By Kendra Chamberlain

Over the past year, several promising developments have been made on the municipal broadband front.

Two states were successful in repealing their municipal broadband bans, bringing our tally down to 22 states from 25 states identified in our 2019 report. Those law changes are significant, and may portend similar measures being considered across states in the coming years.

This report is the latest in our annual series looking into the state of municipal broadband in America, and provides a state-by-state breakdown of the various roadblocks and restrictions used to prevent their establishment. This year, we’ve also compared access to low-price broadband in states that have no municipal restrictions versus those that do, and we’ve found that the former have lower internet prices on average.

State legislatures around the country considered a wave of broadband-focused bills in 2019. That signals not only the importance of addressing broadband access gaps for state lawmakers, but also a growing acknowledgment among state and local governments that they have a larger role to play in ensuring all residents have access to the high-speed internet.

Many other states created new broadband task forces and broadband divisions in state offices during the last year, for example, to better understand and address gaps in service and quality within states; and a handful of states enacted into law legislation that makes it easier for electric cooperatives to offer broadband service in unserved areas. These developments are encouraging, and would seem to indicate an increasing appetite among state and local leaders to tackle the digital divide.

Key Findings 22 states now have substantive roadblocks to establishing municipal networks to residents, down from last year’s 25. Arkansas, California and Connecticut now permit such networks in full.

Residents in states with no roadblocks or restrictions in place against municipal broadband have, on average, 10% greater access to low-price broadband (which we classify as any standalone internet plan $60 per month or less).

States with the most types of restrictions in place include Alabama, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Seven states have established councils and task forces dedicated to broadband proliferation over the past year.

Municipal broadband access is a predictor of low-priced broadband availability There are currently 331 municipal networks in operation today in the U.S. We reviewed every state that has roadblocks preventing the establishment of municipal networks and compared them to states that do not have such restrictions in place. What we found was that states without restrictions enjoyed higher access to low-priced broadband plans on average. Low-priced access data was taken from active internet plans in our database as of Q2 2020. Note: We define a low-priced plan as a standalone internet plan of $60 per month or less. Plan pricing is based on the regular monthly rate offered. Promotional rates are only considered if that is the only advertised price publicly available. Low-priced plan coverage is based on what providers have reported on their most recent FCC Form 477 submission at the census block level. If a provider has indicated that they have coverage in a given census block, we assume that all of the provider’s national plans are also available in that block, as well as any regional plans serving those blocks. Has Roadblocks? Total Population Pop/ with access to $60 Wired Broadband % of Pop. with access to $60 Wired Broadband No 159,861,426 87,602,192 55% Yes 148,808,140 66,417,005 45%

Methodology There are a variety of mechanisms and restrictions that state lawmakers use to make municipal broadband projects difficult to initiate, costly to build, and commercially unviable. Common tactics include forcing phantom costs into municipal broadband service rates that make them less competitive; restricting the expansion of public broadband networks that make it virtually impossible to generate enough revenue to keep afloat; limiting public funds for broadband to public-private partnerships; or forcing municipalities to sell broadband under a wholesale-only model. Anti-municipal broadband state laws fall into these categories:

Bureaucratic barriers to municipal broadband These barriers vary from state to state. Some bureaucratic barriers we considered include compliance with vague legal requirements, refraining from using specific financing mechanisms and pricing mechanisms, proposal-stage barriers, phantom cost requirements, and additional tax burdens imposed on community-owned broadband networks. Michigan

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

Utah

Wisconsin

Montana

Competition barriers There are a variety of ways that state laws seek to limit any possible competition between ISPs and municipal broadband networks. These state laws prevent municipalities from offering broadband service to residents if there is one commercial provider already offering service — or willing to begin offering service — in the jurisdiction. These requirements are considered roadblocks to municipal broadband because communities can be considered “served” if any provider is present, regardless of what kind of Internet service is being offered. Rural communities are often left with very expensive fixed wireless or satellite services with low data caps, poor reliability, and slow speeds, and are unable to pursue municipal broadband because the community is considered “served.” Another common barrier for municipal broadband is pricing. Some state laws mandate that any municipal broadband service must match prices with those of an incumbent ISP, thereby removing the opportunity for the municipal broadband network to introduce more competition into the local market. Some laws require any municipal broadband system to be self-sustaining, limiting local authority to bundle services like voice and data, which is a common industry practice. Alabama

