Cable and telephone companies are urging the Federal Communications Commission to ease off its proposal to help municipalities offer Internet service, arguing the agency lacks the authority to override state rules. 
 
 Lobbyists for the industry made their case after FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler earlier this year suggested the federal government could override laws passed by some states that prevent local governments from setting up broadband... ||||| The US telecoms industry called on the Federal Communications Commission on Friday to block two cities’ plans to expand high-speed internet services to their residents. 
 
 USTelecom, which represents telecoms giants Verizon, AT&T and others, wants the FCC to block expansion of two popular municipally owned high-speed internet networks, one in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the other in Wilson, North Carolina. 
 
 “The success of public broadband is a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures,” USTelecom said in a blogpost. “With state taxpayers on the financial hook when a municipal broadband network goes under, it is entirely reasonable for state legislatures to be cautious in limiting or even prohibiting that activity.” 
 
 Chattanooga has the largest high-speed internet service in the US, offering customers access to speeds of 1 gigabit per second – about 50 times faster than the US average. The service, provided by municipally owned EPB, has sparked a tech boom in the city and attracted international attention. EPB is now petitioning the FCC to expand its territory. Comcast and other companies have previously sued unsuccessfully to stop EPB’s fibre optic roll out. 
 
 Wilson, a town of a little more than 49,000 people, launched Greenlight, its own service offering high-speed internet, after complaints about the cost and quality of Time Warner cable’s service. Time Warner lobbied the North Carolina senate to outlaw the service and similar municipal efforts. 
 
 USTelecom claims the FCC has no legal standing over the proposed expansions and does not have the power to preempt the North Carolina and Tennessee statutes that would prevent them. 
 
 “States have adopted a wide range of legislative approaches on how much authority they give local governments to build, own and operate broadband networks. Some states require an election or public hearings before a public project can move forward. Others ask for competitive bids, and still others put restrictions on the terms of service so the public entities bear the same regulatory burdens as private service providers,” said USTelecom. 
 
 “States are well within their rights to impose these restrictions, given the potential impact on taxpayers if public projects are not carefully planned and weighed against existing private investment.” 
 
 In January this year, the FCC issued the “Gigabit City Challenge”, calling on providers to offer gigabit service in at least one community in each state by 2015. The challenge has come amid intense lobbying from cable and telecoms firms to stop municipal rivals and new competitors including Google from building and expanding high speed networks. 
 
 In a statement EPB said: “Communities should have the right – at the local level – to determine their broadband futures. 
 
 “The private sector didn’t want to serve everyone, but public power companies like EPB were established to make sure that everyone had access to this critical infrastructure. ” 
 
 • This article was amended on 30 August 2014. Comcast is not a member of USTelecom, as was stated, and has not filed comments in the FCC proceeding to which the article refers. 
 
 ||||| A group representing giants in the cable industry is trying to shut down two municipalities' proposals to expand their public broadband networks, arguing that public broadband has a "mixed record" and can be harmful to taxpayers, despite these two networks already being successful where they're already operational. Laws in 20 states prevent municipalities from creating their own broadband networks — much to the pleasure of private cable companies, which have shown an impressive dedication to avoiding any competition and any suggestion that their service is merely a utility. Municipalities have on occasion created their own public networks to make up for shortcomings from local internet providers, and it's easy to see why private providers wouldn't want that around. 
 
 Chattanooga offers gigabit internet. Yes, gigabit. 
 
 The two municipalities, those of Chattanooga, TN, and Wilson, NC, have petitioned the FCC to allow them to work around state laws that block their broadband service's expansion. The FCC has previously said that it plans to use its powers to invalidate these laws, but there's some contention over whether it can do that. In a filing and blog post today, USTelecom — which the Guardian says represents Comcast and Time Warner Cable, among other industry giants — argues that the FCC doesn't have the power to do this. That's hardly the only reason that USTelecom provides for why these municipalities should remain blocked, however, generally arguing that it should be up to the state to decide. For what it's worth, state governors are in agreement. The National Governors Association also submitted a comment on Friday asking that the FCC "honor the longstanding partnership between states and the federal government" and reject these two municipalities' petitions. 
 
