How Republicans Flip-Flopped on Government-Run Internet

Letting cities provide Internet service to their residents wasn’t always a partisan issue.

Laying down fiber-optic cable in Louisville, CO. 
National Journal
Aug. 26, 2014, 1 a.m.

Gov­ern­ment-run In­ter­net ser­vice is an ab­om­in­a­tion, a waste of tax­pay­er funds, and an as­sault on private in­dustry. And if states want to ban it, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment should get out of their way.

That’s what con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans are say­ing now, but just a few years ago, top GOP law­makers were not only on board with mu­ni­cip­al In­ter­net—they were act­ively work­ing to pro­tect it.

In 2005, Re­pub­lic­an Sens. John Mc­Cain, Lind­sey Gra­ham, and Norm Cole­man—along with Demo­crats Frank Lauten­berg, John Kerry, and Russ Fein­gold—in­tro­duced a bill to block states from re­strict­ing loc­al gov­ern­ments’ abil­ity to provide pub­licly run and fun­ded In­ter­net ser­vice. Re­pub­lic­an Sens. Ted Stevens, Olympia Snowe, and Gor­don Smith joined as co­spon­sors in 2007 when the bill was re­in­tro­duced.

And Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Fred Up­ton, now the head of the power­ful En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee, was a lead spon­sor of the le­gis­la­tion’s House coun­ter­part in 2007. At the time, the Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gued that the mu­ni­cip­al In­ter­net pro­jects could boost com­pet­i­tion and spur eco­nom­ic growth.

Those days are over.

Vir­tu­ally every House Re­pub­lic­an—in­clud­ing Up­ton—voted in Ju­ly to block the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion from strik­ing down state laws that pre­vent mu­ni­cip­al­it­ies from set­ting up their own broad­band ser­vices. The pro­vi­sion is now at­tached to the House’s ver­sion of a 2015 fund­ing bill for the FCC and oth­er agen­cies.

And 11 Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors fired off a let­ter to the FCC in June, say­ing it would be “deeply troub­ling” for the agency to “force tax­pay­er fun­ded com­pet­i­tion against private broad­band pro­viders.”

The Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion fol­lows FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er’s an­nounce­ment earli­er this year that he will con­sider over­turn­ing such state lim­its. And Wheel­er’s com­mis­sion is now re­view­ing pe­ti­tions from the cit­ies of Wilson, N.C., and Chat­tanooga, Tenn., to by­pass their states’ laws on mu­ni­cip­al broad­band.

The roles of Com­cast, the FCC, and Obama

So what ex­plains the GOP’s change of heart?

Some Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue the de­bate is not about the vir­tue of mu­ni­cip­al In­ter­net, but rather the ques­tion of a fed­er­al board in­ter­ven­ing against state laws. States should be able to over­turn loc­al of­fi­cials’ de­cisions, but the FCC shouldn’t over­turn the states’ de­cisions, they ar­gue.

An Up­ton spokes­man claimed there’s noth­ing in­con­sist­ent about sup­port­ing a bill to nul­li­fy state re­stric­tions and op­pos­ing FCC ac­tion that would do the same thing.

“Voters and their elec­ted rep­res­ent­at­ives, not bur­eau­crats at the FCC, should make the de­cision wheth­er to spend tax dol­lars on mu­ni­cip­al broad­band,” the spokes­man said in a state­ment.

Mat­thew Berry, an aide to Re­pub­lic­an FCC Com­mis­sion­er Ajit Pai, ar­gued in a speech last week that the FCC can’t strike down state laws be­cause it doesn’t have clear au­thor­iz­a­tion from Con­gress.

But it’s hard to ig­nore the most sig­ni­fic­ant change since the Re­pub­lic­ans sponsored the mu­ni­cip­al broad­band bills a few years ago: The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has taken a po­s­i­tion on the is­sue.

In Feb­ru­ary, Wheel­er an­nounced he would re­write net-neut­ral­ity reg­u­la­tions that had just been struck down in fed­er­al court. As part of the an­nounce­ment, Wheel­er said he also wanted to look for op­por­tun­it­ies to “en­hance In­ter­net ac­cess com­pet­i­tion.” Over­turn­ing leg­al re­stric­tions on com­munity broad­band would be “one ob­vi­ous can­did­ate” for boost­ing com­pet­i­tion, Wheel­er said.

The state­ment, which con­nec­ted mu­ni­cip­al broad­band to the con­tro­ver­sial net-neut­ral­ity rules, in­stantly made the is­sue more par­tis­an. Wheel­er’s push on the is­sue has po­lar­ized Re­pub­lic­ans, but it’s also ral­lied Demo­crats to his side.