Colorado

Connecticut

Oregon

Virginia

Pennsylvania

Minnesota

Montana

Michigan

Wyoming

Direct sale prohibitions on municipal broadband These laws act to prohibit local governments from offering broadband service directly to residents. Missouri and Nebraska bar it outright, while in the cases of Pennsylvania and Texas, municipalities are barred from providing broadband service to residents unless no such services are provided by private telecom companies. Pennsylvania

Missouri

Nebraska

Texas

Washington

Prohibitive referendum requirements on municipal broadband Referendum requirements are used to constrain community-owned broadband network projects in a number of states. Referendum votes tend to inhibit municipal broadband projects in a number of ways: holding a referendum vote can itself be a challenge, and holding a vote enables incumbent ISPs — and in some cases neighboring ISPs — to spend lots of money in astro-turf campaigns against community broadband. Colorado

Alabama

Minnesota

Louisiana

Population caps on service areas for municipal broadband networks Nevada is the only state that uses this mechanism to constrain municipal broadband. Population caps such as Nevada’s can lead to situations in which portions of urban or suburban areas — often low income — are without adequate service because private telecom companies are unwilling to expand service, but the size of the population prevents a municipal entity from providing service instead. Nevada

Funding barriers Funding barriers refer to state laws that prevent municipalities from using bonds or other funding mechanisms to support municipal broadband projects, even when those funding mechanisms are available for other public infrastructure projects. There are also several states with laws on the books that prevent communities from benefiting from publicly-owned broadband network expansion and funding opportunities if they are “served,” meaning there is at least one ISP offering service. While these limitations do not outright bar municipal governments from offering broadband networks, they make it incredibly difficult for rural governments to fill gaps in broadband availability within their communities by excluding them from financial support. This issue is especially problematic in low-income rural areas, such as Wheeler County, Oregon, where residents are “served” with ISPs offering low speeds at extremely high prices, with poor network reliability. Alabama

North Carolina

Oregon

Virginia

Utah

Wyoming

Excessive taxes on municipal broadband services Imposing taxes is another mechanism used to constrain community broadband networks. Florida state laws, for example, impose “ad valorem” taxes on municipal broadband networks, but does not impose such taxes on other public utilities or services sold to the public. Broadband infrastructure deployments are capital-intensive endeavors, and imposing more financial burdens onto entities trying to provide broadband service tends to make such initiatives unfeasible. Florida

Are you a journalist or researcher writing about this topic? Send us a question and we'll connect you with a broadband market expert on our team who can provide insights and data to support your work. Submit Question

Municipal broadband victories We have removed two states from our list, due to recent developments in their respective legislatures: Arkansas As we reported in our last municipal broadband report, in early 2019, the Arkansas Republican Women’s Legislative Caucus announced a legislative agenda that included repealing the state laws on municipal broadband in order to enable local authorities to partner with private telecom companies in order to deliver broadband services to residents. Legislation to reverse Arkansas’s ban on municipal broadband was unanimously passed by the state lawmakers, and Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed the bill into law. Therefore, we have removed Arkansas from our list. Connecticut Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) made a ruling in 2018 barring municipalities from using reserved space on utility poles to build fiber networks for offering broadband to residents. Municipal governments in Connecticut legally have access to reserved space on utility poles, referred to as “municipal gain”, which has been on the law books in Connecticut since 1905. A 2013 amendment further clarified the language of the law, stating that municipal governments can use the utility pole space for “any use.” Because laying fiber underground is such a costly, time consuming and disruptive process, utility poles are an economically feasible solution for deploying fiber that private companies have been using for years. The PURA ruling makes it that much more difficult for municipalities across the state to build public broadband infrastructure efficiently and effectively. The Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, and officials from the cities of New Haven, Manchester and West Hartford joined in filing suit asking a judge to reverse the ruling. In November 2019, a Connecticut judge ruled that municipalities have the right to use utility poles within their borders to build out broadband internet networks to provide service to residents and businesses. Therefore, we have removed the state from our list.

