AT&T, Comcast Kill Local Gigabit Expansion Plans In Tennessee

An anonymous reader writes from an article on DSLRReports: For some time now municipal broadband operator EPB Broadband has been saying that a state law written by ATT and Comcast lobbyists have prevented the organization from expanding its gigabit broadband offerings (and ten gigabit broadband offerings) throughout Tennessee. Three state laws currently exist in more than twenty states, and prohibit towns from deploying their own broadband -- or often even striking public/private partnerships -- even in cases of obvious market failure. A proposal that would have recently lifted this statewide restriction in Tennessee was recently shot down thanks to ATT and Comcast lobbying. The proposal was shot down by a 5-3 vote, with Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former ATT executive, being one of the votes against. Even a new compromise proposal (which would have simply let EPB expand slightly in the same county where it is headquartered as well as one adjoining country) was shot down, after 27 broadband industry lobbyists -- most of whom belonging to ATT and Comcast -- fought in unison to kill the proposal. Last year the FCC voted to dismantle broadband protectionist bills in both Tennessee and North Carolina, though these efforts remain bogged down in court. ISP-loyal lawmakers in the states have argued that the FCC's attempt to shoot down these laws violates their states' rights, though letting Comcast and ATT write awful state telecom law doesn't appear to generate the same disdain.

Comments

Don't let..

[Shmoe]

That revolving door hit you in the ass on the way out, Rep. Hazlewood.

What a sorry state of affairs when even those who claim to be from the party of small government and individual responsibility are still in big corporations' pockets.

Re:Don't let..

[Daemonik]

How do you think society will work once the "small government" crew have demolished all the government? Corporations filling the void they create is their end game.

Re:Don't let..

[Obfuscant]

Uhhh, yeah, the idea behind small government is not expanding government to provide every little thing the people might want to have, like broadband internet, especially when it can be provided by a commercial operation.

It is perfectly consistent to object to expanding local governments to compete with private enterprise, which by those who want larger governments (and higher taxes to pay for them) will be branded as "being in the corporate pockets." Anything that supports private enterprise is "in the corporate pockets", so that epithet isn't as negative as some people try to make it sound.

The correct answer to "lets make another government agency to do X" is "if enough people want X, then create a company to provide it." If there were enough people in this community that want gigabit broadband to make it viable, some company would do it. That way the people who want it will pay, and those who do not won't have to.

Of course, a company would have to pump in the cash to create the infrastructure, and that cash would come only from customers, while a government-created infrastructure would be built using tax money. That's one reason why it is unfair for government to try competing against private companies. And unfair competition includes applying laxer standards for the newcomer than are being applied to the incumbent. Like fewer restrictions and expectations when issuing a franchise.

Re:Don't let..

[Calydor]

You seem to be missing a very big point here.

There is no competition with private enterprise, because private enterprise has decided it's not cost-efficient to operate in that area - but they don't want anyone else operating there either, including the government.

Re:Don't let..

[Obfuscant]

To be fair, a large portion of a company's telco infrastructure was originally given to them through tax dollars,

Comcast was not a telco when it built out the cable infrastructure.

Plus as 'public utilities', these services are used universally by society, so if its paid for by government or companies, its essentially all taxpayers that are paying for it.

If I am not a Comcast customer I am not paying Comcast anything. In fact, the cash flow is the opposite direction since Comcast subscribers are indirectly paying the government for the franchise. If the government competes with Comcast and I am a Comcast customer, then I am paying the government in taxes for them to provide service to others, paying the government for the franchise rights (which the government doesn't pay) and paying Comcast, too.

This is the same situation that has led to the push for school vouchers, so that people who wish to use private schools and not consume the public school resources are not double-charged for the same service.

Speaking of USPS, why does the US have USPS and not shutter that as well and leave it to private enterprise?

Because USPS has, by law, a monopoly on first class mail. No private company can compete. And the government is a large user of USPS for mandatory notices, so service to every individual is a necessity. Much more than gigabit internet is.

We should liquidate the army and make everything private contractors.

There is no reason not to in modern times, other than the ability to operate and enforce enlistment contracts under the UCMJ instead of civil law and courts.

We should liquidate the free-way infrastructure

You know, if cable internet was being provided to everyone who transited an area with no charge, and there were no significant physical limits to the existence of highways, then there would be an argument (and an analogy to public streets) to be made for government provided "free" internet. One cannot run four different freeways going from point A to point B without consuming a huge amount of land; four internet providers can easily co-exist on the public rights-of-way already being used.

Lastly, unless government actively passes laws to cause advantage to themselves, how does government participation weaken free market commerce assuming its not a loss leading business unit?

Your assumption is not valid, since were the service able to be self-supporting a private company would be doing it. This fact is also pointed out by the other response that admitted that it is not being done already because it is not economically viable.

Additionally, even were the service not a "loss leader" today, it could easily become so without any negative consequences to the local government providing it. The government won't "go out of business" if the internet business loses money. They'll just dip into the general fund to pay the bills. Or, as our local government does, simply increase the taxes or fees levied on all of the residents to cover the increased costs, even if many of those residents never use the service. (Does the publicy-funded bus system need more money? Increase the "bus service fee" on the water bill!)

And finally, because the government will be running the business ostensibly for no profit, any for-profit company providing exactly the same service cannot survive if they charge the same amount. They are at an unfair disadvantage because their prices must be higher. Either higher prices or less service -- why would someone buy from them when the gov'mint will do it for less money? And customers who do buy privately will not be part of the customer base for the government system, thus increasing the percentage of fixed costs that have to be passed on to the taxpayers.

You ask a lot of questions about why we don't get rid of government this or government that. Why don't we just have government do everything we need and undercut every private company? Is there a reason why government isn't the provider of all goods and services in a free society?

Re:Don't let..

[sjames]

Comcast was not a telco when it built out the cable infrastructure.

Nevertheless, they got tax breaks, help with eminent domain, access to utility poles and a sweetheart monopoly franchise deal while building out.

States want "rights" over local broadband

[ITRambo]

So, states want "rights" over local broadband, instead of letting the feds tell them what to do. But, they won't give control over to the even smaller local governments, the ones that people interact with the most. This makes no sense. Corruption, and lobbyist buying of laws that protect themselves, needs to stop. Local governments should have the right to compete with overpriced ISPs.

Re:Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community netwo

[whoever57]

How is it that the Republicans, the champions of liberty and freedom that they are, allowing this to go on?

I hope you were being sarcastic here? Otherwise, I have both a bridge and some fine land in Florida to sell you.

This highlights the real problem: Both parties have been captured and serve the interests of the super-wealthy now. Look at how the justice department under Obama gave a complete pass to the architects of the 2008 crash.

Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states?

[linuxguy]

Your list mostly contains red states. The very few blue states on that list are not half as bad. Case in point:

California: Public entities are generally allowed to provide communications services, but "Community Service Districts" may not if any private entity is willing to do so. Texas: The state "prohibits municipalities and municipal electric utilities from offering telecommunications services to the public either directly or indirectly through a private telecommunications provider."

See the difference?

Long time ago, I received two job offers at about the same time. One from Texas and one from Oregon. Not knowing enough about Texas, I seriously considered moving there. I think I dodged a bullet there.