Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the loopholes-of-a-democracy dept.

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.

118 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Don't let.. by Shmoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Don't let.. by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Don't let.. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      To be fair, a large portion of a company's telco infrastructure was originally given to them through tax dollars, so its a little disingenuous to say company's are simply consumer paid. 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.

      As for the idea of 'public utilities', the number of people who use internet access,
      http://www.wired.com/2015/07/1...
      15% is low and only likely to get lower as better internet access is provided to rural residents (and the very elderly that never bothered to learn).
      At that rate, its chasing or has beaten USPS usage, and its almost entirely beaten land line based Telco ownership (though certainly not the combined landline/mobile phone penetration -yet-).

      Speaking of USPS, why does the US have USPS and not shutter that as well and leave it to private enterprise? Actually, that's a bad/sad example because it almost certainly will be the outcome... We should liquidate the army and make everything private contractors. We should liquidate the free-way infrastructure and let private enterprise make better and more streamlined toll roads...

      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?

      --
      Bye!
    4. Re:Don't let.. by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:Don't let.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      We work together to form human societies the produce the best results for the majority of us. So where the fuck in that idea is the requirement to maximise corporations profits and everyone else's expense. You know where, abso-fucking-lutely know where. So this is just pure psychopathic capitalism whose only focus is to empower and enrich psychopaths so that they can more readily prey upon the rest of us. Compete with private, WTF?, screw private if it doesn't provide us with the solutions our working together is meant to achieve, kill it, destroy it, burn it to the ground, obliterate every sticking filthy rotten destructive private enterprise that produces harm.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      access to utility poles and a sweetheart monopoly franchise deal while building out.

      Access to utility poles comes with a franchise and associated franchise fees. And in more than thirty years of experience with cable franchises, I've yet to see an exclusive franchise (a "sweetheart monopoly"), and despite repeated requests for a link to any, nobody has been able to show me one. Every time someone has claimed a certain municipality has given their cable company a monopoly, when I track down the franchise ordinance it has been non-exclusive.

      What "non-exclusive" means is that if you want to follow the same rules, you can get one, too. Nobody does because of the economics involved. It is hard to get a return on investment when you have to split a fixed customer base, especially when the franchise rules often include a mandate to provide service to areas that are not profitable to start with. Being a government doesn't change the underlying economic truths, but it does allow for mitigation through large-scale fees -- called taxes -- and exemptions from things like paying franchise fees or serving the really unprofitable areas. And, of course, no requirement to ever show a profit, which is a cost that a private company has the government gets to bypass.

    9. Re:Don't let.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If the will of the people, decided by a legal and fair vote, is to have municipal broadband then that should take precedence no matter what the corporate leaders or ideologues think. If you despise government then you can take it away from yourself only as long as you don't manage to take it away from others who want it. Whether or not a municipal broadband is a mistake, it is still a democratic mistake that they have the right to make.

      If the federal government has too broad a reach then some people will applaud when the state government manages to asserts its independence. Yet those very same people prove themselves to be self serving hypocrites when they slap down the local governments in favor of a state government that has too broad a reach.

      The worship of a corporation or ideology gets in the way of seeing the picture objectively. There is no way to compete with monopolies on your own, a new corporation isn't going to break their stranglehold. Government help is very often necessary to balance the power of corporations.

      The municipalities were the ones who granted the monopolies to the big cable companies in the first place so it's only fair that the municipalities be allowed to undo their mistakes without interference by corrupt state legislators.

      Never let your fear of government allow you to surrender yourself to corporations since you'll end up with a plutocratic government in the end.

    10. Re:Don't let.. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The USPS is a good example of a well run government agency. It completely funds itself. It has private sector competition as well. And yet the anti-government loons are still dedicated to having it dismantled.

      For those who hate government for being too big, the military is a great example. Over 50% of the US budget is for the military. The next largest slice is only about 6.5%. The military budget dwarfs that of other first world countries. And yet we have presidential candidates who seem to think our military is too puny, and legislators intent on removing government waste never look at that elephant in the pantry. If we really do want to be fiscally conservative we should start by shrinking the military. It is striking how so many of those small government advocates do not want to touch the military.

      And the US has tried outsourcing military duties to private contractors. Did not work out so well. Blackwater for example (which has renamed itself a couple of times to try and escape the shame).