States establishing broadband task forces and offices A number of states have established task forces and offices focused on broadband access within the state in recent years. Idaho: In May 2019, Idaho Gov. Brad Little created the Idaho Broadband Task Force, and in January 2020 Little announced he would establish a State Broadband Office. Louisiana: Louisiana’s state legislature passed a bill in 2019 creating a task force on access to broadband to study the current impediments to rural access to broadband service and to devise solutions to achieve statewide access to broadband high-speed internet service. Minnesota: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed an executive order in 2019 to extend the Governor’s Task Force on Broadband to research, recommend, and promote state broadband policy, planning, and initiatives related to broadband access. North Carolina: North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed an executive order in 2019 establishing the Broadband Task Force, which will track broadband access and availability in the state. Oregon: Oregon’s state legislature passed in 2019 expanding the state’s Broadband Advisory Council and creating a new State Broadband Office within the Business Development Department. Texas: Texas’ state legislature created in 2019 the Governor’s Broadband Development Council, which will look at broadband availability in the state Washington: Washington’s state legislature passed a bill in 2019 creating the Governor’s Statewide Broadband Office, focused on improving broadband in the state.

States with roadblocks The following states have at least one significant roadblock in place preventing municipalities from establishing broadband service to their residents, as defined above.

Alabama Alabama Code § 11-50B-1 et seq Alabama state laws allow municipal governments to provide broadband services to residents, but they impose a suite of restrictions and conditions that make it decidedly difficult for municipalities to do so. The statutes require municipal governments to conduct a referendum before providing services to residents. Municipalities are barred from using local funds or local taxes to cover the initial investments required in building out broadband infrastructure. The laws require any municipal broadband system to be self-sustaining, limiting local authority to bundle services like voice and data, which is a common industry practice; and finally the law bars municipalities from providing broadband services to residents beyond their jurisdiction. City officials of Opelika, Alabama, have struggled to maintain the city’s municipal broadband network under these conditions. Opelika’s public utility, Opelika Power Services, began building out its municipal broadband network in 2010, despite aggressive campaigns launched by telecom firms against the initiative. The OPS ONE network was completed by 2014, serving residents within the city limits of Opelika. After three attempts to change the state law to expand the network to nearby Auburn failed, the city announced in 2018 it would sell its municipally-owned OPS ONE broadband network to a Georgia-based telecom company Point Broadband in a $14 million deal. Under the deal, Point Broadband is sharing revenue earned from the network with the city government. Recognizing the lack of broadband in rural areas, the Alabama legislature has hoped to bring more private ISPs to the state using taxpayer-funded grants administered through the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). In 2019, Gov. Kay Ivey signed SB90, a bipartisan bill that expanded the definition of “minimum service threshold” in the Alabama Broadband Accessibility Act to mean 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream, and tweaked the definition of “unserved” to include areas that lack broadband service at the new minimum service threshold throughout the area. The bill also increased the taxpayer’s share of the costs of broadband projects through the grant program from 20% to 50%. So far, most of the grant awardees have been smaller local and regional telecom firms and cooperatives. But two major ISPs, Charter Communications and Mediacom, challenged at least 14 of the applications for the 2019 round of funding.

Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-27-201 et seq Colorado state law allows municipal governments to offer broadband services to residents, but requires the city to hold a referendum before doing so. If there are no private companies offering broadband service, then municipalities may proceed without the referendum. But the law also includes a right of first refusal, which allows any private telecom company to take over any grants held by local co-operatives or public entities for provisioning such services. In 2017, the right of first refusal played out for a community near Ridgeway, Colorado. The company aimed to provide fiber Internet network infrastructure near Ridgway and won grant money from the state to complete the project. CenturyLink was able to take over the grant using the right of first refusal, and used state money to build out a DSL network instead of the fiber network. During the 2018 legislative session, bill HB 1099 was introduced to impose conditions on the right of first refusal. The bill was signed into law in April 2018, and under the new rules, an incumbent provider must match the speed and price of the proposed network the new company is offering in order to take over the contract. To date, 92 municipalities across Colorado have opted out of the state rules established that prevent municipalities to provide Internet to residents. To date, only one city in Colorado — Longmont — has built its own broadband network, but in January 2018, the City Council of Fort Collins, Colorado, approved plans to construct a broadband network.

