Nebraskans who use dial-up Internet services creep along like old men with walkers. Dial-up is slow, tedious, frustrating and entirely impractical for business purposes, according to a study released Monday.

But many Nebraskans have no access to fast broadband service or if they do, it’s pricey because there’s no competition.

The state should allow local governments and public utilities to offer broadband so all Nebraskans have access to inexpensive service, recommends the report prepared by  the Brennan Center for Justice and the NYU School of Law.

The report offers information  and advice to a state task force created by the Legislature to study Nebraska’s broadband issues.  It recommends modifying or repealing the current restrictions on government provided broadband.

That task force is “looking at what is best for Nebraska.  How do we assure that services are provided,” said Lt. Gov. Rick Sheehy, chairman of the group.

The technology is there.  Broadband can be provided over power lines and other public infrastructure, he said.

The task force will look at two public policy issues, he said.  Should public entities be allowed to compete with private?  And if so, how should competition be governed?

The Brennan Center report was submitted by a coalition of organizations that includes the Center for Rural Affairs, Common Cause, Free Press, Media Access Project, the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest and the Rural Policy Research Institute.

The report focuses on rural Nebraska needs.

Almost half of the Nebraskans living in small towns or on farms and ranches do not have access to broadband.  And many others have only one broadband provider, according to a 2005 Nebraska Telecommunications Association report.

An NTA report of  2006 indicates that  7.4 percent of Nebraska towns (44) have no broadband provider and 44.8 percent (267 towns) have a monopoly broadband provider. 

About 31.4 percent of Nebraska towns (187, including the 16 largest population centers) have three or more providers.

Those with dial-up service —sometimes dubbed World Wide Wait — had many complaints. 

* Farmers reported difficulties reaching commodities markets, breeding and USDA Web pages

* Some people were unable to upload grant applications

* Auction transactions were hard to complete.

* It is impossible to use job training software that requires streaming video. 

Nebraskans responding to a Brennan Center poll reported paying $9.50 to $50 a month for dial-up service; $20 to $60 a month for DSL; $35 to $100 per month for cable broadband, $40 to $70 per month for wireless and $50 to $70 per month for satellite Internet. 

Wireless and satellite Internet users reported paying installation fees ranging from $50 to $600.

“Private providers have failed to deploy universal, affordable broadband in Nebraska and elsewhere in the country,” the report concludes.

It recommends that the Nebraska Legislature let communities decide whether they want to build a public broadband service by repealing or modifying current law.

Both city governments and public power companies should be able to offer wholesale or retail broadband service to areas where it is now unavailable and to provide competition where there are just one or  two providers.

Hampering local communities from responding quickly could mean a loss in of jobs in Nebraska to states that allow their local governments to offer broadband.

Communities with affordable broadband will have a competitive advantage over those that don’t, the report said. 

The state can level the playing field by requiring public entities to offer services at or above costs, or by requiring local governments to pay substantially the same taxes as public companies in providing telecommunications services, according to the report. 

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.

The broadband controversy

A heavily lobbied bill passed in 2005 creates an 18-member task force to study broadband issues and restricts the public sector’s involvement in offering broadband services.

The law prohibits local governments from getting involved in any aspect of broadband services. It prohibits public power from selling broadband services at the retail level and puts a two-year moratorium on public power companies wholesaling broadband and other telecommunications services.

The original bill’s aim was to keep local governments and public power out of the broadband business. This study and a partial ban was the compromise.

Arguments for a ban on government competition.

* It’s unfair because of public sector tax advantages.

* It stymies economic development by discouraging expansion by private companies.

Arguments against the ban.

* Private companies have not offered universal broadband services, particularly in sparsely populated areas. 

* Publically provided  broadband gives local communities an economic advantage over areas without broadband.

* Government or public utilities can provide competition where there is limited competition.