Petition updateBellingham/Whatcom County Publicly Owned Fiber Optic NetworkSHB-2664 Passes The State Senate
Jon HumphreyBellingham, WA, United States
Feb 28, 2018 — https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018021253 Above is the link to the video where the Senate had a final discussion about and then passed SHB-2664-S. This was the companion bill to HB-2664. I wrote a long commentary about this that I shared with government officials at every level of local and state government. Here's what it comes down to. Overall, it is potentially very good. The key word here being potentially. The senate's last minute amendment, may allow for some abuse as I'll explain. When the bill came out of the House it was perfect. It simply removed the rural restrictions and that's all that needed to be done, and all that should have been done. However, the Senate just couldn't let it through without adding an amendment that can potentially really help big telecoms create virtual monopolies in rural areas. The amendment says that "A port district under this section may select a telecommunications company to operate all or a portion of the port 10 district's telecommunications facilities. " This means that if you have questionable port commissioners they can select just one company to do everything, however, it also means that if you have a good port commissioner (wink, wink to Michael Shepard) they can setup an Open Access Structure and allow many providers in. The bill also prioritizes getting better services to rural areas. Still, I'm not sure why the Senate felt that it was necessary to put this amendment in. So, here are some key things to look for in the near future. If you see wireless only options from one big anti-net neutral provider being pushed out of your port, it's time to get new commissioners. Right after this bill was passed a bill to retain net-neutrality was also passed. However, the big telecoms are already arguing federal preemption to any state law. Still, I think this will help protect Washington State and I hope to see similar bills in other states. The bill number for that is SHB-2282. In the end, there is no good reason for the ports not to offer services in an OpenAccess structure that increases choice, in fact that should have been part of the bill as many of us suggested to our government. Anyway, such is politics.... At least now more ports can provide more services to more of you and that is a good thing overall. Still, we'll need to keep an eye on our port commissioners and make sure they're not just creating virtual monopolies on behalf of one company.
Support now
Sign this petition
Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X