Every few years since municipal broadband was new, a lobbying group comes out against the concept of municipal competition. The lobbying effort has taken many different tactics over the years, but generally the attacks against municipal broadband haven’t been very public and were aimed at generating lobbying materials to give to politicians.
For example, a common tactic has been for some mysterious group to pay a professor to criticize existing municipal broadband businesses. It was always assumed that these groups were funded by the big ISPs, but that was often just a guess. The documents generated usually contained some sliver of truth but were often also full of exaggerations and outright lies that were intended to prove that municipal broadband is a lousy economic model that can’t possibly succeed. These supposedly academic documents didn’t even get much press in the cities being attacked – but that was never the intent. These were intended for lobbying local, state, and federal politicians around the country against municipal broadband.
The other kind of lobbying against municipal broadband was more direct, and big ISPs have spent big money to try to block municipal broadband from coming to fruition. In many communities, the issue of launching a broadband network has been put to a public vote, and when that happens, big ISPs have spent some huge dollars to try to convince the public to vote against municipal broadband. Some of the anti-municipal broadband lobbying efforts succeeded, and some communities voted against the concept – and I’m sure ISPs believe this was money well spent. But a lot of communities have still voted to fund broadband.
Even when lobbying against a specific municipal election, the lobbying effort has always been unsavory, since the big ISPs rarely put their name on the lobbying effort. The lobbying is usually done in the name of some newly-minted non-profit entity with an altruistic-sounding name that was created just for the election. I think cable companies and telcos understand that they can’t openly lobby against competition. If there is one thing I’ve learned from twenty years of conducting surveys it’s that folks want to have a choice of ISP.
An anti-municipal lobbying effort using a new tactic recently surfaced. There is a huge lobbying effort underway against Utopia, a municipally-owned network in Utah. This effort seems to be the biggest dollar lobbying effort against municipal broadband by far, and local press reported that the anti-Utopia campaign has purchased something like a million dollars in ads in Salt Lake City to lobby against municipal broadband.
This campaign puzzles me. Utopia operates an open-access network. This means that the fiber network is municipally-owned, but that broadband is provided by commercial ISPs. The Utopia website currently lists fifteen different ISPs that sell broadband and other services on the fiber network. Customers on the Utopia network have more choice of ISPs than anywhere else in the nation.
The vehemence against Utopia puzzles me because the majority of the past lobbying against municipal broadband was aimed against municipal ISPs that competed directly by selling retail service. Almost universally, past lobbying has argued that municipalities shouldn’t compete against commercial companies but should instead form partnerships with ISPs. That is exactly what Utopia has done – it partners with fifteen commercial ISPs to bring broadband to homes and businesses. With fifteen partners, Utopia is clearly pro-commercial ISP.
I speculate that the lobbying is due to Utopia’s continued expansion. The company recently started construction in Bountiful, Utah, which is the twentieth city to join the Utopia fiber network. The process to get Bountiful to agree to join the network took many years but was ultimately approved in May by a 5-0 vote of the City Council. Utopia has been in discussions with other cities that are considering joining the fiber network.
An article by Broadband Breakfast says that Greg Hughes, the former speaker of the Utah House, is the public face of the anti-Utopia lobbying effort that goes under the name of NoGovInternet. I haven’t heard anyone who knows for sure the source of the underlying money for the ads, but a group called the Utah Taxpayers Association lobbied against the effort in Bountiful, and the folks in the City say that Comcast and Lumen have sponsored that group in the past.
The most puzzling aspect of the lobbying campaign is that somebody is spending a lot of money with no specific obvious goal. There are not a lot of other cities with an imminent vote to join Utopia. There is no noticeable opposition to Utopia in the cities where it operates. This seems like a lot of money to spend to make the generic point that municipal broadband is somehow a bad thing, particularly in Utah where Utopia is popular.
The folks at Utopia have responded in about the only way they can. They have pointed out that customers in their markets love the fast speeds from fiber and the choice of picking from multiple ISPs. Every town they operate in is happy with them. About all they can do is shrug in bewilderment about why they are being targeted.