On Monday, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., took to Twitter in support of so-called “net neutrality” rules set to be overturned by the FCC this week.

I recently urged Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai to preserve the framework of net neutrality. The upcoming decision should not allow for corporate monopolistic domination, whether internet service provider delivery or content creators. #NetNeutraility — Jeff Fortenberry (@JeffFortenberry) December 11, 2017



While Fortenberry has clearly chosen lazy pandering over doing his homework regarding FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposed Restoring Internet Freedom Order, a quick look into Fortenberry’s record as a member of the City Council of Lincoln, Neb., reveals he bears direct responsibility for the threat of “monopolistic domination” in that city’s Internet Service Provider market.

In short, if you don’t like your choice of ISPs, blame people like Fortenberry.

As this 2013 article, co-authored by TechFreedom President Berin Szoka, explains, “While popular arguments focus on supposed ‘monopolists’ such as big cable companies, it’s government that’s really to blame… it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.” The article goes on to explain how local governments use “rights of way” agreements to both limit competition and extract outsized fees from ISPs — as much as doubling the cost of deploying networks.

So, what does Fortenberry have to do with this? Look no further than Lincoln City Ordinance 11759, for which then-Councilman Fortenberry voted “Aye.”

This ordinance imposes a slew of regulations and hidden taxes on telecommunications companies seeking to access rights of way in Lincoln. Hiding behind a $200 registration fee, the ordinance imposes general liability insurance requirements of at least $2 million, as well as operations, automobile, and workers compensation insurance all in excess of at least $1 million. Potential ISPs are also required to “establish a permanent security fund with the City,” worth up to $50,000. Companies are further required to provide the city with a bond equal to at least 20 percent of the estimated cost of constructing their network, which undoubtedly runs into the millions. This is all in addition to dozens of vague standards and other general construction permits and fees.

Given this litany of expensive hoops to jump through, it should come as no surprise that there are presently a whopping three providers of wired (i.e. cable, fiber, DSL) home Internet service listed as right of way contractors in Lincoln. These are Time Warner Cable, Windstream Nebraska, and Allo Communications. Exploring the Nebraska government’s Broadband Mapping Project reveals that most, if not all, of Lincoln is actually only served by wired-service from Time Warner and Windstream. What’s more, Windstream’s maximum advertised speeds do not qualify under the FCC’s definition of “broadband” Internet service.

Essentially, if residents of Lincoln want broadband Internet, their only option is Time Warner.

Speaking of Time Warner, it is perhaps worth mentioning that on the same day Fortenberry voted with the rest of the Lincoln City Council to pass the regulations in Ordinance 11759, Fortenberry proposed and voted for an extension of Time Warner’s cable franchise with the city (Ordinance 11765). This means Time Warner was able to build out its cable network, capable of delivering television and Internet, prior to the new regulations would-be competitors now face. The present franchise agreement between Time Warner and Lincoln states that the city has and will continue to enjoy a 5 percent gross revenue franchise fee. This is just a wonky way to say the city has long had an incentive to limit Time Warner’s competition.

Without question, monopolistic practices in the ISP market should be curbed. However, the “net neutrality” regulations the FCC is poised to reverse are a distant, much bigger, and uglier cousin of the regulations that stifle competition in places like Lincoln. It is thus shameful for Fortenberry to imply that the current FCC is guilty of aiding “monopolistic domination” in the ISP market, when as a City Council member, Fortenberry repeatedly supported policies enshrining Time Warner’s near-monopoly over Lincoln that persists to this day.

Fortenberry is just one more politician who “preaches” one thing, but “practices” another. So much for practicing what you preach, eh, Congressman Fortenberry?

Patrick Hedger is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is policy director at FreedomWorks Foundation.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.