Florida Florida Statutes §§ 125.421 . 166.047 , 196.012, 199.183 and 212.08 ; § 350.81 Florida state laws impose “ad valorem” taxes on municipal broadband networks, but does not impose such taxes on other public utilities or services sold to the public. The state laws generally subject municipalities to restrictions on capital-intensive initiatives that make broadband projects difficult to begin. The statutes require municipalities to hold at least two public hearings, during which local officials must offer a roadmap to profitability within four years — making nearly any municipal broadband proposal unfeasible. Under these conditions, only two municipalities have successfully deployed broadband services to residents. The city government of Ocala, Florida has been operating a broadband network since the early 2000s; and Bartow, Florida, has owned and operated its own fiber network for years. The city government of Lakeland is now also considering building out its own fiber network.

Iowa Iowa Code § 388.10 There are no statutes that specifically bar municipalities from offering broadband services to residents, but the state laws do require that all new public utilities must be approved by voter referendum of 51%. If the referendum fails, the municipality cannot hold another referendum vote on the same proposal or a similar proposal for at least four years. If a municipality wishes to use bonds to finance a public broadband network, the measure needs to obtain 60% approval in a referendum. Municipalities are also prevented from using general fund moneys to support a broadband network, and must complete a detailed annual audit, subject to open meeting requirements — meaning that aspects of the audit which might contain commercially sensitive information must be made public. In 1999, Iowa lawmakers adopted changes to Chapter 63 of the Iowa Acts, enabling municipalities to build and operate public broadband networks to provide service to residents. But telecom lobbying groups pushed through two bills in 2004 that placed new restrictions on municipalities operating broadband networks, including requiring lengthy annual audits, and removing the open meetings exclusion. In late 2019, the City Council of Waterloo, Iowa, allocated funds to complete a feasibility study on developing a municipal broadband network.

Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §45:844.50. Referendum Louisiana state laws require municipalities to hold a referendum before providing broadband services to residents. If the referendum fails to garner enough public support, municipalities may proceed with building out a broadband network, but only if they agree to forgo franchise fees paid by private telecom companies for 10 years. The law also requires municipalities to bake phantom costs into their service rates. To date, Lafayette is the only city in Louisiana that’s been able to successfully launched a FTTH broadband network. The network, which offers triple-play services, has been generating profit since 2012, and begun expanding beyond the city limits in 2015.

Minnesota Minn. Stat. Ann. § 237.19 ; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 429.021 Minnesota state laws require municipal governments proposing to offer broadband services to residents to obtain a referendum “supermajority” of 65% of voters to proceed. Municipal governments are able to construct, extend, improve and maintain facilities for Internet access only if the city council finds that proposed broadband network and service will not compete with existing services provided by private telecom companies, or if such services are not and will not be available through private telecom companies in the foreseeable future.

Missouri Missouri Revised Statutes § 392.410(7) Missouri state law outright bars municipalities from selling or leasing broadband services to residents. It also bars municipal governments from leasing broadband infrastructure to other communications providers. Municipalities may offer broadband service for use in internal government services, educational and emergency and healthcare scenarios, but are only able to offer “Internet-type services” to residents.

Montana Mon. Code Ann. § 2-17-603 Montana state laws only allow municipalities to offer broadband services if there are no other private companies offering broadband within the municipality’s jurisdiction, or if the municipality can offer “advanced services” that are not available from incumbents. For municipalities that are currently offering broadband service, local authorities must alert their subscribers if a private company decides to enter the market. The law also states that the municipality “may chose” to discontinue their own service within 180 days of the arrival of a private company, though it’s unclear whether the municipality must discontinue service. Montana’s mostly rural landscape and lack of connectivity means that these rules effectively only come into play in urban areas where private telecom companies are operating. And yet, there are no municipal broadband services available in Montana, save for a “community fiber network,” in Bozeman.

Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 484.2252 Michigan state law allows public entities to provide broadband services, but only if the public entity has first sought bids in the form of a request for proposal (RFP) on the project from private companies, and has only received less than three “qualified” bids.The public entity must also adhere to the same terms and conditions that private companies would need to meet as specified in the request for proposals. But doing so effectively eliminates some of the benefits that building a public network can offer residents. Still, at least one community is working on a municipal broadband network. Traverse City’s City Light and Power board approved last summer financing for the first phase of a municipal fiber buildout. The board approved $3.5 million to serve the community’s first 2,200 customers. The total project is expected to cost $16 million.

Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 86-575 ; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 86-594 Nebraska state laws bars any public entities from providing retail or wholesale broadband services. Public utilities are barred from offering retail broadband services to residents, but may sell or lease broadband infrastructure on a wholesale basis, and only under very limited conditions. Public utilities are also barred from selling or leasing broadband networks at rates that are lower than current incumbents are charging. Local governments may be able to work around the wording of the law to help increase access to broadband to residents. In Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, the city was able to build a public conduit for broadband infrastructure that helped to pave the way for private telecom companies to deploy fiber services to residents. In 2017, the city was dubbed a “Smart Gigabit City,” from tech nonprofit U.S. Ignite Inc, thanks in part to its conduit investment. After previous attempts to pass legislation that would remove Nebraska’s municipal broadband ban, Sen. Lynne Walz (D) introduced new legislation in 2019 that would enable municipal governments to lease dark fiber access to public-private partnerships to increase broadband access throughout the state. The bill has not gained traction in the legislature.

Nevada Nevada Statute § 268.086 ; Nevada Statute § 710.147 Nevada state laws prohibit municipalities and counties from providing telecommunications services if the municipality has a population of 25,000 or more; or a county has a population of 50,000 or more. Population caps such as Nevada’s can lead to situations in which portions of urban or suburban areas — often low income — are without adequate service because private telecom companies are unwilling to expand service. Smaller municipalities and rural co-ops have taken to building out public fiber networks across the state. In 2016, county-owned Churchill County Communications (CC Communications) and the Valley Communications Association of Pahrump (VCA) partnered with tech firm Switch to build out middle mile fiber-optic backbone along U.S. Highway 95.

North Carolina NC Statutes Chapter 160A, Article 16A North Carolina’s state laws place a number of requisites on municipal broadband initiatives that make it exceedingly difficult for public entities to deploy broadband services to residents. Those requirements include compliance with vague legal requirements and refraining from using specific financing mechanisms and pricing mechanisms. The law also forces public entities to bake so-called “phantom costs” into their rates, and requires public entities to make commercially-sensitive data available to private industry competitors.The state law also prohibits local authorities from offering broadband services beyond their jurisdictions. Some existing publicly-owned broadband networks have been grandfathered in without these requirements. But the laws make it nearly impossible for municipalities to build out new broadband networks to serve residents. The community of Wilson, North Carolina, has had a public fiber broadband network in place since 2008. The project’s success has spurred neighboring communities such as Pinetops to request Wilson expand its service to their residents. The issue made North Carolina part of an interesting FCC ruling in 2015. Officials in Wilson decided to challenge some of the state’s rules by appealing to the FCC, along with Chattanooga, Tennessee. In turn, the FCC (under Tom Wheeler) attempted to overrule certain aspects of state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee to make municipal broadband more feasible in those states. However, an appellate court reversal determined that the FCC had no jurisdiction to preempt state law over these types of bureaucratic obstacles to municipal broadband. Legislators erected further roadblocks to municipal broadband in the state with a piece of legislation that targeted Wilson and its broadband network specifically. Lawmakers successfully amended the state law to include provisions that would allow Wilson to serve residents outside its jurisdiction on a temporary basis, and would require Wilson and other municipalities to shut down their broadband networks if a private company enters the market. Since then, at least one private company — Suddenlink — entered the market, forcing Wilson to shut down its 1 Gbps fiber broadband service to residents in Pinetops. The top speed Suddenlink was willing to offer in that area? 50 Mbps. In 2019, Rep. Josh Dobsons (R) introduced a bill that would allow municipal governments to build their own broadband networks, so long private ISPs could lease the networks to provide service to residents. The bill, which was opposed by nearly all the telecom firms in the state, ultimately stalled in committee. But Gov. Roy Cooper did sign legislation allowing electric cooperatives to form partnerships with ISPs for deploying broadband in unserved areas.