    11. Re:Don't let.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A lot of this is once faction of libertarian thinking. Not all of it, there are some very good and smart libertarians out there. But there is a faction that is focused almost totally on maximizing corporate profits and who find libertarianism as the closest political ally.

      Ie, the Koch brothers are interested in no government interference in their business (very libertarian) but at the same time are not concerned much one way or the other about government interference in social freedoms. It's extremely hard to call those brothers libertarian, because libertarianism is about less government interference in both fiscal AND social freedoms. Yet David Koch ran for vice president as a Libertarian candidate against Ronald Reagan. We just have so few political parties in the US that each party finds some very strange bedfellows.

      So yes there are some people very dedicated to maximizing corporate profits who are able to phrase it all as a political ideology.

    12. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Well, you certainly do live up to your name. Practically every cable TV operation has or had an exclusive franchise. Try Google but note that many local governments are loath to admit to something that smells that corrupt. I have never seen an area that actually had a choice of cable provider.

      I have heard of a few rare places where there was no mandated exclusivity, but there was still no competition, even in border areas where the provider's cables were equidistant from a home.

    13. Re:Don't let.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1
      States Rights (small government) = I don't like what the Fedral government is doing

      Federal supremecy = The sates are preventing us from doing what we want

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:Don't let.. by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, because God forbid government could do something better or that we don't want to do.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    15. Re:Don't let.. by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I lived in Contra Costa county in Nor-Cal, we've got 2 competing cable companies; Comcast and Wave, formerly Astound, in addition to the obvious satellite options. Not sure how Astound which is from St. Cloud MN, ended up in our area (Concord) but nowhere else around. It did result in a lower cost for Comcast and an ongoing battle between the 2 providers. YEAH for competition.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    16. Re:Don't let.. by dbreeze · · Score: 2

      http://movetoamend.org/action I'm just going to lightly spam this link around here. I urge everyone to at least put your name behind a cause for needed change because venting in web forums may educate but it won't have a direct influence. If movetoamend.org could go to the media and/or political machine with 30-50 milion signatures ready to vote around this cause, they'll have some influence.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    17. Re: Don't let.. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      "If there were enough people in this community that want gigabit broadband to make it viable, some company would do it."

      No, due to high startup costs, 1 comany would offer overpriced Internet no matter what the demand was for and in a fashion that only maximizes profits. Internet NEEDS to be a utility for the same reason why basic water needs to be a utility.

      Capitalism is great except for the million ways it fails do to anything it promises, and is at its worst when there is no competition.

      This is one of those times. You shrink regulation and you shrink beaurocracy, you end up exposing legislature to corporate lobbying and influence (money). There is no competition because no new companies can afford to enter the arena and said lobbying and legislature prevents the public from banding together and forming alternatives like EBP.

      That is a broken system.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    18. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's nice to hear about competition actually happening.

    19. Re: Don't let.. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      You say that in one case the money comes from a pool of money everyone in the region pays into and on the other hand money comes from customers. Your scenario is not complete enough to then say that is the reason for...looks.at username...Never mind, carry on.

    20. Re:Don't let.. by slack_justyb · · Score: 2

      Rep. Blackburn is the worst. She's in the district to the west of me and I hate everything her stupid mouth says that ruins every other county here in Tennessee, but just as well, she's from Williamson County and of course, they think they rule the whole flipping state. With the majority of money in the state of Tennessee locked in that single county, they basically sit there and dictate the state of affairs here in Tennessee. It's no surprise that Blackburn is up there spouting off crap to make every other county in this state pure shit. Bloody hell I hate that county, I hate that some stuck up shit heads basically dictate everything that goes on in this state. I wish they would fix our roads, I wish they would fix our hospitals, but apparently I live in the wrong county to be able to vote any of that from happening and I'll never make enough money in three lifetimes to be able to move to the correct county. There are honest to goodness good folks and I know the south gets a lot of bad press, but there are good people here, but we just have so fucking little so very little in our lives. Internet is just one thing but it's everything, it every fucking thing. And I'm sorry I'm cussing but it's just so flipping bad and I want us to be so great and we could be that if it wasn't for people like Rep. Blackburn. From Memphis to Knoxville people cruse her, but we've got no power to unseat her and apparently that's just the way it is.

