[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 118 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9778-S9779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kerry, Mr. McCain, 
        Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1853. A bill to promote competition, to preserve the ability of 
local governments to provide broadband capability and services, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community 
Broadband Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator McCain 
of Arizona, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Snowe of Maine.
  Far too many U.S. residents live in areas of the country where there 
is no broadband access. Too many others live in areas where there may 
as well be no access because broadband is so expensive. This 
legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, 
increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of the people 
who live in those areas.
  In 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable broadband 
in the U.S. by the year 2007. We are now more than halfway through 
2007, and the U.S. is far from reaching this goal. Not only has the 
U.S. failed to provide universal, affordable broadband, but we are 
lagging far behind other countries. A recent study by the International 
Telecommunication Union shows that the U.S. ranks 15th worldwide in the 
percentage of people with broadband connections. If you take into 
account the availability of affordable broadband, the U.S. ranks 21st 
in the world. The U.S. should be a leader in providing fast and 
affordable broadband to its citizens.
  Many of the countries ahead of the U.S. have successfully combined 
public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect 
their residents and businesses with high-speed Internet services. The 
U.S. should be encouraging these innovative networks. We should not be 
creating obstacles for municipalities that want to provide affordable 
broadband access. Unfortunately, 14 States have passed legislation to 
prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities 
and communities to offer advanced communications services and 
capabilities to their citizens. More States are considering such 
legislation. The Community Broadband Act is in response to efforts by 
States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks 
for their residents, even in communities that have no access to 
broadband, in communities where access is not affordable to all 
residents, and in communities that want to build high-capacity networks 
that are comparable to those being built in the leading cities in the 
world.
  The Community Broadband Act is a simple bill. It says that no State 
can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its 
residents; 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 
telecommunications laws. It also contains provisions to ensure 
transparency by making sure the public is aware of its town's or city's 
effort and intention to provide broadband either itself or in 
partnership with a private entity, and provides those in the community 
with an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the 
project and potential alternatives.
  This bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that 
would: 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.
  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 plenty of examples of municipalities that 
need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the 
power to do so.
  A few months ago, the Parish Council of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 
voted unanimously to create a wireless network. Jefferson Parish, like 
New Orleans, was plagued with communications problems following 
Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans has already created a wireless network. 
Now, Jefferson Parish plans to establish its own network to make sure 
that, should another disaster strike, emergency officials and family 
members will be able to communicate with one another. During 
nonemergency times, the network will foster communication between 
public workers and stimulate economic development.
  These stories come from all across the country, from small towns to 
underserved urban areas. The small town of Granbury, TX, population 
6,400, initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private 
industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 
residents and businesses north of Louisville, KY, could not get 
broadband service from their local phone 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. 
For example, the City of Philadelphia reports that 90 percent of the 
residents of its affluent neighborhoods have broadband, whereas only 25 
percent of residents in its low-income areas have broadband. For that 
reason, Philadelphia is now creating a city-wide wireless network.
  Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur 
economic development, and bring the full benefits of the Information 
Age to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Smith, Kerry, 
McCain, McCaskill, Snowe and me in our effort to enact the Community 
Broadband Act of 2007.

[[Page S9779]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1853

       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 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.

       No State or local government statute, regulation, or other 
     State or local government legal requirement may prohibit, or 
     have the effect of prohibiting, any public provider from 
     providing advanced telecommunications capability, or services 
     using advanced telecommunications capability, to any person 
     or any public or private entity.

     SEC. 3. SAFEGUARDS.

       (a) Administration.--To the extent any public provider 
     regulates competing providers of advanced telecommunications 
     capability or services, such public provider shall apply its 
     ordinances and rules and policies, including those relating 
     to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance 
     bonding, and reporting, without discrimination in favor of 
     itself or any other provider of advanced telecommunications 
     capability or service that such provider owns or with which 
     such provider is affiliated.
       (b) Application of General Laws.--Nothing in this Act 
     exempts a public provider that offers advanced 
     telecommunications capability or services to the public from 
     any Federal communications law or regulation that applies to 
     all providers of advanced telecommunications capability or 
     services to the public.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ENCOURAGED.

       Each public provider that intends to provide advanced 
     telecommunications capability or services to the public is 
     encouraged to consider the potential benefits of a public-
     private partnership prior to providing such capability or 
     services.

     SEC. 5. PUBLIC INPUT.

       (a) Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard.--Before a public 
     provider may provide advanced telecommunications capability 
     or services to the public, either directly or through a 
     public-private partnership, such public provider shall--
       (1) publish notice of its intention to do so;
       (2) generally describe the capability or services to be 
     provided and the proposed coverage area for such capability 
     or services;
       (3) identify any special capabilities or services to be 
     provided in low-income areas or other demographically or 
     geographically defined areas; and
       (4) provide local citizens and private-sector entities with 
     an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the 
     project and potential alternatives to the project.
       (b) Application to Existing Projects and Pending 
     Proposals.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) any contract or other arrangement under which a public 
     provider is providing advanced telecommunications capability 
     or services to the public as of the date of enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (2) any public provider proposal to provide advanced 
     telecommunications capability or services to the public that, 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) is in the request-for-proposals process;
       (B) is in the process of being built; or
       (C) has been approved by referendum.

     SEC. 6. EXEMPTIONS.

       The requirements of sections 3 and 5 shall not apply--
       (1) when a public provider provides advanced 
     telecommunications capabilities or services other than to the 
     public or to such classes of users as to be effectively 
     available to the public; or
       (2) during an emergency declared by the President, the 
     Governor of the State in which the public provider is 
     located, or any other elected local official authorized by 
     law to declare a state of emergency in the jurisdiction in 
     which the public provider is located.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advanced telecommunications capability.--The term 
     ``advanced telecommunications capability'' has the meaning 
     given that term by section 706(c)(1) of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157 note).
       (2) 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)), or any entity that is 
     owned, controlled, or otherwise affiliated with a State, 
     political subdivision thereof, agency, authority, or 
     instrumentality, or Indian tribe.
                                 ______