Victory Again: HB60 withers without so much as a hearing

"HB60 is dead, Jim." (from Wikipedia)

“HB60 is dead, Jim.”
(from Wikipedia)

Without any official action, HB60 died in the same fashion as SB190 and was sent back to rules to rot out the rest of the session without so much as a committee hearing. Between these two bills, municipal broadband advocates in Utah have racked up some big wins when we’re used to nonsense punitive laws sailing through without any opposition. What changed this year was being on top of these bills and swiftly letting legislators know how we feel about them. It might not be a bad idea to write Rep. Curt Webb to express appreciation that he backed down on HB60 once we spoke up. I have a gut feeling that he was had.

And no, I’m not going to take credit for anything. Each of you who took the time to write legislators and share this information as widely as possible across social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Reddit, etc.) had at least as much of a hand in this success. I think we’ve proved that we’re a force to be reckoned with. We just have to show up.

While I think we’ve reached a point where the war is now going in our favor, it’s not over. I’m sure Comcast and CenturyLink will be more than happy to use their hatchetmen at the Utah Taxpayers Association yet again to try and throw up roadblocks next year. Sen. Valentine is not the type to go quietly into the night, and SB190 (or something like it) is probably going to be discussed in interim committees. I have little doubt that other restrictive measures will come up too. Once I find out about them, you’ll know too.

Was HB60 an inside play by the Utah Taxpayers Association? All signs point to yes

Utah Taxpayers AssociationOnce HB60 hit the wires, I was quick to file a GRAMA request to find out what kind of communication Rep. Curt Webb had been receiving on the bill. Most of it is angry emails from Utah residents, many of whom were not accepting Rep. Webb’s cut-and-paste boilerplate reply about “transparency”. Here’s what he wrote along with my comments on each part:

Somehow the bill has gotten mischaracterized in the public eye. I have met with lobbyists and industry people over the past few days. I believe that much of the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and you may see a few minor amendments to provide that clarification. If it did what is being said of the bill, it would violate all of my conservative free market principles and run contrary to my voting record.

Actually, Rep. Webb, we understand the restriction all too well. You’ve been had. Just own the turkey and move on.

The bill does not prohibit infrastructure expansion. In fact it addresses no other entity than UTOPIA. UTOPIA is government entity created by an interlocal agreement and the public asks for and deserves transparency and accountability of them. The bill requires that any city into which UTOPIA expands become a member city. HB60 is not designed to damage UTOPIA is any way, but rather to provide clarity and accountability to citizens who may be involved in that expansion.

When UTOPIA builds in a non-member city, it has to negotiate a franchise agreement with that city like any other telecom builder. It’s already on a level playing field. Non-member cities can enforce transparency and accountability via this agreement. The only distinction with a member city is that the franchise agreement has been negotiated in advance for the entire municipality. By prohibiting UTOPIA from negotiating franchise agreements except on a citywide basis, you’re making them play by a different set of rules. That is, at the very core, damaging.

Why? Example: We must keep in mind that UTOPIA is an entity composed of member cities. If an expansion were installed in a non member city, and problems with the network arose; who would the citizens in that area turn to? That user is not a citizen of the proviing [sic] entity. Their own non member city could say “We are not UTOPIA.” If they turned to UTOPIA for help, those member cities could say “You are not our constituent”.

We’ve already established that the franchise agreement gives the non-member city power to establish and enforce terms with UTOPIA. It seems like Rep. Webb either doesn’t understand franchise agreements or is convinced that unless cities increase their involvement with UTOPIA, they won’t enforce the provisions of them. The former is most likely as the latter is simply outlandish. Unless, of course, he’s conceding that cities don’t properly enforce the terms of franchise agreements with operators like CenturyLink and Comcast. That, however, seems unlikely.

The bill only applies only [sic] to government entities as providers, (iProvo no longer applies), and requires as a matter of government accountability to users, that expansion areas become member cities. Some already have.

The cities are and have been accountable to their citizens, member or not.

Email between UTA and Curt Webb on HB60

Email between UTA and Curt Webb on HB60

So I find myself wondering how his confused logic spawned this bill in the first place. Then I came across the one email not between Rep. Webb and someone furious at this bill: an exchange between himself and none other than Royce Van Tassell of the Utah Taxpayers Association! Most telling, Rep. Webb emailed Van Tassell directly and out of the blue to solicit their talking points on the issue.

Unshockingly, the UTA has the same fundamental misunderstandings of how franchise agreements work as Rep. Webb expressed in his missive. Van Tassell also alluded to the push coming straight from UTA’s president, Sen. Howard Stephenson. Don’t take my word for it: read the email yourself.

This is just the latest in the long and disturbing trend of incumbent providers funneling money into a sitting senator’s company to influence the legislative process from the inside while keeping their hands “clean”. How the voters of Draper can tolerate it is beyond me. It’s my hope that they’ll wise up to it and send Stephenson packing.