    21. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 2

      The problem is that most of those exclusive agreements were made illegal some time ago, AFTER a single company used it to embed itself into a region. That was before things tended to be put online. However, the fact that federal legislation happened aimed specifically at exclusive franchise agreements, it stands to reason they existed, yes?

      The next trick was to make exclusive agreements with condos and ap0artments (also shot down finally).

      If you actually want to see one, try your local county seat. They might let you skim the microfiche from the time your area first got cable (or they might have shredded the lot since it was some time ago.

    22. Re:Don't let.. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's unfortunate that few in the media are willing to describe it as corruption, when it's hard to see how it isn't.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    23. Re:Don't let.. by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      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.

      Today. It's not cost-effective to operate in an area today, but they'd like the option to roll out in that area if it does begin to look profitable. They know that it is nearly impossible to displace an incumbent provider, so the only way to preserve their option is to make sure that no one else (including government) installs a network. Courts and lobbyists are way cheaper than installing cable.

    24. Re:Don't let.. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      With the majority of money in the state of Tennessee locked in that single county, they basically sit there and dictate the state of affairs here in Tennessee.

      This is the American system. In Chinese or Iranian "democracy," the Party, priests, or some other elite carefully vets and approves candidates before they're put to public vote. Thus, public nominally has a choice, but it's a meaningless choice.

      In American democracy, oligarchs, acting through their corporations or PACs, vet and approve candidates before they're put to public vote (yes, even in the primaries). Thus, public nominally has a choice, but it's a meaningless choice.

    25. Re:Don't let.. by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 2

      Amen a thousand times over. This is the thing people are incapable of understanding. Places like Wilson, NC started their own broadband services because the commercial providers refused to work with them to improve their broadband. What they had was expensive and insufficient. How do you attract businesses to an area that does not offer a decent broadband service? Nothing changed until they decided to just implement their own. Of course, then the lobbyists convinced legislators to prevent others in the state from doing the same. Wilson is grandfathered.

      It is not state governments job to prevent citizens from being served by own their local government when there is no commercial interest in providing a broadband solution. This ban on local broadband is simply ridiculous.

    26. Re:Don't let.. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Let's not confuse monopolies with normal free enterprise. These two companies are acting in a monopolistic manner, and deserve to be slapped down. There's no logical, moral, or socially just reason for their position. And for whatever it's worth, I'm saying this as a conservative.

      Since the loss of the Microsoft trial in '98, the feds have done little to prevent monopolistic behavior. There is no free enterprise when you have a monopoly, and I'm all in favor of busting them up, or in the case of utilities, controlling them closely.

      I'm all for government regulation when it comes to safety, health and protecting our individual rights. Beyond that, IMHO, states rights should trump (no pun intended) feds.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    27. Re:Don't let.. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      So what, the population should just sit in the dark ages twiddling their thumbs while they wait for a Big Provider to get off their ass?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    28. Re:Don't let.. by andyring · · Score: 1

      Umm, sorry, but you're an idiot.

      No one wants the elimination of all government. How would "small government" benefit the parties involved in this case? Simple! By getting out of the way. A state law prohibited this smaller company from offering their services to interested customers. A smaller government wouldn't even have such laws on the books. The solution is getting rid of that law, aka smaller government.

    29. Re:Don't let.. by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Jacksonville, FL. Unless something changed in the last year, Comcast has the cable-based broadband franchise monopoly. Don't get me started on AT&T UVerse/DSL as an alternative. There were stories in the local news from last year about a group lobbying to remove their monopoly status at the Public Service Commission, but I can't seem to find any links.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    30. Re:Don't let.. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Over 50% of the US budget is for the military. The next largest slice is only about 6.5%.

      I'd like to see your source for that claim. this shows that for Obama's 2016 budget, the military slice is 16%, at $634 billion. That puts it at a relatively distant third place behind Social Security, Unemployment and Labor (33%, $1.37 trillion) and Medicare and Health (27%, $1.1 trillion).

    31. Re:Don't let.. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      No, the US does not spend over 50% of its budget on military. Over 50% of the discretionary budget is military, but nearly two-thirds of the budget overall is mandatory spending.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    32. Re:Don't let.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was relying on that very chart below which I had seen on a different page by itself from nationalpriorities.org...
      Anyway, I still think we spend too much on the military. Very liberal too as it spends our hard earned tax dollars to give poor people jobs :-)

    33. Re:Don't let.. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      USPS is already a private company. They simply have a government charter and are intimately intertwined with the executive branch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    34. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most of those exclusive agreements were made illegal some time ago,

      No, the problem is that most of those exclusive agreements do not exist.