Oregon ORS 276A.406 Oregon state law doesn’t outright prohibit municipal governments from offering broadband services to residents. But Oregon state IT official Alex Petit found himself in the cross hairs of the telecom industry when he and Gov. Kate Brown (D) promoted the idea of government and state’s research universities partnering to purchase 2,300 miles of fiber optic cable, in hopes of building out a fiber network throughout the state. Telecom industry affiliates balked at the idea that rural Oregon was lacking access to high speed Internet and needed government intervention. Ultimately, state lawmakers passed HB 4023 during the 2018 legislative session, which enables the state CIO to provide broadband services to public entities and underserved communities only.

Pennsylvania 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3014(h) Pennsylvania state law prohibits municipalities from providing broadband service to residents for a fee, unless no such services are provided by private telecom companies and no private telecom companies are willing to provide such services within 14 months of being requested to do so. The law further stipulates that data speed should be the only consideration in determining whether private industry is serving residents — excluding crucial aspects of retail broadband service such as pricing, coverage areas, and quality of service. In 2004, the state public utility statutes were amended to include broadband service regulations. At the time, Philadelphia became one of the first cities to announce the intent to build and operate a fiber broadband network and offer broadband service to residents. Under the Wireless Philadelphia initiative, the city released a request for proposals (RFP) for private ISPs to help build out the broadband infrastructure and offer retail services to residents. Telecom providers Verizon and Comcast — neither of which had bid on the project — led a PR campaign against the project, while local politicians sought to cap the city’s involvement in the project. State lawmakers, meanwhile, passed HB 30, a bill that forced municipalities to ask private companies to provide service before building out public broadband networks. The city of Philadelphia sold off the Wireless Philadelphia project to Earthlink in 2005, but in 2010, the city bought the assets back, in order to use the broadband network for government work only. In 2019, the state legislature considered a variety of measures aimed at addressing broadband access gaps in the state, but none made it into law.

South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 58-9-2600 et seq. South Carolina’s laws are similar to North Carolina’s on the issue of municipal broadband. The state laws impose restrictions and procedural requirements on municipal broadband projects that are considered unduly burdensome. Those include proposal-stage barriers, phantom cost requirements, and additional tax burdens. The language of the law is so vaguely worded, experts say, that they would open up any such project to a range of disagreements and challenges by incumbent telecom providers. A canary in the coal mine: In 2010, the Oconee county government received a $9.6 million federal grant, matched by $4.7 million in county funds to build fiber network infrastructure in the northwest corner of the state. County officials had hoped to offer broadband service to residents as a public utility. However, a heavy lobbying push from AT&T resulted in the passage of state bill H3508, which limits local governments’ ability to offer retail broadband services to residents. Instead, public entities may operate broadband networks solely as a wholesale supplier. That means the government can only lease its infrastructure to private companies that can then offer broadband service to residents. As a result, Oconee County officials were forced to re-think their business model mid-way through its construction. As a wholesale model, the project was unable to generate the needed revenue, and the county entered into a lease-to-own agreement with OneTone to take over the network over a period of 20 years for a paltry $6.3 million.

Tennessee Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-52-601 et seq ; Tennessee Code Ann. § 7-59-316 Tennessee state laws allow municipalities to operate their own electric utilities to provide broadband, but limits that service provision to within their electric service areas. Public entities must also comply with a number of requirements around public disclosures, hearings and voting — which no private company would need to comply with to offer service. And municipalities with a broadband network may not expand service beyond city limits. For communities without a public utility, municipalities may only offer broadband service in areas that are deemed “historically underserved,” and only through joint ventures with private companies. Despite the laws, Chattanooga, Tennessee is home to one of the greatest municipal broadband success stories: city-owned utility Electric Power Board (EPB) built the first fiber network that delivers 1 Gbps to customers in the US. Chattanooga, along with officials from Wilson, North Carolina, challenged the state’s laws before the FCC, which initially ruled in favor of Chattanooga and sought to preempt the state laws in Tennessee preventing EBP from expanding its service to more residents. That ruling was later overturned by an appellate court. In 2019, the Tennessee General Assembly considered a pair of bills that would allow municipal electric authorities to offer broadband service outside its service area. The bills died in committee.

