{ "id": "R44080", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44080", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 586974, "date": "2017-03-06", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:46:02.521659", "title": "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate", "summary": "Since the late 1990s, broadband Internet service has been deployed in the United States, primarily by private sector providers. While broadband deployment has been rapid and robust overall, there remain communities that are dissatisfied with their broadband service. Some of these communities have turned to public entities as possible broadband providers, with the expectation that municipal broadband networks (also referred to as \u201ccommunity broadband\u201d) can deliver superior levels of speed, performance, and/or affordability than what is currently offered by private providers. Public entities that provide broadband service can be local governments or public utilities, for example, and may construct and manage broadband networks either solely or in partnership with private companies. There are a number of municipal broadband models that have been implemented across the nation. Since each community is different and each faces unique challenges, there is no one size that fits all.\nMunicipal broadband is controversial, because it involves governmental entities entering a commercial telecommunications marketplace that had previously been the exclusive domain of private sector providers. Supporters of municipal broadband argue that in view of substandard broadband service, communities and local governments should be able to provide this service to meet their citizens\u2019 needs and to support the community\u2019s economic development. Municipal broadband opponents argue that public entities are ill-equipped to efficiently develop, operate, and maintain commercial broadband networks, and that municipally owned and supported broadband networks constitute unfair competition to private sector providers, which may ultimately impede private investment in broadband infrastructure.\nWith under 500 municipalities across the nation embarking on some form of municipal broadband, 20 states have passed laws placing restrictions (or in some cases, bans) on local broadband networks. The issue for Congress is whether municipal broadband should be promoted or discouraged, and more specifically, whether those state restrictions on municipal broadband should be overridden or affirmed. \nOn March 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers in Wilson, NC, and Chattanooga, TN, to preempt state laws in their respective states that restricted the expansion of community broadband services. The Order and the decision by the FCC to rely on Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act for its authority remain controversial. Both states filed petitions for review consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Cincinnati, challenging the FCC\u2019s authority to preempt these restrictions. The court, in an August 10, 2016, decision, reversed the FCC\u2019s Order. \nFour bills (S. 240, S. 597, H.R. 1106, and H.R. 6013) were introduced and one draft measure was released in the 114th Congress addressing the municipal broadband debate, but none of these measures were enacted. The role of municipal broadband and the appropriate role of the states and the FCC to address the relationship between the public and private sector is just one facet in the overall debate regarding broadband deployment. Whether municipal broadband should be encouraged or restricted is one of the many policies that Congress continues to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44080", "sha1": "6613b0e8aaa65bc4a66df2f55c0a932723dbf4c2", "filename": "files/20170306_R44080_6613b0e8aaa65bc4a66df2f55c0a932723dbf4c2.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44080", "sha1": "bd03eb05416e84104cab48dbdb6f37c1bc95d39c", "filename": "files/20170306_R44080_bd03eb05416e84104cab48dbdb6f37c1bc95d39c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455027, "date": "2016-08-10", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:47:30.449913", "title": "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate", "summary": "Since the late 1990s, broadband Internet service has been deployed in the United States, primarily by private sector providers. While broadband deployment has been rapid and robust overall, there remain communities that are dissatisfied with their broadband service. Some of these communities have turned to public entities as possible broadband providers, with the expectation that municipal broadband networks (also referred to as \u201ccommunity broadband\u201d) can deliver superior levels of speed, performance, and/or affordability than what is currently offered by private providers. Public entities that provide broadband service can be local governments or public utilities, for example, and may construct and manage broadband networks either solely or in partnership with private companies. There are a number of municipal broadband models that have been implemented across the nation. Since each community is different and each faces unique challenges, there is no one size that fits all.