Overview
Access to reliable internet service has become a basic need in most of the world, yet many communities either lack service in their area or are priced out by corporate monopolies. Community broadband is a way for people rather than companies to own the means of accessing the internet, securing lower prices and faster service in the process.
Every year it is cheaper to deliver bits to your home, but the price goes up for some reason when Xfinity is doing it.
— Christopher Mitchell
Households throughout the world often rely on local government to provide them with access to basic utilities such as electricity, gas, and water. In the last two decades, many cities have added another utility to the list of services they provide: internet access.
Community broadband providers offer an alternative to corporate telecom monopolies. In this model, a community-based entity such as a local municipal body, a tribal government, a cooperative, or a nonprofit organization builds and may also manage a network, offering services to residents and businesses. This allows communities to gain control over internet access prices, policies, and critical infrastructure.
Community broadband networks are able to keep prices low because, unlike national telecom companies, they aren’t required to generate a greater profit year after year.
In 1994, the city of Glasgow, Kentucky, created the first municipal broadband network in the United States after their cable monopoly frustrated customers with poor customer service and by neglecting to modernize infrastructure in rural areas. When the municipal electric utility in Glasgow began building its own network, the incumbent cable company lowered prices by 75% in an effort to discourage the competition. The struggle gained national attention for the town. Since forming its own internet service provider, the city has been able to adapt the network to community needs and keep prices low.
Rural areas are not the only regions ignored by traditional telecom companies. In Detroit, Michigan, over 35 percent of homes are not on the internet, with a majority of those being low-income households. To expand internet access, community groups came together in 2016 to form the Equitable Internet Initiative (EII), which connected over 150 homes in its pilot year. In addition to providing internet service, the EII offers technology literacy workshops, trains community “digital stewards,” and is in the process of forming a worker-owned utility cooperative to manage internet services. While neighborhood initiatives such as these may not always provide the fastest internet speeds, they can offer connectivity for very little cost to underserved communities.
This kind of model can easily be normalized and applied in neighborhoods across the globe. In Sweden, for instance, where community broadband is widespread, municipalities can choose between enabling a for-profit company to provide fiber access that upholds the community’s agreed-upon broadband standards or creating a local government entity to provide access. Among rural areas in the United States, existing utility cooperatives that provide electricity are increasingly expanding their services to include broadband access.
While local specificities need to be taken into account, there are several possible funding models for community broadband networks. Some cities turn to loans and revenue bonds, which are then paid back through the revenues collected by the network. Alternatively, they can borrow funds from other departments in the city government. Establishing broadband networks gradually, rather than across an entire city at once, can also keep costs low for municipalities. Cities and cooperatives are sometimes able to access public and philanthropic funds to provide for underserved residents.
Community broadband networks are able to keep prices low because, unlike national telecom companies, they aren’t required to generate a greater profit year after year. Additionally, for a municipal provider, a lower cost of service means the city pays less to connect its public libraries, schools, police departments, and government offices. While in the short-term, large telecoms may use their power to lower prices and undercut a community-based option, in the long-term, research suggests that community networks offer improved cost and service. Corporations have, however, fought fiercely to prevent them from doing so. 17 US states have corporation-written laws that restrict community networks.
Reliable internet access is now a necessity for the vast majority of people worldwide. Municipal broadband offers a way to make this crucial service accessible to areas that a traditional provider might neglect—such as rural towns and low-income neighborhoods—and to put its control into communities’ hands.
