Open Access
Bills In Washington State Legislature Would Allow Public Utility Districts into Retail Broadband

Though Washington is home to one of the nation’s fastest growing tech hubs, many communities throughout the state lack adequate broadband infrastructure. The stark divide between those Washingtonians with reliable home broadband connections, and those without, became especially salient last year, when many were forced to rely on their home Internet access for work, school, health, socialization, and much more.
A year into the pandemic, it seems lawmakers in Olympia are finally waking up to the connectivity issues currently plaguing the state. In January, bills aiming to advance broadband connectivity by allowing public entities to participate in the retail broadband market were presented in the House and Senate of the Washington State Legislature. The two bills have both cleared their respective chambers, and are waiting to be heard in committees of the opposite legislative chamber.
Discussions surrounding the two bills will continue on March 11th, when Washington’s Senate Energy Committee is set to hold a hearing for House Bill 1336, one of two bills being considered (the other is Senate Bill 5383).
Both bills aim to grant public entities, such as Public Utility Districts and ports, the authority to operate as Internet Service Providers. Currently PUDs and ports can build broadband networks but must offer wholesale access to private ISPs, and are prohibited from offering direct retail services to residents and businesses. The bills being considered now would allow them to deliver Internet access to Washington residents without a charter or third-party business overseeing network management operations.
While the bills are similar, they possess important differences. At the heart of the dispute between the two proposed laws is a preemption clause included in Senate Bill 5383, sponsored by State Sen. Lisa Wellman.
Wellman’s bill gives incredible veto power to private, incumbent ISPs. SB 5383 would change existing state laws to allow PUDs and ports to offer broadband service directly to residents only if they do not “receive notice from the governor’s statewide broadband office that an existing broadband service provider has not submitted an objection.”
SB 5383 would give private companies authority over public entities that want to expand into territory or build in areas where incumbent ISPs claim they plan to expand service within the next six months.
House Bill 1336, sponsored by State Rep. Drew Hansen, does not include such a veto clause. Instead, HB 1336 would grant retail authority to PUDs, ports and municipalities with populations under 10,000 without requiring private third-party network managers or operators. Hansen’s legislation would initiate critical changes to state laws, under which counties and small towns operating without a charter currently lack any authority to provide telecommunications services.
Champions of SB 5383 claim the new law would focus more on rural broadband than Hansen’s legislation. The Senate Bill calls for creating maps that pinpoint underserved areas and targeting these communities with funds and incentives. Yet, SB 5383 does not allow counties or municipalities to provide telecommunications services directly, nor does it allow ports or small towns operating without a charter to provide services directly.
Public-backed vs. Private-backed
While Comcast, small telecom companies, and business lobbyists have supported Wellman’s more limited legislative proposal, PUDs, ports, rural health clinics, the Suquamish Tribe, parents, teachers, broadband activists, and over a thousand citizens who signed up to testify, have rallied behind Hansen’s bill.
Many in the public sector have voiced concerns with SB 5383 and the veto power it gives private telecommunications companies. Some have also criticized Wellman, a former Apple executive, as being a naïve champion employed by for-profit telecom lobbyists.
“The veto provision allowing an ‘existing broadband service provider’ to block a public utility district from providing Internet [access] is anti-competitive and frankly insulting,” said Devin Glaser, Executive Director of Upgrade Seattle.
There are a number of reasons for a local government to provide a utility directly, without waiting for the private sector’s permission, he said, noting how incumbent providers often do not provide service to all residents in a community, have unreasonable pricing, or offer speeds that are insufficient for individuals attempting to work from home.
Objecting to Wellman’s proposal, Glaser maintained that Washington residents deserve a competitive market in the delivery of Internet services. “If the private sector wishes to compete with a public utility district, town, port, or county, they can offer better service or lower prices,” he said.
In the absence of reliable broadband at competitive prices, many PUDs have worked within current state limitations to offer broadband on a wholesale basis, through dark fiber or open access networks. For more on this tune into Episode 316 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast, where Justin Holzgrove of Mason County PUD 3 and Isak Finer from COS Systems discuss how COS Systems is helping the public utility’s strategic deployment approach in Mason County, Washington.
Claims of Overbuilding Are Suspect
Wellman argues that the veto power provided to ISPs by SB 5383 will prevent “overbuilds” and encourage public entities only to build infrastructure where it currently does not exist.
Still, others have contended that the veto clause included in SB 5383 will allow incumbent ISPs too much leverage to convince the Washington Statewide Broadband Office that some community broadband initiatives — aimed at connecting the unserved, creating a more competitive marketplace, and improving end-user experience — classify as “overbuilding”.
The term overbuilding, often used to describe the construction of new, futureproof networks in localities where only one incumbent ISP offers service, has been widely utilized by lobbyists attempting to protect private companies’ monopolies on telecommunications services.
For an in-depth discussion of “overbuilding” and competition, watch or listen to Episode 7 of the Connect This! Show.
In conversation with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Laura Loe, Executive Director of Share the Cities, called lobbyists’ utilization of the term overbuilding an “excuse to not allow public entities to eat into private profits,” which echoes a point made more substantively by John Sallet in the recently published report, Broadband For America’s Future [pdf]. In that report, Sallet wrote “what some call ‘overbuilding’ should be called by a more familiar term: competition.”
ILSR’s Director of the Community Broadband Networks initiative Christopher Mitchell voiced concern that SB 5383 will allow an incumbent ISP claiming to offer 100 Mbps service for $150 per month to some residents of an area the ability to veto a PUD attempting to expand gigabit fiber to everyone in a region for a much more reasonable price to end-users. “This ‘right of first refusal’ is counter-productive and poorly constructed,” Mitchell said. “It demonstrates that some lawmakers are more worried about the concerns of deep-pocketed monopolies than the small businesses and residents that desperately need more investment in rural Washington.”
Moving Towards Digital Equity
Discussions surrounding the two bills will continue on March 11th, when Washington’s Senate Energy Committee is set to hold a hearing for HB 1336. Loe considers the hearing scheduled for Thursday an organizational victory for the public sector. According to Loe, who heads a Seattle-based special interest group focused on housing and other tenant rights, it took a month of campaigning before Sen. Reuven Carlyle, a recipient of telecom PAC money, announced he would allow the bill to be heard in the state Senate.
Loe maintained that while HB 1336 will not resolve all of the factors that perpetuate digital inequity, it is critical in overturning Washington’s restrictions on public broadband and a step in the direction towards more universal access to broadband infrastructure.
“This bill isn’t doing anything for digital equity,” reminded Loe. “I don’t want people afterwards to feel tricked when Hansen’s House Bill goes through, and … Washington residents are essentially getting Comcast services again.” This is a big, but important, conflict over access for a comparatively small number of rural residents.
“This bill won’t help an elder access telemedicine; this bill won’t help a student who doesn’t have a laptop,” Loe said, adding a sobering dynamic to the conversation surrounding the legislation.
Loe believes there is confusion on both sides about what HB 1336 will actually do, if enacted. “HB 1336 is not mandating public broadband,” said Loe. “We would still need to fight on a municipal level” after the law passes, in order to get reliable, affordable broadband to all Washington residents.
Read full text of bills below.
Editor’s Note: This piece was authored by Jericho Casper with the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Network Initiative. Originally published on MuniNetworks.org, the piece is part of a collaborative reporting effort between Broadband Breakfast and the Community Broadband Networks program at ILSR.
Open Access
Lewis County Public Utility District Pushes Forward with Open Access Fiber Plan
‘Getting broadband out to all rural areas and all residents of Lewis County,’ Washington.

