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 »
Mueller Report Almost Done
5 hours ago

“Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report. ... The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation. The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change. The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear.”

SCOTUS Limits State and Local Governments' Ability to Levy Fines
7 hours ago

"The U.S. Supreme Court curbed the power of cities and states to levy fines and seize property, siding with a man trying to keep his Land Rover after he pleaded guilty to selling drugs. The unanimous ruling marks the first time the court has said that states and cities are bound by the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, part of the Eighth Amendment."

Putin Threatens Arms Race
8 hours ago

"Moscow will match any U.S. move to deploy new nuclear missiles closer to Russia by stationing its own missiles closer to the United States or by deploying faster missiles or both, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday. Putin said Russia was not seeking confrontation and would not take the first step to deploy missiles in response to Washington’s decision this month to quit a landmark Cold War-era arms control treaty."

MAY 26-28
Trump to Visit Japan
8 hours ago
Trump Signs Border Deal
5 days ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"


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.