Tacoma’s Click! Network: A Case Study in Municipal Broadband, Financial Strain, and Political Crossroads

Tacoma’s Click! Network has been a significant – and quite controversial – municipal broadband initiative. Built in the 1990s by Tacoma Power, the hybrid fiber-coaxial network eventually became a flashpoint for political and financial conflict.

By the mid-2010s, Click! was operating at a substantial financial loss. Tacoma Public Utilities Director Bill Gaines reported that Click! was losing between $5.5 million and $7.5 million annually, though councilmembers and stakeholders frequently questioned the accuracy and transparency of these figures. Some argued the Tacoma Public Utilities leadership had little investment in the cable system and did not even subscribe to the service. Click! was losing subscribers and fees were only increasing for television content.

In light of Click!’s struggles, in 2015 Wave Broadband proposed leasing Click! for 40 years. The public backlash was immediate and overwhelming. During a council meeting, more than 40 speakers testified, nearly all supporting continued public operation. In response, the Tacoma City Council voted 8-0 to reject the Wave lease and directed Tacoma Power to develop a business plan for an expanded municipal model, known as the “all-in” plan. The “all-in” plan was not new because, in 2012, a consultant had previously advised that Click! needed to offer internet service directly and provide bundled services to achieve financial sustainability. However, that had earlier plan was shelved after ISPs argued that municipal competition would put them out of business.

By 2018, the situation had worsened. Click!’s general manager reported a $6.5 million deficit and a project $9.9 million deficit for 2019-2020. At the same time, a Superior Court temporarily prohibited Tacoma Power from subsidizing Click!’s deficits, a major shift given the utility had historically covered financial shortfalls. The City of Tacoma’s general fund also lacked capacity to absorb Click!’s deficits, leaving the system financially isolated. To close the gap, Click! considered raising cable TV rates, increasing wholesale ISP rates, and making deep cuts to capital and labor spending. But even with these measures, Tacoma Power warned that the proposed plan was not a sustainable long-term financial model.

Amid the lawsuit challenging the legality of Click!’s funding structure, the Tacoma City Council and Tacoma Power Utilities Board abandoned the municipal “all-in” plan they had adopted in 2015 and decided to evaluate potential public-private partnership in hopes of maintaining affordability, net neutrality, and municipal ownership. Five companies submitted formal proposals: Wave Broadband, Rainier Connect, Advanced Stream, Yomura Fiber, and Wyyerd. Each company said it could meet the city’s twelve policy goals, including privacy protection, employee job security, and competition preservation. After evaluating response, Tacoma Public Utilities Board and Tacoma Power selected Ranier Connect to operate Click! under a 20-year agreement while retaining public ownership of the infrastructure.

On April 1, 2020, Tacoma Public Utilities transferred operational control of Click! to Rainier Connect North, LLC, under a 20-year agreement. Tacoma Power retained ownership of the underlying infrastructure even after operations shifted to Rainier Connect.

In 2022-2023, Rainier Connect announced its intention to be purchased by Palisade Infrastructure, a global investment firm, triggering sharp criticism regarding local control over Click!. This controversy was heightened by the fact that Tacoma ultimately won the lawsuit regarding funding legality, a ruling issued months after the city had committed to Rainier Connect rather than continuing with the “all-in” plan.

The history of Tacoma’s Click! network underscores the many financial and operational risks of municipal broadband, especially when governance structures, financial reporting, and legal authority are misaligned. The city’s inability to reconcile conflicting financial narratives, combined with years of uncertainty over Tacoma Power’s role in subsidizing the system, produced hesitation at critical decision points. By the time courts clarified that the municipal “all-in” plan was legally permissible, political will had shifted, the financial risks appeared too great, and the city had already committed to a private operator.

Amina is a 3L at New York Law School.