Colorado Counties Seek Muni Broadband in November Election

Colorado residents have realized it takes too long to wait for industry to find a business case, Colorado Municipal League Deputy Director Kevin Bommer said in an interview. ISPs are expanding service with federal Connect America Fund money, he said, but “We don’t have two to three years to wait for another round of grants from the feds.” Voting to opt out “isn’t going to magically put infrastructure in the ground and start the service, but what it does is send the message that we’ve got a problem,” he said. “The only common thread is that people seem to be saying overwhelmingly that we need better broadband.”

Counties to vote in the general election include Larimer, Boulder and El Paso -- three of the state’s most populated -- and Teller and Montrose, Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI) Policy Director Eric Bergman told us. He predicted five to eight more counties could join. It’s unclear how many towns and cities will vote this November because only “a handful” have a regularly scheduled local election this November, “but that doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen,” said Bommer. According a Municipal League document, 36 of 272 towns and cities voted to opt out. Bergman estimated one-third of Colorado’s 64 counties voted to opt out. Those that opted out are a significant portion of rural Colorado, said Bommer, citing a map by the Municipal League and CCI last updated Sept. 13. Communities frequently vote by 4-to-1 margins to pass the measures, he said.

The legislature passed the 2005 ban to keep localities from competing with private-sector ISPs, said Bergman. Before passage, municipal and county advocates negotiated an opt-out provision requiring local ballot votes if a community wanted to invest in advanced services infrastructure, said Bommer. Communities can receive public grants from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) only after posing the question to voters. “No one, until about three years ago, went to the ballot,” said Bergman. “Now, these small communities that once upon a time understood that they were going to have less-than-reliable service -- they can’t do without it.”

Rio Blanco County opted out in the 2014 election, with 80 percent supporting, and is in the midst of building out fiber and fixed wireless to customers in the rural region, county board Chairman Shawn Bolton said in an interview. It’s the sixth-largest county by size at about 3,300 square miles but has only 6,000 residents, he said. “On one hand, we’re a poor business model for anyone to invest large sums of money in infrastructure,” but it’s CenturyLink’s job to provide broadband, he said.

The municipality got a head start on the project by assessing costs and planning wireless tower locations before the vote, Bolton said. The vote allowed the county to access grant funding, he said. The county got about $3.5 million in grants, supplementing $5 million from its general fund and about $2 million of its Federal Mineral Lease funding, he said. The county has connected about 30 customers as it continues to roll out fiber in municipalities, and it’s about 70 percent finished building wireless towers to reach people living outside town, he said. Those living in towns or near the fiber will be able to buy 1 Gbps connections for $70 monthly, and wireless customers will get speeds about 10 times faster than DSL, he said. Every customer who wants broadband should have service next summer, he said.

After the vote, no telecom provider already serving the area offered to partner with the county, said Bolton. “We’re the one who made the investment. They chose not to even participate, so we found other providers.” The county gave the new providers exclusive rights to the county for two years, he said. “We’re not going to go do this investment and then have someone like CenturyLink … come in here and muscle everybody out.”

CenturyLink believes it's best for municipalities to work with existing ISPs, a spokeswoman said. “CenturyLink will continue to work closely with communities, local leaders and policymakers on creative public-private partnerships that bring high-speed internet services to more American homes and businesses. However, if local governments choose to compete with private internet service providers, there needs to be a level playing field.”

Repeal Question

Telcos haven’t actively opposed ballot measures, but they rejected legislative efforts to repeal the state ban, said the Municipal League and CCI officials. As the largest telco in rural Colorado, CenturyLink led ISP lobbying on the issue, Bergman said. The next window to repeal the ban opens in January when the legislature returns to session, said Bergman. State Sen. Kerry Donovan (D) had a bill last year that “tried to straddle the chasm between us and the telecoms,” but the effort failed, he said.

Donovan still wants to spread broadband to unserved rural areas of Colorado, but hasn’t decided on the method, the state senator said in an interview. “The reality is if the private market hasn't gotten to a community yet, they’re probably not going to get there.” Her bill last session wasn’t a “straight-out repeal” of SB-152, but would have allowed communities defined as unserved -- under the FCC definition of 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up -- to skip the ballot vote and proceed with muni broadband, she said. The failed measure “was a very complicated bill” and there was “quite a bit of distrust” between municipalities and telecom companies, she said. The scope became too broad as it tried to also tackle urban areas, added Donovan, saying she would focus any future bill on broadband for unserved rural areas.

“We’re not looking to compete” with private providers, and counties are technology-agnostic so long as they get better service, said Bergman, who supports the repeal effort. “Every county that’s gone to the ballot is looking to engage in public-private partnership.” The same goes for most municipalities, said Bommer. Local governments want to work with providers, but the providers don’t cooperate, he said.

The Colorado Municipal League would support repeal, said Bommer, “but the election requirement is not the bulk of the challenge.” Not many opt-out municipalities actually have broadband networks in place yet, he said. “Getting the vote is the easy part,” he said. “You then still have to deal with the economic aspect -- the investment in the infrastructure that’s required.” Success of ballot measures doesn’t preclude the need for a repeal, countered Bergman. “My reply to that is we only get one shot a year.” If a county skips its chance, but then in March a small ISP comes offering a public-private partnership, the county must wait many months until its next election to hold a vote, he said.

Donovan isn't sure repeal “guarantees broadband in communities,” the state senator said. “It just guarantees the option for broadband in communities. … It’s going to be some combination of partnership between the state, the federal government and the corporations to pool our resources, align our goals and make sure the state is wired corner to corner.”

Not everyone wants state intervention. “The best way the state legislature can help," said Bommer, "is by staying out of the way and letting us work directly with the private sector.”