Texas Texas Utilities Code, § 54.201 Texas state laws bar municipalities from offering specific types of telecommunication services to the public directly or through a private telecom company. The state law does allow some provisions for communities without any private telecom companies presently offering broadband service to residents. However, a few cities in the state have been able to get around these rules. Mont Belvieu, for instance, was able to begin building out a fiber network in 2016 to offer broadband services to residents. The local district court decided that the city of Mont Belvieu had the authority to offer Internet service to residents because the Internet does not fall under the state’s definition of a telecommunication service. In 2019, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law legislation enabling electric cooperatives to offer broadband services to customers, but municipal governments are still barred from providing broadband services to residents.

Utah Utah Code Ann. § 11-14-103(4) ; Utah Code Ann. § 10-18-201 et seq Utah state laws allow municipalities to offer broadband services to residents, but the laws impose many procedural and accounting requirements on local governments that make it exceedingly difficult to deploy a broadband network and offer retail service to residents effectively. Legislation in 2013 added new obstacles to municipal broadband by placing restrictions on the use of municipal bonds to fund broadband projects. Municipalities that are offering wholesale services for publicly-owned broadband infrastructure, however, are exempt from many of these requirements.

Virginia VA Code § 56-265.4:4 ; VA Code § 56-484.7:1 ; VA Code § 15.2-2108.6 ; § 15.2-2403 Virginia state laws allow municipalities to build their own broadband networks and offer retail services to residents, but they must meet a bevy of requirements first. Municipalities may not subsidize services nor are they able to charge rates that are lower than incumbents’ rates for similar service. Municipalities must also include phantom costs in their rates, and comply with procedural, financing and reporting requirements that private companies do not face. The law also limits the type of services municipalities can offer. For example, in order to offer a triple-play service of voice, video and data, municipalities must first conduct a feasibility report that indicates the service would be able to generate annual revenues that would exceed the annual costs of the service within the first year of operation. That’s a tall order for any telecom service, public or private. Some networks are grandfathered past this requirement, as in the city of Bristol, where municipal cable service is available. Other groups, such as the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, the city government of Portsmouth, Virginia, the Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative, the Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority, and the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative are proceeding with public broadband infrastructure projects in spite of the legal hurdles. In 2019, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed into law legislation that enables local governments to contract ISPs to construct broadband networks to help facilitate broadband service reaching the state’s unserved areas. But local governments are only allowed to do so if less than 10% of residents in the area have access to broadband at the time of the project.

Washington Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §54.16.330 Washington state laws allow some municipalities to offer some communications services to residents, but bars public utilities from providing broadband service directly to customers. Instead, public utilities are allowed to sell or lease broadband infrastructure on a wholesale basis only, but such operations are subject to strict conditions. In 2018, state lawmakers passed legislation aimed expanding access to broadband for residents by enabling ports throughout the state to enter into public-private partnerships with private telecom companies to provide broadband to residents. However, amendments to the bill restricted such partnerships to just one telecom provider, thereby ensuring de-facto monopolies for broadband service in some communities. In 2019, state Sen. John McCoy (D) and others introduced legislation that would enable municipal governments to provide broadband services to residents, but limits such projects to areas where no other ISPs are currently operating. The bill stalled in committee last year, and has been reintroduced this year.

Wisconsin Wisconsin Statute Annotated § 66.0422 Wisconsin state laws allow municipalities to own and operate broadband networks, but such networks can only be paid for by subscribers of the service, not the general population. Municipalities are required to conduct feasibility studies and hold public hearings prior to offering service, allowing telecom incumbents ample opportunity to stall broadband projects. Public entities must include phantom costs in their rates and are not able to charge rates that are lower than what incumbents charge for the same service. The state laws also prohibit municipalities from subsidizing telecom services.