Muni broadband providers don’t want to face common carrier rules

Small ISPs have no incentive to interfere with Internet traffic, they argue.

Jon Brodkin – Feb 11, 2015 11:26 am | 106

Don't regulate us, bro. Credit: Nathan Gibbs

It’s no secret that the big Internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon oppose a move toward heavier Internet regulation.

But many smaller providers don’t want stricter rules, either. Today, 43 municipal broadband providers asked the Federal Communications Commission to avoid reclassifying them as common carriers, a move that would expose them to net neutrality rules and potentially other requirements under Title II of the Communications Act.

Municipal broadband providers have mixed feelings about the policies of President Obama and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Obama and Wheeler are planning to eliminate state laws that restrict growth of municipal broadband networks, a move that is opposed by the big private ISPs but supported by the municipal broadband providers.

But at least a few dozen municipal broadband providers oppose Title II regulation, including Cedar Falls Utilities in Iowa, which recently hosted Obama when he was arguing against anti-municipal broadband laws. The 43 signers of the letter included Cedar Falls, though it did not include two municipal broadband providers in Tennessee and North Carolina that have asked the FCC to preempt state laws.

“The undersigned, municipal providers of broadband Internet access service, are strong supporters of net neutrality and an open Internet but are staunchly opposed, like other, small and medium-sized Internet service providers (ISPs) who are privately held, to the reclassification and regulation of this service as common carriage under Title II of the Communications Act,” the 43 providers wrote to the FCC.

If the commission does reclassify broadband under Title II, it should exempt small and medium-sized providers “from any new and enhanced transparency obligations; and ensure smaller ISPs that utilize poles that are subject to the cable rate formula are not forced into paying higher fees based on the telecommunications rate,” they wrote.

“As smaller ISPs, we do not have an incentive to harm the openness of the Internet,” they continued. “All of the undersigned face competition from one or more wireline ISPs, and we compete hard to attract and serve customers who would depart to our competitors if we engage in any business practices that interfere with their Internet experience.”

Although Wheeler says he does not intend to impose rate regulation, tariff requirements, or last-mile unbundling, the providers said this is “cold comfort.”

“The Commission has in the past imposed structural separations, service unbundling and resale obligations under Sections 201 and 202, and this Commission cannot bind the actions of a future Commission should it wish to institute rate regulation, tariffing, unbundling or any other form of before-the-fact regulation, creating deep and lasting regulatory uncertainty,” they wrote. “Moreover, even this Commission will be obligated to respond to complaints about rates or seeking open access to facilities by third-party providers.”

In making the case for Title II, Wheeler claimed that small Internet providers “have all come in and said, ‘we like Title II, we hope you’ll do Title II.’”

The American Cable Association (ACA), which represents more than 900 small and medium-sized providers, including 100 municipal providers, begs to differ.

“ACA applauds the 43 municipal broadband Internet providers that are also ACA members for speaking out about the harms of Title II reclassification for smaller ISPs,” CEO Matthew Polka said in an announcement today. “ACA agrees with their clear message that the FCC Chairman should make changes to the order to accommodate these concerns before the scheduled vote on Feb. 26.”