Bill Alert: HB60 dropped from the agenda AGAIN

I’m beginning to think that Rep. Curt Webb is trying to win a “most indecisive legislator” award or something. I’ve gotten word (from three sources) that HB60 has been pulled from the House  Government Operations Committee hearing yet again. There’s no indication yet on when it will now be heard, but we’re certain to get at least 24 hours of notice. With the President’s Day holiday coming up, I think we can at least stand down for the weekend.

As always, I’ll provide updates when they’re available.

Zombie Bill: HB60 comes back, committee hearing Friday at 8AM

Despite looking like it’s dead, HB60 is coming back for a committee hearing on Friday at 8AM. This is the best chance to kill the bill for good, so it’s very important that as many opponents as possible come to the hearing and voice their opposition. The bill is currently fourth on the agenda, so even if you’re a bit late, you’ll likely be able to get a chance to speak.

Now is the time to email, call, or visit members of the committee to urge them to oppose this bill. Showing up will make the most difference. If it dies in committee, there’s a good chance it won’t come to a floor vote at all.

BREAKING: HB60 may have died in committee

I went to check the status of HB60 this morning and noticed the status has changed to “House Comm – Not Considered”. This means that the committee responsible for hearing the bill has declined to do so. Without a committee hearing, the bill has little chance of passing at all. There’s still the possibility that once the rules are suspended that it could be brought to a floor vote, but that appears to be unlikely and would be a “hail Mary” kind of move.

As always, I’m going to keep watching this one until the session is over, but it looks like we may have won this round handily.

Bill Alert: HB60 held again

Rep. Curt Webb has held HB60 again to make some additional modifications. It will be heard again either Wednesday or Friday. I’ll post more as it becomes available, though notice of the agenda change wasn’t made until minutes before the committee meeting. CenturyLink is definitely watching this one as their head lobbyist, Eric Isom, was spotted outside the committee room.

Rep. Webb was also on a radio interview opposite Pete Ashdown and was reportedly unable to articulate a good reason to pass the bill. I’m hoping he withdraws it before there’s more egg on his face.

Bill Alert: HB60 to be heard Monday in the House Government Operations Committee

I just got notified that the House Government Operations Committee has added HB60 to its agenda on Monday February 10 at 2PM. The meeting will be held in Room 20 in the House Building and this is the first agenda item. If you can be there to speak as a member of the public, I strongly encourage you to do so. Public opposition is the best way to kill bills like this!

The Tipping Point: Are restrictions on muni broadband no longer feasible?

Only a few years ago, it seemed like any kind of anti-municipal broadband legislation was a slam dunk in state legislatures around the country. North Carolina’s outright ban and Utah’s continued imposition of restrictions with no purpose promoted a kind of defeatism that once the incumbents found a willing sponsor, the legislation was as good as passed.

But something has changed. In Kansas, a bill designed to sharply curtail Google Fiber got absolutely destroyed by citizen protest. Here in Utah, HB60 is being pummeled in the local and national press. Any time one of these bills comes up, the anger quickly follows, the incumbents are unmasked as the culprits, and now the bill sponsors are forced to water down the bill significantly or outright withdraw it. What happened?

Cable and phone companies have been at the rear of the pack for customer satisfaction for well over a decade. Any time we try to improve things, they shoot us down to maintain their bottom line. I think we’ve finally reached the point where so many of us are enraged at both the crappy state of Internet service and blatant protectionism in government that we’re willing to try anything to improve it. If it looks like you’re getting in our way to make a buck, you’ll kindle our wrath.

Look at what’s happened with HB60. Over a dozen national news outlets have picked up the story. Hundreds of Utahns have been contacting legislators to voice opposition. There’s no evidence of any public support for the bill at all. The bill was pulled from a committee hearing and it’s possible it may not come back this year. Swift, fierce anger ruled the day on what appears to be blatant protectionism for a power incumbent phone company.

Has the tide finally turned? I think so. And we’ll all be better for it.

Bill Alert: HB60 would ban UTOPIA construction outside member cities

In a completely ill-considered move, Rep Curt Webb is running a bill, HB60, which would restrict any municipal fiber network (but, curiously, not cable, DSL, wireless, or any other technology) from building anything outside the boundaries of member cities. This is aimed squarely at UTOPIA only, and it is meant to be a purely punitive measure.

So what prompted this? Probably the developers and companies who paid out of their own pockets to expand the network. Hamlett Homes extended it into South Salt Lake communities, and a number of businesses near the backbone but outside of member cities have done the same. These extensions help lessen the burden on taxpayers as a whole by shifting more of the costs onto subscribers, but it doesn’t cost any city a red cent.

As the bill is currently written, UTOPIA wouldn’t just be prevented from building to people willing to pay for it. They could also be required to shut down any existing services and be prohibited from maintaining their backbone that links cities together. It would effectively be a death sentence on any network that isn’t entirely within member cities AND can connect to an exchange point to reach ISPs and the rest of the Internet.

Naturally, I had to follow the money and it explains a lot. Rep. Webb has taken contributions from CenturyLink and the Utah Rural Telecom Association. What’s he got planned next? Duplicating the anti-Google Fiber bill from Kansas?