[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 85 (Thursday, June 23, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7298-S7299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1294. A bill to amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to 
preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide 
broadband capability and services; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community 
Broadband Act of 2005.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
Senator McCain of Arizona.
  This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public 
safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of 
citizens in areas of the country that either do not have access to 
broadband or live in a location where the cost for broadband is simply 
not affordable.
  A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development shows that the United States has dropped to 12th place 
worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. Many 
of the countries ahead of the United States have successfully combined 
public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect 
their citizens and businesses with high-speed Internet services.
  It is in this context that President Bush has called for universal 
and affordable broadband in the United States by the year 2007. If we 
are going to meet President Bush's goals, we must not enact barriers to 
broadband development and access. Unfortunately, fourteen States have 
passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of 
local municipalities and communities to offer high-speed Internet to 
their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The 
``Community Broadband Act'' is in response to those efforts by States 
to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their 
citizens even in communities that either have no access to broadband or 
where access is prohibitively expensive.
  The ``Community Broadband Act'' is a simple bill. It says that no 
State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to 
its citizens; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse 
its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private 
competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal and 
state telecommunications laws.
  Mr. President, this bill will allow communities to make broadband 
decisions that could: Improve their economy and create jobs by serving 
as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved 
urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access 
to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen 
our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the 
means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and 
internationally; encourage long-distance education through video 
conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing 
learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private 
partnerships.
  A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from 
offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't 
have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They 
also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from 
cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their 
economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew 
that it would take both private investment and public investment to 
bring electricity to all Americans.
  We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an 
essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We 
must not put up barriers to this possibility of municipal involvement 
in broadband deployment.
  Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let 
me be clear this is not going to be the right decision for every 
municipality. But there are clearly examples of municipalities that 
need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the 
power to do so.
  Today's Wall Street Journal notes the small town of Granbury, TX, 
population 6,400, that initiated a wireless network after waiting years 
for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and 
its 6000 residents north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband 
from an incumbent telephone company. When two important businesses 
threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, 
municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband 
throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained 
much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.
  There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may 
exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. 
Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, knows this all 
too well. ``The digital divide is local,'' Neff has said, commenting 
that while 90 percent Philadelphia's affluent neighborhoods have 
broadband, just 25 percent in low-income areas have broadband. When the 
city of Philadelphia announced plans for wireless access, it 
immediately faced opposition and the Pennsylvania legislature passed 
legislation to counter this municipal power.
  Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur 
economic development, and bring a 21st century utility to everyone. I 
hope my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in our effort to 
enact the Community Broadband Act of 2005.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1294

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community Broadband Act of 
     2005''.

[[Page S7299]]

     SEC. 2. COMMUNITY BROADBAND CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.

       Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 
     U.S.C. 157 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Local Government Provision of Advanced 
     Telecommunications Capability and Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--No State statute, regulation, or other 
     State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of 
     prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person 
     or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications 
     capability or any service that utilizes the advanced 
     telecommunications capability provided by such provider.
       ``(2) Antidiscrimination safeguards.--To the extent any 
     public provider regulates competing private providers of 
     advanced telecommunications capability or services, it shall 
     apply its ordinances and rules without discrimination in 
     favor of itself or any advanced telecommunications services 
     provider that it owns.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall exempt 
     a public provider from any Federal or State 
     telecommunications law or regulation that applies to all 
     providers of advanced telecommunications capability or 
     services using such advanced telecommunications 
     capability.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (d), as 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(3) Public provider.--The term `public provider' means a 
     State or political subdivision thereof, any agency, 
     authority, or instrumentality of a State or political 
     subdivision thereof, or an Indian tribe (as defined in 
     section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)), that provides advanced 
     telecommunications capability, or any service that utilizes 
     such advanced telecommunications capability, to any person or 
     public or private entity.''.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in sponsoring the 
Community Broadband Act of 2005. In the simplest of terms, this bill 
would ensure that any town, city, or county that wishes to offer high-
speed Internet services to its citizens can do so. The bill also would 
ensure fairness by requiring municipalities that offer high-speed 
Internet services do so in compliance with all Federal and State 
telecommunications laws and in a nondiscriminatory manner.
  This bill is needed if we are to meet President Bush's call for 
``universal, affordable access for broadband technology by the year 
2007.'' When President Bush announced this nationwide goal in 2004, the 
country was ranked 10th in the world for high-speed Internet 
penetration. Today, the country is ranked 16th. This is unacceptable 
for a country that should lead the world in technical innovation, 
economic development, and international competitiveness.
  Many of the countries outpacing the United States in the deployment 
of high-speed Internet services, including Canada, Japan, and South 
Korea, have successfully combined municipal systems with privately 
deployed networks to wire their countries. As a country, we cannot 
afford to cut off any successful strategy if we want to remain 
internationally competitive.
  I recognize that our Nation has a long and successful history of 
private investment in critical communications infrastructure. That 
history must be respected, protected, and continued. However, when 
private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or 
other obstacles, it is appropriate and even commendable, for the people 
acting through their local governments to improve their lives by 
investing in their own future. In many rural towns, the local 
government's high-speed Internet offering may be its citizens only 
option to access the World Wide Web.
  Despite this situation, a few incumbent providers of traditional 
telecommunications services have attempted to stop local government 
deployment of community high speed Internet services. The bill would do 
nothing to limit their ability to compete. In fact, the bill would 
provide them an incentive to enter more rural areas and deploy services 
in partnership with local governments. This partnership will not only 
reduce the costs to private firms, but also ensure wider deployment of 
rural services. Additionally, the bill would aid private providers by 
prohibiting a municipality when acting as both ``regulator'' and 
``competitor'' from discriminating against competitors in favor of 
itself.
  Several newspapers have endorsed the concept of allowing 
municipalities to choose whether to offer high speed Internet services. 
USA Today rightfully questioned in an editorial, ``Why shouldn't 
citizens be able to use their own resources to help themselves?'' The 
Washington Post editorialized that the offering of high speed Internet 
services by localities is, ``. . . the sort of municipal experiment we 
hope will spread.'' The San Jose Mercury News stated that a ban on 
localities ability to offer such services is ``bad for consumers, bad 
for technology and bad for America's hopes of catching up to other 
countries in broadband deployment.'' Finally, the Tampa Tribune 
lectured Federal and State legislators, ``don't prohibit local elected 
officials from providing a service their communities need.''
  My home State of Arizona boasts the largest approved municipal 
broadband system in the United States, for example. The city of Tempe's 
wireless system will serve all of the city's 40 square miles and a 
population of 159,000, including the campus of Arizona State 
University. Citizens will have Internet access from anywhere at any 
time, and police, fire, water and traffic services personnel will use 
the system to enhance their efficiency.
  In addition to Tempe, several Native American tribal governments 
offer high-speed Internet access services to their citizens. This bill 
would ensure that such offerings could continue to assist Indian 
country and their ability to connect to the Internet.
  Our country faces some real challenges. We need to find ways to use 
technology to help our citizens better compete. We need to help our 
businesses capitalize on their ingenuity so that they can become more 
internationally competitive. That is why we need to do all we can to 
eliminate barriers to competition and create incentives for the 
delivery of high-speed Internet services for public suppliers of 
broadband services, private suppliers of broadband services, and 
public-private partnerships as well.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in sponsoring the Community 
Broadband Act of 2005.
                                 ______