Issue link: https://nebusinessmedia.uberflip.com/i/652092
20 Hartford Business Journal • March 14, 2016 www.HartfordBusiness.com OPINION & COMMENTARY OTHER VOICES State has role in boosting affordable, high-speed Internet access By: Elin Swanson Katz C oncerning your Feb. 29 editorial, "State must restrain government-program growth," as the public advocate for ener- gy, natural gas, water, and telecommuni- cations and head of the state Broadband Office, I fully agree with your statement that "the state must think of creative ways to work with the private sector to advance the greater good" and your rec - ognition that there have been successful private-public partner- ships used to build infrastructure projects. Indeed, the state's efforts in the broadband area involve creatively encouraging private- sector investment for the benefit of the many businesses and residential customers who lack affordable, high-speed Internet access. This may be the No. 1 issue impacting economic development in Connecticut, and it is clearly integral to our efforts to attract and maintain innovative research-oriented and data-driven businesses. Stakeholders in other cities and states are awed by the energy and vision in Connecticut as they watch near- ly 100 municipalities, with the number grow- ing every day, collaborate with each other to create a more vibrant broadband market. Nonetheless, it will take the efforts of state officials, legisla- tors, business repre- sentatives, industry experts, local cham- pions, and yes, our incumbent telecom- munications provid- ers, working together for a common goal of low-cost, high-speed Internet access for every citizen. Having worked for the last five years to heighten awareness of the true status of demand for high-speed Internet access at reasonable prices, I must take exception with your criticism of the work of the Office of State Broadband and other government officials as an attempt to "launch new government programs." No one is suggesting or advocating that the state of Connecticut or municipalities should get into the business of running an Internet company. Rather, municipal offi- cials, state agencies, and the private sector are working together to incent the telecom marketplace towards our goal. By introduc- ing competition into the state's telecom mar- ket, all players will be incented to identify innovative models for financing and building fiber Internet infrastructure to deliver faster, cheaper, more reliable broadband services and introducing even more competition in the broadband industry. We are using the "power of the bully pulpit," as you put it, to convene the best minds in the state and the country to strategize on a variety of options, and we strongly encourage all options that hinge pri- marily on private-sector investment. We have engaged with in-state Internet providers such as Frontier and the cable operators, and believe that solutions for many parts of the state may well come from them, should they choose to work with us. However, those are not the only solutions and they are not the only possible providers, as there are many experienced telecommunications com- panies interested in competing to provide our citizens faster speeds and lower prices. Connecticut is a very attractive market for Internet service providers because of the rela- tive high income of its consumers, its density, its innovative regulatory structure for develop- ing broadband infrastructure, and its current and developing industries centered on biosci- ence, health care, insurance, education and high-tech manufacturing, just to name a few of our assets. Let's leverage those assets to attract investment in state-of-the-art digital infrastruc- ture necessary to support our economy. The focus should be on consumers — be they businesses, residents, schools, hospitals, com- munity anchor institutions, or other users of the Internet — and ensuring that they have access to Internet that is both affordable and of adequate speed to meet their needs. I hear complaints from every sector about a lack of adequate speeds for business, about poor service and high prices, about a paucity of choices for consumers. Afford- able Internet access is not a luxury — in 21st- century Connecticut, it's an essential service like water and electricity. If you needed a bridge across a river to access a thriv- ing city on the other bank, you'd reason- ably expect your town or your state to find a way to build it, without concern about government interfering in the free-market system. You would know that the government is simply one partner in the effort to bridge that river, with all players contributing to the construction of a permanent public good. Fortunately, in today's world we don't have to ford a river to reach a thriving online ecosystem that can bring more jobs, tech- nology and innovation into our state. We just have to make sure we have the bridge needed to reduce the digital divide in our state — in the form of ultra-high speed fiber networks — to create a booming digital economy. This is a good news story for Connecticut — the entire telecommunications industry is watching what we're doing, including how we've come together in this quest for solu- tions. Let's trumpet our achievements thus far and keep going — not squelch the conver- sation. In this case, government is not "in the way," it is helping to lead the way. n Elin Swanson Katz is the Consumer Counsel for the Office of Consumer Counsel and State Broadband Office. Elin Swanson Katz EDITORIAL Fantasy sports could bring CT more tax dollars S tates are considering and adopting new laws to regulate online fantasy sports games. Connecticut should follow suit, as a means to both protect consumers and raise new revenues to help stem the state's mounting fiscal crisis. Virginia last week became the first to regulate fantasy sports, a multi-billion dol- lar industry that has come under increasing legal scrutiny in recent years. At least 20 other states — including Connecticut — are mulling similar oversight. New Jersey, for example, is considering a bill that would regulate daily fantasy sports game operators and tax them 9.25 percent of their gross revenues. Virginia is regulating the industry, but only assessing fantasy sports companies a $50,000 operating fee. Connecticut's General Law Committee has raised a bill that gives the state Depart- ment of Consumer Protection the authority to regulate daily fantasy sports websites. The bill is only a broad outline but it asks for regulations that: Don't label daily fan- tasy sports contests as games of chance; restrict individuals under the age of 21 from playing; and protect consumer deposits. It also requires fantasy game operators to use "truthful advertising" and that procedures be put in place to ensure the games' integrity. It's not clear if Connecticut would tax fantasy sports revenues or require a permit fee, but we think the state should pursue both options. We typically don't advocate for new taxes, but since we already place a levy on lottery and casino revenues we should also take a piece of the action from online fantasy sports vendors. It establishes a level of fairness — even though fantasy sports proponents argue their online offering is a game of skill not chance — and is a relatively easy way to raise new revenues without harming the state's overall economic competitiveness. The state should also consider the more drastic step of legalizing, regulating and taxing Internet gambling like New Jersey did in 2014. That seems to be a smarter way to protect Connecticut's gaming industry revenue than building a third brick- and-mortar casino in the state to fend off competition from MGM's new casino in Springfield, Mass. But that's likely a debate to be had in future legislative sessions; we understand many legal issues would need to be hashed out — including ques- tions around the state's compact with its casino-operating Native American tribes — before lawmakers pursue that avenue. To be clear, we don't think gambling or online sports games are the answer to the state's fiscal troubles. But with budget deficits continuing to mount and the prospects of tax increases becoming more likely in the next few years, we'd rather raise revenues from companies like FanDuel and DraftKings — two major players in the online fan- tasy sports-betting world — than Connecticut businesses in industries crucial to our state's economic future. We're also cognizant of the potential social ills brought on by problem gambling. However, we already know millions of Americans — including untold numbers in Con- necticut — wager bets daily on online fantasy sports websites, so we are better off having laws in place to protect these players than ignoring the fact they exist. Also, the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling (CCPG) said in written testimony that it's not opposed to legalizing/regulating fantasy sports. In fact, its parent organization is working to establish national standards to regulate the industry. CCPG wants fantasy sports labeled as gambling and some of the game's revenues to establish gambling addiction prevention and treatment programs. The wild west of online betting/fantasy sports isn't going anywhere and its popular- ity is likely to grow in the future. Connecticut should get in front of the issue now, and help the state earn a few extra bucks in the process. n HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM POLL What should CT do with online fantasy sports gaming? ● Legalize, don't tax it ● Legalize, tax it ● Don't legalize it To vote, go online to HartfordBusiness.com. Last week's poll results: Should Tesla be allowed to sell its cars directly to CT consumers? 95.7% Yes 4.3% No ▶ ▶ Affordable Internet access is not a luxury — in 21st-century Connecticut, it's an essential service like water and electricity.