“Com­munit­ies are of­ten best suited to de­cide for them­selves if they want to in­vest in their own in­fra­struc­ture,” eight Demo­crats, led by Sen. Ed­ward Mar­key and Rep. Mike Doyle, wrote in a June let­ter to the FCC chief. The Demo­crats im­plored Wheel­er to “util­ize the full ar­sen­al of tools Con­gress has en­acted to pro­mote com­pet­it­ive broad­band ser­vice.”

While Re­pub­lic­ans are new op­pon­ents of mu­ni­cip­al broad­band, cable and tele­com com­pan­ies have been fight­ing the pro­jects for years. The com­pan­ies ar­gue that it’s not fair to have to com­pete with gov­ern­ment-backed pro­viders and they claim the pro­jects drive away com­mer­cial in­vest­ment. Also, like many Re­pub­lic­ans, the com­pan­ies have warned that the pro­jects can sour in­to mul­ti­mil­lion-dol­lar boon­doggles.

Com­cast, AT&T, Ve­r­i­zon, and oth­er large com­mer­cial broad­band pro­viders have been lob­by­ing state law­makers around the coun­try to set up re­stric­tions on loc­al In­ter­net ser­vice.

“Vir­tu­ally every state bar­ri­er to com­munity broad­band ini­ti­at­ives and pub­lic-private part­ner­ships has been the product of heavy lob­by­ing by cable com­pan­ies, tele­com com­pan­ies, or both,” ac­cord­ing to Jim Baller, an at­tor­ney who de­fends mu­ni­cip­al broad­band pro­jects.

The com­pan­ies also aren’t shy about donat­ing heav­ily to Re­pub­lic­ans—and Demo­crats—on the fed­er­al level.

An al­tern­ate his­tory

This de­bate would nev­er have happened if the bi­par­tis­an co­ali­tion sup­port­ing mu­ni­cip­al broad­band had suc­ceeded a few years ago.

In a 2005 Sen­ate floor speech, Mc­Cain ar­gued that his le­gis­la­tion to over­ride state re­stric­tions was ne­ces­sary to meet Pres­id­ent Bush’s goal of provid­ing “uni­ver­sal, af­ford­able ac­cess” to broad­band.

“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,” Mc­Cain said.

When Up­ton in­tro­duced his bill, he said that tear­ing down bar­ri­ers to mu­ni­cip­al broad­band would “foster even more com­pet­i­tion and choices for con­sumers across the na­tion.”

In 2006, their bill was a few short steps away from be­com­ing law, as it was in­cluded as a pro­vi­sion in a broad­er over­haul of tele­com­mu­nic­a­tions reg­u­la­tion. That lar­ger bill, au­thored by Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Joe Bar­ton, then chair­man of En­ergy and Com­merce, passed the House with 321 votes—in­clud­ing 215 Re­pub­lic­ans. Only eight Re­pub­lic­ans voted against it.

But fights over net neut­ral­ity and oth­er is­sues bogged the le­gis­la­tion down in the Sen­ate, and it nev­er be­came law.

What We're Following See More »
BREAKING WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AFTER TRUMP INSULTED THE SENATOR
McCain Family to Endorse Biden
39 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

"The late Sen. John McCain's family plans to support former Vice President Joe Biden's White House bid, backing the Democrat not only in his party's crowded primary race but also in a general election matchup with President Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned. In an extraordinary snub to Trump, who derided McCain's Vietnam War service and mocked him even after his death last August at age 81, the McCain family is preparing to break with the Republican Party. McCain represented the party in Congress for 35 years and was chosen as its presidential nominee in 2008, losing to Barack Obama."

Source:
LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS LOOMS
IRS Resists Giving Congress Trump's Tax Returns
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin left little doubt Tuesday that the administration will reject a congressional request for President Donald Trump's tax returns by a self-imposed May 6 target for a "final decision," setting the stage for a legal battle that will test the limits of congressional oversight."

Source:
CALLS CONGRESS "VERY PARTISAN"
Trump Opposes White House Aides Giving Congressional Testimony
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Trump on Tuesday said he is opposed to current and former White House aides providing testimony to congressional panels in the wake of the special counsel report, intensifying a power struggle between his administration and House Democrats. In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump said that complying with congressional requests was unnecessary after the White House cooperated with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe of Russian interference and the president’s own conduct in office."

Source:
GAG RULE WOULD HAVE KEPT CLINICS FROM REFERRING WOMEN TO ABORTION PROVIDERS
Judge Blocks Trump Abortion Rule
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane late Tuesday said he’ll grant a preliminary injunction against new federal restrictions that bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring patients to abortion providers, calling the rule a 'ham-fisted approach to public health policy.' Oregon is one of 20 states and the District of Columbia that challenged the Trump administration’s changes to the Title X family planning program in U.S. District Court in Oregon, along with Planned Parenthood affiliates and the American Medical Association."

Source:
WANTS IT BY MAY 1
Nadler Subpoenas Unredacted Report
5 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login