Sixteen U.S. states still ban community-owned broadband networks
Sixteen U.S. states still restrict or ban community-owned broadband networks, largely seen as the result of lobbying by entrenched telecom monopolies. Commenters contrast these protectionist laws with successful municipal and cooperative fiber projects that deliver cheaper, more reliable service, and note how federal agencies like the FCC could, in theory, override state barriers. The thread also touches on alternatives such as mesh networks, wireless and satellite internet, but most argue that locally controlled last‑mile infrastructure with open access rules is the most efficient and equitable model.
Space- and Radio-Based Broadband vs Fiber/Cable
- Many doubt LEO satellite broadband can economically compete with terrestrial options except in very remote areas. Running constellations is expensive and total capacity per satellite is limited compared to fiber.
- Back-of-the-envelope analyses suggest Starlink-scale systems cannot realistically handle dense metropolitan demand; better seen as a substitute for “no internet” rather than for robust fiber.
- Latency and jitter for LEO are somewhat higher than cable but can be acceptable for most uses; fast-twitch gaming reportedly suffers.
- Some argue 5G/terrestrial radio will increasingly compete with or “drink the milkshake” of cable/fiber, though others note poor in-building coverage and capacity limits.
Monopoly, Regulation, and Capture
- Commenters distinguish between:
- Regulations that protect public goods (e.g., environment, safety).
- Regulations that entrench monopolies and block competition (e.g., bans on municipal broadband).
- Telecom is described as heavily subsidized “corporate welfare” and deeply involved in rent-seeking and lobbying; money in politics is framed as the root cause.
- Some note the FCC and Congress have authority over interstate communications and could override state-level barriers, but the fragmented “50-state solution” is seen as inefficient.
Community-Owned Infrastructure and Models
- Strong support for community-owned last‑mile infrastructure (fiber/copper) with open-access requirements; ISPs then compete over shared physical networks.
- Local loop unbundling and municipal or cooperative ownership are seen as ways to avoid wasteful overbuild and improve service and resilience.
- Examples mentioned include North Dakota co-op culture, Tennessee and Missouri municipal fiber successes, and Utah’s “wholesale-only” community networks (viewed by some as a limitation rather than a full ban).
- Others suggest co-op or nonprofit structures can resist roll-up by large capital pools, though long-term pressures (retirement, buyouts, predatory pricing) remain.
Grassroots and Mesh Networking
- Several references to informal or community-built networks: apartment- and neighborhood-level Ethernet in post-Soviet countries, rural US wireless sharing, and projects like NYC Mesh, Guifi, and Freifunk.
- These are seen as decentralized, hacker-ethos-aligned responses to incumbent control.
Political and Ideological Framing
- Some see the bans as evidence of a broader failure of democracy and capitalism, arguing national ISPs should not exist and municipal broadband is clearly superior.
- Others worry about municipal competence, citing poor contractor behavior during local broadband rollout.