service, then live somewhere where there’s cellular service. If you want to live somewhere remote and mountainous, understand that that decision has consequences. Ensuring everyone or nearly everyone has access to landline phone and broadband is great, but I don’t think a statewide cellular initiative is necessary or warranted.

Probitas says:

Free Market is not We Say So

No one is obligated to do business with a company, and if the public votes to seek an alternative the company has no recourse but to either address common complaints or watch as their ‘trapped’ customers free themselves.

The way I see it, no company should legally be allowed to force anyone into having no alternatives to doing business with them, that is not how the free market is meant to function. That is how a feudal economy works. And Comcast et. al. are not kings, and neither is Trump, no matter how much they bluster.

SysOp says:

Re: Free Market is not We Say So

“No one is obligated to do business with a company, and if the public votes to seek an alternative the company has no recourse but to either address common complaints or watch as their ‘trapped’ customers free themselves.

The way I see it, no company should legally be allowed to force anyone into having no alternatives to doing business with them, that is not how the free market is meant to function. That is how a feudal economy works. And Comcast et. al. are not kings, and neither is Trump, no matter how much they bluster.”

Exactly how I feel about allowing the government to force me to pay for municipal ISP.

Do not take away my rights to choose, DO NOT force me to pay for municipal ISP!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...