Montana Tweaks Law, But Still Bans Communities From Building Better, Faster Broadband Networks

Montana is currently one of seventeen states that have passed laws-usually ghost written by telecom monopolies-banning local community broadband networks. As a result in many states, entrenched incumbent monopolies see zero incentive to lower rates, expand access, or improve service, thanks to muted competition and regulatory capture.

COVID lockdowns highlighted the counterproductive stupidity of such laws, causing Washington and Arkansas to eliminate their restrictions. But efforts to roll back Montana's law haven't been able to survive industry lobbying. Said lobbyists, whose companies receive billions in unaccountable taxpayer subsidies for networks they routinely only half deploy, love to frame such efforts as auto-boondoggles:

At the bill's hearing, large telecom companies showed up in opposition, warning that municipal broadband could really mean a foolhardy taxpayer-funded business venture with no guarantee of success, and that it could crowd private providers out of the market.

In reality, community broadband proposals are like any other business plan, depending on the quality of the plan and local leadership. Generally speaking though, studies show they're a net improvement for local economies, are more accountable to locals (as local residents themselves), and are routinely some of the only efforts genuinely prompting monopolies to try harder.

While such state bans are a huge gift for local monopolies, they're causing problems as states vie for more than $50 billion in both COVID relief and infrastructure broadband funding.

Last week the Montana government eased their restrictions slightly via SB174, but only so that the government could distribute looming funds to completely unserved areas. The law still bans community broadband if an entrenched monopoly claims they can provide service to a target area:

(a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if:
16 (i) no private internet services provider is available within the jurisdiction served by the agency or
17 political subdivision; or
18 (ii) the agency or political subdivision provided services prior to July 1, 2001.
19 (b) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing
20 advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider within the
21 jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision

Here's the problem: the FCC's broadband maps have long been crap, so regional monopolies routinely overstate coverage, meaning many communities are still banned from building their own networks due to inaccurate data. Regional monopolies also fight tooth and nail to derail communities that apply for grants and funnel the lion's share of taxpayer funds to themselves.

There's still zero reason for these restrictive laws to exist. If entrenched monopolies don't want local municipalities (or cooperatives and city-owned utilities) involved, they could build better, faster, more reliable networks. But it's far cheaper in many states to just throw a few hundred thousand at a corrupt state legislature for laws ensuring you don't have to try very hard.