 While USTelecom is right that some public broadband networks have turned into blunders, many have been incredibly successful and have actually proven to be legitimate competitors to private networks. In fact, Chattanooga offers gigabit internet to every home and business in its community — a speed that's still incredibly rare to see from private providers in the US. Community Broadband Networks says that 40 communities in 13 states are currently offering gigabit service. 
 
 With the FCC having said that it will allow municipal broadband networks to work around these laws, it seems that the cable companies may have an uphill battle. Still, it's not clear when the FCC will find time to rule on this — and, if the cable industry loses, it wouldn't be surprising to see it continue the fight from there. ||||| The success of public broadband is a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures — from St. Cloud, Fla. and Groton City, Conn., to Philadelphia and the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency (“UTOPIA”). With state taxpayers on the financial hook when a municipal broadband network goes under, it is entirely reasonable for state legislatures to be cautious in limiting or even prohibiting that activity. 
 
 For this and other reasons, USTelecom opposes the petitions filed by the city of Wilson, N.C., and the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tenn., asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to preempt state laws restricting public entities from offering broadband service. The FCC should not interfere with state decisions on how best to extend broadband service. 
 
 States have adopted a wide range of legislative approaches on how much authority they give local governments to build, own and operate broadband networks. Some states require an election or public hearings before a public project can move forward. Others ask for competitive bids, and still others put restrictions on the terms of service so the public entities bear the same regulatory burdens as private service providers. 
 
 States are well within their rights to impose these restrictions, given the potential impact on taxpayers if public projects are not carefully planned and weighed against existing private investment. 
 
 Municipal broadband is often hailed as the solution to providing service in difficult to build areas where it’s been hard to attract private investment. But municipal broadband is not the only or the most efficient way to do this. The FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF), which is just getting off the ground, is dedicated to serving rural America. The CAF program is focused on stimulating investment by providing public funds for broadband in areas where there is no business case. In contrast to municipal broadband networks, which can undermine competition and saddle local communities with significant debt if such networks fail, the CAF offers an efficient, rational means of helping to expand broadband access to all Americans. 
 
 The commission has the power to preempt state laws under appropriate circumstances. However, Supreme Court precedent requires a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent in order to interfere with the relationship between states and their political subdivisions. Because the commission lacks this clear intent under Section 706 of the Communications Act, the FCC does not have the power to preempt the North Carolina and Tennessee statutes. 
 
 The FCC could make positive use of its preemption authority to facilitate broadband deployment at the local level by removing barriers to entry, specifically around local rights of way. These barriers, which can include the expense of obtaining permits and leasing pole attachments, can amount to 20 percent of the cost of fiber optic deployment, according to the National Broadband Plan. 
 
 Read the comments here.
– Municipalities, take note: A group representing cable giants like Time Warner and Comcast is pressing US officials to stop two cities from expanding high-speed Internet services, the Guardian reports. Those cities—Chattanooga, TN, and Wilson, NC—are already providing unusually fast 1GB-per-second service to residents. Chattanooga's broadband helped trigger a tech boom, and Wilson's reached people who were complaining about the quality and cost of Time Warner service. Now each city wants to expand service into a wider area, the Wall Street Journal reports. US Telecom's lobbyists are urging the FCC not to let cities work around laws designed to protect private broadband companies (20 states have such laws, the Verge notes). US Telecom is also arguing in a blog that public broadband has "a mixed record, with numerous examples of failures"—and it's true that a group of Utah towns had to sell its service to Google for $1 after failing to make enough money. So, is municipal broadband anti-competitive? Cable companies say subsidies give cities an unfair leg up, while cities argue that they are improving competition in their areas. (On the lighter side, read about the Comcast "call from hell.")