\nMunicipal broadband is controversial, because it involves governmental entities entering a commercial telecommunications marketplace that had previously been the exclusive domain of private sector providers. Supporters of municipal broadband argue that in view of substandard broadband service, communities and local governments should be able to provide this service to meet their citizens\u2019 needs and to support the community\u2019s economic development. Municipal broadband opponents argue that public entities are ill-equipped to efficiently develop, operate, and maintain commercial broadband networks, and that municipally owned and supported broadband networks constitute unfair competition to private sector providers, which may ultimately impede private investment in broadband infrastructure.\nWith under 500 municipalities across the nation embarking on some form of municipal broadband, 20 states have passed laws placing restrictions (or in some cases, bans) on local broadband networks. The issue for Congress is whether municipal broadband should be promoted or discouraged, and more specifically, whether those state restrictions on municipal broadband should be overridden or affirmed. \nOn March 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers in Wilson, NC, and Chattanooga, TN, to preempt state laws in their respective states that restricted the expansion of community broadband services. The Order and the decision by the FCC to rely on Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act for its authority remain controversial. Both states filed petitions for review consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Cincinnati, challenging the FCC\u2019s authority to preempt these restrictions. The court, in an August 10, 2016, decision, reversed the FCC\u2019s Order. \nThree bills (S. 240, S. 597, and H.R. 1106) have been introduced and one draft measure has been released in the 114th Congress addressing the municipal broadband debate. The role of municipal broadband and the appropriate role of the states and the FCC to address the relationship between the public and private sector is just one facet in the overall debate regarding broadband deployment. Whether municipal broadband should be encouraged or restricted is one of the many policies that Congress continues to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44080", "sha1": "d0d5e61a151401c5639e7bad2082ed80f7cacc3f", "filename": "files/20160810_R44080_d0d5e61a151401c5639e7bad2082ed80f7cacc3f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44080", "sha1": "e18b7ef09a30d5ed5e1755f8349528dbbcc28c61", "filename": "files/20160810_R44080_e18b7ef09a30d5ed5e1755f8349528dbbcc28c61.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4871, "name": "Telecommunications & Internet Policy" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451490, "date": "2016-04-06", "retrieved": "2016-04-08T13:58:08.084736", "title": "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate", "summary": "Since the late 1990s, broadband Internet service has been deployed in the United States, primarily by private sector providers. While broadband deployment has been rapid and robust overall, there remain communities that are dissatisfied with their broadband service. Some of these communities have turned to public entities as possible broadband providers, with the expectation that municipal broadband networks (also referred to as \u201ccommunity broadband\u201d) can deliver superior levels of speed, performance, and/or affordability than what is currently offered by private providers. Public entities that provide broadband service can be local governments or public utilities, for example, and may construct and manage broadband networks either solely or in partnership with private companies. There are a number of municipal broadband models that have been implemented across the nation. Since each community is different and each faces unique challenges, there is no one size that fits all.\nMunicipal broadband is controversial, because it involves governmental entities entering a commercial telecommunications marketplace that had previously been the exclusive domain of private sector providers. Supporters of municipal broadband argue that in view of substandard broadband service, communities and local governments should be able to provide this service to meet their citizens\u2019 needs and to support the community\u2019s economic development. Municipal broadband opponents argue that public entities are ill-equipped to efficiently develop, operate, and maintain commercial broadband networks, and that municipally owned and supported broadband networks constitute unfair competition to private sector providers, which may ultimately impede private investment in broadband infrastructure.\nWith under 500 municipalities across the nation embarking on some form of municipal broadband, 20 states have passed laws placing restrictions (or in some cases, bans) on local broadband networks. The issue for Congress is whether municipal broadband should be promoted or discouraged, and more specifically, whether those state restrictions on municipal broadband should be overridden or affirmed. \nOn March 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers in Wilson, NC, and Chattanooga, TN, to preempt state laws in their respective states that restricted the expansion of community broadband services. The Order and the decision by the FCC to rely on Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act for its authority remain controversial. Both states have filed petitions for review now consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Cincinnati, challenging the FCC\u2019s authority to preempt these restrictions.