      If you actually want to see one, try your local county seat.

      Nice try at pushing the problem of citing one example back on me. No, I won't waste time trying to find something I know does not exist. I know the franchise here, and it is one of many non-exclusive ones.

    35. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, it is NOW because the exclusivity was banned by Congress. Be ignorant, I don't care, it's not my problem if you don't want to believe every report on the situation ever, the FCC, and Congress.

    36. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Jacksonville, FL.

      Thank you for the pointer. In researching the franchise for this city, I find this. It appears that Florida has actually decided to remove cable franchising from the local municipalities and taken it on as a state function. One thing I do note is that there is no statement that the franchises issued by the state of Florida are exclusive, and lacking that provision, they are not.

      What is interesting in light of the previous cited law, is this municipal code. It clearly states that the franchise shall be non-exclusive. Most of this code appears to have a 2003 origination date, but a part of it was updated in 2011. Clearly, Jacksonville thinks they still issue franchises. In any case, as of 2003 franchises were, indeed, non-exclusive.

      As to "cable broadband", there is nothing in the Jacksonville Municipal Code that I can find regarding issuing franchises for that service, but section 710.124 does require any cable franchisee to provide:

      (b) High speed "Internet" access service to Duval County public schools.

      and includes a provision that should the incumbent franchisee fail to provide adequate service the city can require "an additional Franchisee" to do so. If there can be additional Franchisees providing the same service, then the original franchise is clearly non-exclusive.

      If you find the reference to the monopoly that the PUC was asked to remove for cable internet, please pass that along. I know of no franchising authority for ISPs, and clearly with the proliferation of them over the years, any such franchise would have to be non-exclusive, were it to exist. Or were you referring to the monopoly that telcos do have as exclusive franchisees and not to Comcast?

    37. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I don't believe YOU because despite your claim that the vast majority of franchises are exclusive, you cannot provide a specific reference to even one. All you can point to is "my county", and you don't even know where I live. I've looked at franchises for 30 years now, and not even the first ones I saw were exclusive. Believe me, when we were working on franchises for my city, we looked at what other people had done as a starting point.

      But at least now you admit that they are not exclusive today, and today is when any new competitors would show up. If the markets would support two competitors, then the government doesn't need to be either one of them. If it won't, then the government shouldn't be one in the first place.

    38. Re:Don't let.. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was relying on that very chart below which I had seen on a different page by itself from nationalpriorities.org...

      Right, that's the "discretionary spending" part of the budget. By the way, the portion of the military budget (acquisitions) that supports private sector jobs is about $105 billion out of the $634 billion total.

    39. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      So what about the FCC, Congress, and everybody who's ever written on the issue? Did I travel time making little changes here and there just to create the big lie all for you? No, I assure you even if possible, it's not worth my time. Like I said, live in ignorance if you like. Of screw your tinfoil hat on a little tighter and decide I am the Bavarian Illuminati. At least that way, I get to be amused. BTW, the moon really is made of green cheese. We faked the moon landing and all that junk about basalt like rock to preserve our cheese reserves.

      As for the rest, the actual issue is that the market doesn't really support entry unless you do have that exclusive. It's a costly play but wildly profitable in the long term. But coming in as the second provider is even harder to manage. So that leaves us either a permanently failed market or government entry in hopes of making market forces work well enough that we don't have to have a regulated natural monopoly.

    40. Re:Don't let.. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      (you cant sock puppet forever)

      Oh. Hi there shill.
      Forgot you were still around.

      -Public infrastructure benefits everyone.
      -Europe doesn't seem to have any problems with competition, innovation, or profitability, even though it has gotten there through regulation, infrastructure investment, and the creation public options including for internet service.
      -the US government already invested over 300billion (with a B , though its probably more now cause inflation) in public internet infrastructure advancement by granting tax breaks to the telcos for that purpose...money they instead pocketed and have yet to use for that purpose.
      -If you were around when roads were being built there'd be no public roads.

      so yeah.
      you an F right off with your free market fantasies.
      internet service isn't a free market and hasn't been for some time. and when the market fails and monopolies develop, its up to government to step in and correct it because government serves the people, not the corporations (how it should be anyway). and im sure in the end the ATT and Comcast will find some forced competition, even if it comes from a public option, to be much more preferable than the other option, which is dismantling them.

