In 2005 the CO legislature passed Senate Bill 05-152 creating “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” aka Article 29 of Title 27 in the Colorado Revised Statutes. The stated purpose was to create statewide uniformity in the regulation of telecommunications, but it also prohibited local governments’ ability to provide telecommunications with two exceptions: 1) areas not served by private companies could receive government services and 2) a vote of the electorate could authorize the local government to provide services. Once a local government had the right to provide services, it still wasn’t allowed to have “unreasonable preference or advantage to itself or to any private provider…”
In 2009 a ballot issue similar to this year’s was defeated in Longmont with telecommunications companies spending close to $200K to defeat it. In 2011 Longmont tried again, and 2A passed with 60% of the vote despite the same opponents spending more than $400K to defeat it. Last year 2B, a follow-up Longmont ballot issue to provide fiber optic to city subscribers, passed with 68% of the vote. Rather than a tax increase, revenues from subscribers are paying for the cost of Longmont to provide broadband services.
Rather than providing broadband service itself, Boulder would probably partner with a private company to provide service directly to residents and businesses, utilizing the 100 miles of fiber optic cable that the city already owns.
Under state statute it is officially illegal for Boulder to offer public Wi-Fi at the library though Boulder and other cities do it anyway. Government employees and students such as library staff, CU students and Dept of Commerce employees can take advantage of the city’s fiber optic cable network at their workplace or school, but residents and businesses currently may not.
Recommendation: for
The Boulder City Council put this issue on the ballot after lobbying efforts to change SB 05-152 were unsuccessful. Telecommunications companies say that using municipal funds to provide telecommunications services is not a good use of public dollars when there are already private companies providing such services. Proponents of allowing cities the right to provide services say that taxes don’t need to be increased, though Boulder could have a bond issue for this in the future. Proponents also say the private companies aren’t offering high-speed service fast enough to meet demand, cities already have fiber optic cable in place that isn’t being fully utilized, and cities can subsidize access for poor neighborhoods.
Boulder may not be seeing the same kind of opposition that Longmont saw in 2009 and 2011 because it is planning to go the public-private partnership route. Longmont’s Power and Communications utility is providing the city’s telecommunications services.
Other communities that have gone to fiber optic discover that they no longer have landlines that work without electricity. Fiber optic, copper wiring (current landlines) and cell phone all have different failure modes so converting to fiber optic could decrease our communication options in the event of a natural disaster.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2C)
http://yeson2c.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by §§ 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?
For the Measure____
Against the Measure____
Ordinance 7980 to refer 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126011/Page1.aspx
In 2009 a ballot issue similar to this year’s was defeated in Longmont with telecommunications companies spending close to $200K to defeat it. In 2011 Longmont tried again, and 2A passed with 60% of the vote despite the same opponents spending more than $400K to defeat it. Last year 2B, a follow-up Longmont ballot issue to provide fiber optic to city subscribers, passed with 68% of the vote. Rather than a tax increase, revenues from subscribers are paying for the cost of Longmont to provide broadband services.
Rather than providing broadband service itself, Boulder would probably partner with a private company to provide service directly to residents and businesses, utilizing the 100 miles of fiber optic cable that the city already owns.
Under state statute it is officially illegal for Boulder to offer public Wi-Fi at the library though Boulder and other cities do it anyway. Government employees and students such as library staff, CU students and Dept of Commerce employees can take advantage of the city’s fiber optic cable network at their workplace or school, but residents and businesses currently may not.
Recommendation: for
The Boulder City Council put this issue on the ballot after lobbying efforts to change SB 05-152 were unsuccessful. Telecommunications companies say that using municipal funds to provide telecommunications services is not a good use of public dollars when there are already private companies providing such services. Proponents of allowing cities the right to provide services say that taxes don’t need to be increased, though Boulder could have a bond issue for this in the future. Proponents also say the private companies aren’t offering high-speed service fast enough to meet demand, cities already have fiber optic cable in place that isn’t being fully utilized, and cities can subsidize access for poor neighborhoods.
Boulder may not be seeing the same kind of opposition that Longmont saw in 2009 and 2011 because it is planning to go the public-private partnership route. Longmont’s Power and Communications utility is providing the city’s telecommunications services.
Other communities that have gone to fiber optic discover that they no longer have landlines that work without electricity. Fiber optic, copper wiring (current landlines) and cell phone all have different failure modes so converting to fiber optic could decrease our communication options in the event of a natural disaster.
Website for the Yes side (Yes on 2C)
http://yeson2c.com/
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2C
Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services
Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by §§ 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?
For the Measure____
Against the Measure____
Ordinance 7980 to refer 2C to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126011/Page1.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.