Lewis County, Washington and the Lewis County Public Utility District are making progress with their plan to deploy an open access fiber network that should dramatically boost broadband competition—and lower prices—county wide by 2026.
In November 2019, Lewis County PUD received a $50,000 grant from the Community Economic Revitalization Board to study the county’s broadband shortcomings and determine whether taking direct action to address them made sense. In early 2020, the PUD formed the Lewis County Broadband Action Team to further study community needs.
Those inquiries found what most U.S. communities know too well: concentrated monopolization had left county residents overpaying for substandard, expensive, and spotty broadband access unsuitable for modern living.
In response, the Lewis County PUD announced in 2021 it would be building an 134-mile-long fiber backbone and open access fiber network for around $104 million. Around $23.5 million of that total will be paid for by a recently awarded grant by the Washington State Department of Commerce, itself made possible by the American Rescue Plan Act.
In December of 2021, Lewis County PUD public affairs manager Willie Painter was a guest on our Community Broadband Bits podcast in which he discussed the PUD’s vision of deploying fiber across the county’s 2,450 square miles, which is home to about 75,000 Washingtonians, or about 30,000 households. Painter noted then how the PUD’s “shovel ready designs and estimates” is what “empowered our utility to be very competitive in going after state and federal grant dollars to help fund these construction deployments.”
The latest development to have emerged since we last reported on Lewis County PUD, is who the PUD selected as a partner to build the network. The network will be built as part of a 25-year public-private partnership with ToledoTel. While ToledoTel will install, supply and maintain a new fiber optic network connecting more than 2,300 homes and businesses in the Winlock area, Lewis County will ultimately own the final build.
ToledoTel is currently in the engineering and design phase of the project, and has stated it will provide an additional $2.35 million in matching funds for the project, which is slated to be finished before 2026.
Details of the arrangement were finalized in January, and county leaders state that ToledoTel will have exclusive access to the infrastructure for up to three years. After that, ToledoTel will be required to open the network to competitors at a wholesale rate, boosting competition and driving down costs in a residential broadband market largely dominated by Comcast.

