[NewsPoster]

In his speech today while visiting the Department of Homeland Security, President Barak Obama mentioned he would be speaking this Wednesday in Iowa to discuss "how we can get families faster, cheaper access to the broadband that allows them to successfully compete in this global economy." Citing the failure of for-profit carriers to bring equal coverage to rural parts of the US, the President called for the repeal of laws that forbid locally-created broadband services.

Reinforcing his remarks, the White House has released a report (PDF) about community-based broadband solutions, and the benefits of competition in the providing of internet access on the local level. It includes information about the availability of broadband, defined as a 25 Mbps (megabit per second) connection. While 94 percent of Americans in urban areas have options to purchase access at that speed, only 51 percent of Americans in rural areas have the same options.

The biggest providers have been accused of foot-dragging on providing competitive broadband to areas not deemed sufficiently profitable, while at the same time taking federal subsidies for such programs. In addition, carriers have threatened to suspend what little investment they do make in broadband infrastructure build-outs if the FCC opts to implement Title II regulation, while simultaneously pushing local lawmakers to bar the creation of community-oriented, not-for-profit broadband networks.

"Nearly 40 percent of American households either cannot purchase a fixed 10 Mbps connection (i.e. a wired, land-based connection), or they must buy it from a single provider. Three out of four Americans do not have a choice between providers for Internet at 25 Mbps, the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline to get the full benefits of Internet access," Obama said.

The report goes on to outlines ways communities are helping to improve access to higher Internet speeds, and what could be done at the Federal level to assist. One bullet point calls for repealing laws that "harm broadband service competition." There are such laws in 20 states, some specifically written by special interests according to the report, in attempts to stifle competition. The Republican-led House passed a similar measure a year ago.

"As a first step, the Administration is filing a letter with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging it to join this effort by addressing barriers inhibiting local communities from responding to the broadband needs of their citizens." Current FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has previously indicated support for community-based Internet networks, at one point showcasing the local network built in Chattanooga, Tennessee when commercial providers refused. The carriers consequently persuaded the state legislature to pass a law disallowing any expansion of the municipal network, and forbidding any others from being built. Chattanooga continues to offer cheaper and faster broadband than surrounding competitors.

[nowwhatareyoulookingat]

Sure. The republican party is going to be all over this... They only have a zillion other things they want to deal with first, before doing anything that would score Democrats any points.

[Charles Martin]

I'm not expert enough to know what approach would be used to accomplish this, but likely the FCC would overturn the laws, and the President is just suggesting they do that. Given what we think we know about the proposal Mr. Wheeler will be putting forth, it's possible this could happen. As the occasional beneficiary of a local community broadband network, and with a few friends who live in Chattanooga, I can attest that they are often the best solution for "unprofitable" smaller communities, offering both world-class speed and cheap prices.

[Inkling]

Disgusting Obama, pretending he cares about people. As a young lawyer, he defended Chicago slum lords with rat-infested apartments. Now he's the darling a crony capitalism and wealthy plutocrats. In the last election, the top donors all gave to Democrats. Only at 14th place was one who gave to Republicans.

[prl99]

Of course the Republicans are going to try and get rid of any laws that would help the common person over businesses. Republicans have only given lip service to anything that would help all but the 1%'ers. The ironic thing is that Republicans of today are so far to the right it makes Republicans of even 20 years ago look like moderates or even Democrats of today. As for competition in broadband, my town only offers one broadband service, Comcast. Frontier's "fastest" DSL service is only 6Mbps, which doesn't qualify as broadband. Comcast recently doubled my service speed again but they still cost way too much. The problem with municipal broadband is installing the required infrastructure unless they could buy out Comcast's cabling system and be their own monopoly, just like electricity, gas, water, and garbage services.

[prl99]

@Inkling, I think this had more to do with who Obama was running against, especially the crazy lady from Alaska with a ton of baggage (kids, etc.).