\nThree bills (S. 240, S. 597, and H.R. 1106) have been introduced and one draft measure has been released in the 114th Congress addressing the municipal broadband debate. The role of municipal broadband and the appropriate role of the states and the FCC to address the relationship between the public and private sector is just one facet in the overall debate regarding broadband deployment. Whether municipal broadband should be encouraged or restricted is one of the many policies that Congress continues to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44080", "sha1": "900af8dd23c5f914b3a305012275cf04ab24692b", "filename": "files/20160406_R44080_900af8dd23c5f914b3a305012275cf04ab24692b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44080", "sha1": "b5db6a3aa7d5d117d3bc623b69459615e3947d80", "filename": "files/20160406_R44080_b5db6a3aa7d5d117d3bc623b69459615e3947d80.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450319, "date": "2016-02-29", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T17:03:30.205892", "title": "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate", "summary": "Since the late 1990s, broadband Internet service has been deployed in the United States, primarily by private sector providers. While broadband deployment has been rapid and robust overall, there remain communities that are dissatisfied with their broadband service. Some of these communities have turned to public entities as possible broadband providers, with the expectation that municipal broadband networks (also referred to as \u201ccommunity broadband\u201d) can deliver superior levels of speed, performance, and/or affordability than what is currently offered by private providers. Public entities that provide broadband service can be local governments or public utilities, for example, and may construct and manage broadband networks either solely or in partnership with private companies. There are a number of municipal broadband models that have been implemented across the nation. Since each community is different and each faces unique challenges, there is no one size that fits all.\nMunicipal broadband is controversial, because it involves governmental entities entering a commercial telecommunications marketplace that had previously been the exclusive domain of private sector providers. Supporters of municipal broadband argue that in view of substandard broadband service, communities and local governments should be able to provide this service to meet their citizens\u2019 needs and to support the community\u2019s economic development. Municipal broadband opponents argue that public entities are ill-equipped to efficiently develop, operate, and maintain commercial broadband networks, and that municipally owned and supported broadband networks constitute unfair competition to private sector providers, which may ultimately impede private investment in broadband infrastructure.\nWith under 500 municipalities across the nation embarking on some form of municipal broadband, 20 states have passed laws placing restrictions (or in some cases, bans) on local broadband networks. The issue for Congress is whether municipal broadband should be promoted or discouraged, and more specifically, whether those state restrictions on municipal broadband should be overridden or affirmed. \nOn March 12, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the petitions filed by two municipal broadband providers in Wilson, NC, and Chattanooga, TN, to preempt state laws in their respective states that restricted the expansion of community broadband services. The Order and the decision by the FCC to rely on Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act for its authority remain controversial. Both states have filed petitions for review now consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Cincinnati, challenging the FCC\u2019s authority to preempt these restrictions.\nThree bills (S. 240, S. 597, and H.R. 1106) have been introduced and one draft measure has been released in the 114th Congress addressing the municipal broadband debate. The role of municipal broadband and the appropriate role of the states and the FCC to address the relationship between the public and private sector is just one facet in the overall debate regarding broadband deployment. Whether municipal broadband should be encouraged or restricted is one of the many policies that Congress continues to consider.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44080", "sha1": "4c4deac62a8f90369bf375713bd97eafc390a00f", "filename": "files/20160229_R44080_4c4deac62a8f90369bf375713bd97eafc390a00f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44080", "sha1": "0f6d8b5662b9b76f46f5e0cb5914713ef94c9114", "filename": "files/20160229_R44080_0f6d8b5662b9b76f46f5e0cb5914713ef94c9114.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2111, "name": "Telecommunications and Media Convergence" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817984/", "id": "R44080_2015Jun18", "date": "2015-06-18", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Municipal Broadband: Background and Policy Debate", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150618_R44080_f92dd08c119f4b2799331433f112d377b7379554.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150618_R44080_f92dd08c119f4b2799331433f112d377b7379554.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Internet and Telecommunications Policy", "Science and Technology Policy" ] }