Photo of Lewis County PUD building courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
“There’s the convenience, there’s business purposes; all those are really vital and becoming more and more a part of everyday life, and we want to provide those services to everyone in Lewis County that we can,” Lewis County Manager Erik Martin told The Chronicle. “This project is really the beginning, in terms of getting service out to folks, and we want to focus on getting broadband out to all rural areas and all residents of Lewis County.”
A 2021 survey by the WA Department of Commerce found that 64 percent of state households reported download speeds slower than the base FCC definition of broadband, currently a paltry 25 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. The state is currently considering raising the base definition of broadband to 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream.
A local survey by Lewis County PUD found that more than 77 percent of survey respondents had broadband speeds well below the acceptable federal definition of broadband, despite nearly 98 percent of county survey participants considering broadband access an essential utility.
Lewis County is one of many PUDs in Washington State taking full advantage of a flood of new grants — and recently-eliminated Washington State restrictions on community broadband — to belatedly expand access to affordable fiber across the state.
This article by Karl Bode originally appeared on the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Broadband Networks project on March 13, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.
Open Access
Financing Mechanisms for Community Broadband, Panel 3 at Digital Infrastructure Investment
Panel 3 video. Join the Broadband Breakfast Club to watch the full-length videos from Digital Infrastructure Investment.

Video from Panel 3 at Digital Infrastructure Investment: Kim McKinley, Chief Marketing Officer, UTOPIA Fiber, Jeff Christensen, President & CEO, EntryPoint Networks, Jane Coffin, Chief Community Officer, Connect Humanity, Robert Wack, former Westminster Common Council President and leader of the Open Access Citywide Fiber Network Initiative, and moderated by Christopher Mitchell, Director, Community Broadband Networks, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
For a free article summarizing the event, see Communities Need Governance Seat on Broadband Builds, Conference Hears: Communities need to be involved in decision-making when it comes to broadband builds, Broadband Breakfast, November 17, 2022
Open Access
In Video Session, Christopher Mitchell Digs Into Community Ownership and Open Access Networks
The conversation dealt with open access networks, and whether cities are well-suited to play a role in developing them.

September 29, 2022 – Community-owned, open access networks protect communities against irresponsible network operators and stimulate innovation, said Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, at a Broadband.Money Ask Me Anything! event Friday.
“AT&T, Frontier, these companies have a history of failing to meet community needs,” said Mitchell. “If I had a choice between open broadband fixed wireless and fiber from AT&T, I’d be really, you know, checking it out.”
“[AT&T] is a company that will sell your data at the first opportunity, it’s a company that will raise your bill every chance it gets,” Mitchell added.
ILSR’s director said that in communities in which local ownership isn’t possible, such as in a town with a deeply corrupt government, there still exist contractual provisions that can maximize local control.
A right of first refusal, for instance, gives communities the option to purchase their local network if the original provider chooses to sell. Mitchell also suggested communities write performance-based contracts that institute penalties for network partners who fail to meet clearly outlined performance benchmarks.
Conversation entered realm of open access discussion
The wide-ranging conversation also dealt with the issues of open access networks, and whether cities are well-suited to play a role in developing them.
“The cities are the custodians of their rights of way – they need to be, they must be,” said Drew Clark, editor and publisher of Broadband Breakfast. Because of the cities inherent role as custodians of their rights of way, Clark said that open-access networks provide cities with the opportunity to own the infrastructure portion of their broadband networks, while still offering private companies the ability to serve as network operators or application service providers.
Mitchell agreed that open access networks can be critical to broadband innovation. “We need to have millions – ideally tens of million – of Americans in thriving areas that have open access to kind of see what we can do with networks,” he said.
“Maybe a lot of those ideas won’t work out, but I think we don’t want to foreclose that path.”
In addition to overseeing digital infrastructure projects, communities can promote digital equity by utilizing established, trusted community-based institutions – such as food pantries or faith groups – to boost digital literacy and distribute devices, Mitchell said.
Mitchell added that these efforts must be ongoing: “This is more about building connections now.”
-
Fiber4 weeks ago
‘Not a Great Product’: AT&T Not Looking to Invest Heavily in Fixed Wireless
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
AT&T Floats BEAD in USF Areas, Counties Concerned About FCC Map, Alabama’s $25M for Broadband
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
Preview the Start of Broadband Breakfast’s Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech4 weeks ago
House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chairman Gus Bilirakis to Keynote Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
Watch the Webinar of Big Tech & Speech Summit for $9 and Receive Our Breakfast Club Report
-
#broadbandlive2 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 22, 2023 – Robocalls, STIR/SHAKEN and the Future of Voice Telephony
-
Infrastructure1 week ago
BEAD Build Timelines in Jeopardy if ‘Buy America’ Waivers Not Granted, White House Budget Office Told
-
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 8: A Status Update on Tribal Broadband