[prl99]

One last comment. Why can't people look past the President and look at what he's asking for? Do you agree with getting rid of the (illegal) restraint of trade laws on the books against municipal broadband installations? Or are you only for big businesses controlling everything, charging whatever they want and controlling our lives through whatever means they want to? There are many laws on the books in areas of this country that make no sense and are only there to protect big business. This is one of them.

[pairof9s]

I'm with prl99...I could care less if the Communist Party introduced this legislation. Maintaining this highly outdated system of single providers (to justify the cost of installing cable into residential areas) is just contradictory to open markets and fair competition. I'm not asking to get rid of my current provider, just the option to choose alternatives.

[MitchIves]

@prI99: You contradict yourself. This President has done more in the areas you're railing against than anyone. Yes, IMO internet service is too expensive. We have two options in my market, and yet it's $65/month for the second tier speeds. Why is a phone $25? I'm not sure what the answer is, and I certainly don't have an issue with community based internet services. In fact, I can see them popping up in areas where there are service providers, simply because it's become too expensive. But I would caution you against blind support for anything the government does, and particularly this administration. And as far as Mr. Wheeler is concerned, I'd be extra cautious...

[Flying Meat]

I'm not sure there's much differentiation between support for a given issue, and "blind support for anything". It's not clear to me that what's said there is much more than a plea to not support anything the government does, which leaves who exactly?
Skepticism is fine in the absence of details of course, but I'm fairly sure many of us are aware of the current situation, and what the proposal would mean. In short, I'm having a hard time showing you my blind support.

[just a poster]

More options for faster, cheaper internet in Des Moines Iowa and Ohio than in Sillycon Valley. Shop around.

Palo Alto's internet growth has been hampered by 20 years of promise from City Hall to provide 100BT to the home. Hasn't happened, but it kept carriers away.

Mountain View, CA's internet growth has been hampered by google's WiFi project... talk about giving the NSA a straight line into all your web communications!

[climacs]

it would be really nice for once if folks could debate a proposal from the president on its merits, without the thread degenerating into a flame war thanks to folks who can't resist bitterly relitigating the outcome of the previous two elections...

[climacs]

it's a valid question whether internet access is equivalent to a utility like gas, water, electricity or landlines that are typically either provided by a government entity or by a private company that is heavily regulated. The current broadband paradigm is just not working for anybody except the executives and shareholders of the ISPs. There is little excuse for the relatively slow and expensive service Americans get, compared to the rest of the industrialized nations especially those in Asia. A broadband connection is now as important to doing business as is water or power.

[Flying Meat]

Can the existence of, or promise of, this or that actual beat down the much vaunted free market? If so, it seems like a pretty weak system to me.

It begs the question, why do other countries kick the U.S.'s butt SO dramatically regarding speed and affordability? Actual companies create and maintain that infrastructure in those cases.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Flying Meat 

Can the existence of, or promise of, this or that actual beat down the much vaunted free market? If so, it seems like a pretty weak system to me.

It begs the question, why do other countries kick the U.S.'s butt SO dramatically regarding speed and affordability? Actual companies create and maintain that infrastructure in those cases.

In Europe there are regulations in place to prevent price gouging of cell service. Here in America you can be charged upwards of $500 for a cell phone bill (as I was). Regulation is a dirty word to many Americans.

[elroth]

Imagine that - In Europe, governments make sensible regulations, companies willingly follow them (and make money doing it), and citizens benefit all around.

How Un-American.

[just a poster]

Originally Posted by Flying Meat 

Can the existence of, or promise of, this or that actual beat down the much vaunted free market? If so, it seems like a pretty weak system to me.

You tell me! It's not like Palo Altans can't afford more expensive internet options and geographically the place is dense enough, certainly denser than many other cities with improved access and choices at lower cost. Why do Des Moines-ians have gigabit internet for $100/mo and Ohio farmers have access to 45Mbps FiOS for $50/mon while the heart of Sillycon Valley has a single carrier and DSL is limited to 1.5Mbps in most locations around town because of distance from station?