LANSING, Mich. — Although small rural communities are getting connected to the internet with broadband service, there are obstacles in the way that make this process slower for some.

Cases in point are laws in at least 19 states that prohibit municipalities from offering broadband internet service. One state, Colorado, has a law that says a municipality has to have a vote of the people before it can offer such a service in a given community.

Last November, seven communities there did just that. As a result, towns and counties in the state may launch construction of their own broadband infrastructure.

In a recent editorial at The Center for Rural Affairs, Energy Policy Associate Lucas Nelson wrote the offending laws in these 19 states “totally restrict the ability of local governments to provide broadband internet access. There’s really no argument that internet access is not an important part of modern life. It’s an invaluable tool for small business, health care providers and educational institutions.

“The internet has become a part of day-to-day life that can easily be taken for granted, until it’s no longer available. For many people considering moving to rural areas, having good internet access can be just as important as having reliable electricity or water.”

In a follow-up interview, Nelson said his group has been looking at recent discussions about internet neutrality and keeping it open to consumers. One way of doing that would be to reclassify broadband internet access as a utility at the federal level, he said; however, that dramatic a change doesn’t seem to be in the offing right now.

“Colorado has a ban on municipalities providing internet access to residents, but it has an escape hatch,” Nelson said, referring to the referendum. “In Colorado, you can call it to a vote, which is great. We thought the state level action in the editorial was important to highlight.”

Both Michigan and Tennessee are part of the 19 states that make it difficult or impossible for municipalities to offer their residents broadband. In Michigan, municipalities can provide such services only if they have first requested bids for the services at issue, have received fewer than three qualified bids from private sector entities to provide such services and have subjected themselves to the same terms and conditions as those specified in their request for proposals.

According to an analysis by the Baller Herbst law firm, which specializes in communications issues, municipalities typically have lower costs than private entities and do not seek the high short-term profits that shareholders and investors expect of private-sector entities.

“As a result, municipalities can sometimes serve areas that private entities shun and can often provide more robust and less expensive services than private entities are willing to offer,” the analysis states.

Tennessee has a different law. It allows municipalities that operate their own electric utilities to provide cable, two-way video, video programming, internet access and similar services, but “only upon complying with various public disclosure, hearing, voting and other requirements” that a private provider would not have to meet, according to the same analysis.

Municipalities that do not operate electric utilities can provide services only in historically unserved areas and only through a joint venture with the private sector.

Jim Baller of the Baller Herbst law firm founded the Coalition for Local Internet Choice. He describes internet access in many areas of the United States as “woefully” inadequate.

“Our coalition is dedicated to preserving and protecting the right of local governments to play a significant role in acquiring such access for their communities,” he said. “Whether that means working with willing incumbents, entering into public-private partnerships, building their own networks or developing other innovative options, local governments, through their elected leaders, should be able to make these choices without legal or other barriers thrown in their paths by certain established providers and their allies.”

Opponents of municipally provided internet access argue a local government could use its position to set prices lower than cost in order to drive potential competitors out of the market, or that governments could use their position to create unfair regulations to disadvantage any competition. The counter-argument to that is while although governments could do these and other things to drive out competition, they rarely do so.

This issue is discussed at length in a Federal Trade Commission report from 2006 called Municipal Provision of Wireless Internet, which is available online at http://1.usa.gov/1COvL41