CO House bill could help bring broadband to unserved areas

Chamberland has some concerns

Improvement in the valley’s Internet service could still be a long way off. One piece of legislation that would make more money available for broadband infrastructure in some rural areas and another effort to bring better service from Monarch Pass are waiting on word of the Gunnison sage grouse listing.
But slowly, the effort keeps moving forward.

The Connect Colorado Broadband Act, also known as House Bill 1328, was introduced in the House in mid-March and assigned to the House Business, Labor and Economic and Workforce Development Committee. Millie Hamner, Crested Butte’s representative in the state house, sits on that committee.
The bill was introduced in the state legislature and was pitched as a way of re-appropriating the funds created through the high cost support mechanism (HCSM), a system originally intended to provide basic phone service to high-cost areas of the state.
Although there are fewer areas of the state beyond the reach of telephone service these days, the HCSM money is still being collected.
The Public Utilities Commission capped the amount of money that could be collected for the fund at $54 million, but a substantial share—about $45 million—goes directly to Century Link, the state’s biggest broadband provider.
Gunnison County Commissioner Phil Chamberland, who has been central to the effort to improve local broadband access, says if the bill is successful it envisions a system similar to the one set up by the state to distribute money to trails and open space projects. Using that model, a 13-member board would convene to discuss funding requests for broadband projects and distribute the money accordingly.
And while the money is available for any eligible broadband project in the state, any company that provides broadband to the area being considered for HCSM funds, known as an incumbent provider, has a right of first refusal. Chamberland says such a right is designed to identify areas of redundant coverage and keep state funds from being used on those projects. It could also keep smaller Internet service providers (ISPs) out of a market mostly occupied by big companies.
“We’ve been pushing to remove the right of first refusal,” Chamberland says. “If the incumbents have infrastructure and want to serve a community where a project has been proposed, they can use that right of first refusal to take that project over.”
Chamberland uses the example of Century Link, which already has fiber optic cable all the way up State Highway 133 to County Road 3, which leads into Marble. And although the company hasn’t made the decision to take its fiber into town, it could once a smaller competitor makes a plan to do just that and submits it to the broadband committee for funding consideration.
“My concern is you have a local ISP or smaller non-incumbent provider that would go through the process to apply for a grant and do all the legwork to see what it’s going to take. Then if Century Link comes in and says, ‘We can do that,’ the ISP is out all of its time and energy in creating the proposal. It’s a disincentive for the ISP to do that work.”
At the same time, the bill puts tight parameters on the projects the money can be used for. Specifically, the HCSM money is being used to support a grant program that can be accessed by communities and companies interested in providing broadband Internet access to “unserved” communities.
Unserved, according to the bill, is a community that is unincorporated or has fewer than 5,000 inhabitants, half or more whom lack access to at least one broadband provider that uses satellite and non-satellite technology.
As a result, areas without a redundant Internet infrastructure, like the Gunnison Valley, are left counting on one line of connection between them and a central broadband hub, like the one in Montrose.
Chamberland says part of the reason for such narrow language in the bill is the power the incumbent Internet providers wield in state politics to protect their own interests as for-profit companies. “Politics being what they are, the bill wouldn’t pass without [the right of first refusal] in there,” Chamberland says.
At the root of the problem is ownership of the infrastructure, which can be prohibitively expensive to install in small markets. As a result, for-profit companies are the ones who have made the investment to run fiber optic cable capable of providing large amount of bandwidth to markets large enough to make the investment profitable.
While understanding that a for-profit company is in the business of making money—not just providing service, seen by many as central to 21st- century life as sewers were to 19th-century life— Chamberland wishes the state government had been more interested in providing “middle-mile” infrastructure through public projects and letting the for-profit companies duke it out over the last fiber optic legs to the customer.
“Because [the incumbents] own so much of the infrastructure, they control the leasing and they control the pricing for all the markets,” Chamberland says. “I wish the middle mile was carrier-neutral. They’re the ones that invested the money, and as for-profit businesses they’re going to try to make as much as they can on that, but it hurts us when it comes to pricing.”
Chamberland says an amendment is being discussed that would allow incumbent providers a six-month window after the bill is signed to make progress on projects eligible for HCSM funds. After that window closes, the funds would become available for non-incumbent providers.
The bill is scheduled to go to the state senate for debate this month. The local state senator, Gail Schwartz, was a sponsor on the bill.