      Though maybe not...we already did that to ATT, and they came back stronger than ever.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    41. Re:Don't let.. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As for the rest, the actual issue is that the market doesn't really support entry unless you do have that exclusive.

      Then explain the existence of cable systems in so many places where there is no exclusive franchise. You cannot. You refuse to point to one exclusive franchisee, despite claiming that you know so many that are.

      The truth is that the market doesn't support multiple players in a fixed boundary market system like cable. The repeated claim is that Internet access is such an integral part of life, and yet you can't get anywhere close to 100% saturation in a market, and there simply aren't enough people who want the gigabit version of the Internet that it is a viable market for the incumbents to serve.

      That's the cause for the defacto monopoly, not your fictional exclusive franchise system (which even you admit is against the law). And when government decides to become a player, they're unfairly competing against the incumbents who are already trying to get by with the limited market they have.

      Were the government gigabit systems intended to serve an entirely different set of customers, that would be one thing. But they aren't. They're intended to draw away the existing customers from the existing broadband systems. And they're intended to do it cheaper because they can avoid some of the fixed costs the incumbents cannot avoid, like being profitable (or even breaking even). That's why it is unfair competition, and we have laws against such things when a private company tries to do it (dumping, for example). But we (for a very limited set of "we") don't care if the government acts that way, and we (for a very limited set of "we" again) trust the government to do just what it promised and nothing more and nothing less when it comes to this.

      Yes, isn't it wonderful when the government does for us the things we would have paid more for, because it saves us money.

      As for your ad hominem regarding tinfoil and moon cheese, you are demonstrating your debate style very well, thank you.

    42. Re:Don't let.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Then explain the existence of cable systems in so many places where there is no exclusive franchise.

      Done, they had one at the time. I refer you to Congress, the FCC, and everyone who has written on the topic as references. If that's not enough, I refer you to the archives at your local government (no links available).

      Remain ignorant or don't, your choice.

      The government gigabit systems are meant to create competition where there is none now. A worthwhile and legitimate goal in any event. It takes a lot more than two sellers to constitute a healthy market.

    43. Re: Don't let.. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Okay, and...? Previous Congresses decided to commit lots of money to the military. It's easier to change the discretionary budget, but saying "50% of the US budget is the military" is clearly wrong and misleading.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. States want "rights" over local broadband by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by AlejoHausner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The phrase "states' rights" is actually a codeword for "Jim Crow": slave-owning states argued before the civil war that the federal government had no authority to interfere in their business. This cynical appeal to the constitution is still very much in use today. In fact, it's being used sotto-voce to justify opposition to all sorts of things that would benefit poor African-Americans: obamacare, higher minimum wages, etc. ATT and Comcast know that this phrase will get them enormous support in southern states. Wow. What an evil marriage of redneck prejudice and corporate corruption.

    2. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      It's only like that now because this particular brand of politician (guess!) don't completely control the Federal government yet. Once they have that, everyone under them could simply be prevented from writing their own laws on whatever issues an industry pays to have ignored, be they states, counties, cities, towns, Native American Nations, whatever.

      It's the same story with LGBT civil protection laws. In Republican states, cities can't write their own, and the state complains about and campaigns against any Federal laws. This is just another situation where that kind of lawmaking has taken effect. Once they have total control on the federal level, they'll stop complaining and everyone else will just be a radical insurgent. I know it's flippant to do so but I want to say it'll be illegal to complain after that. I wouldn't put it past them.

    3. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by youngone · · Score: 1

      I want to say it'll be illegal to complain after that. I wouldn't put it past them...

      I wouldn't either

    4. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by swb · · Score: 1

      I love how people want to give benefits to poor people, but only if they're African American.

    5. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by swb · · Score: 1

      There are often good reasons for state preemption of laws. Would you want traffic laws that vary from city to city, so that you would be vulnerable to prosecution because it would be impossible to know every municipal variation in traffic laws?

      It can also wreak havoc for people or businesses that operate in multiple places in a single state, and can open the door to jurisdiction shopping to sue where the laws are most favorable even though the specific offense may not be based there.

    6. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I really despair at the deficiency of our education system.

      Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Now, I have to ask, just how do you figure cable companies are oppressing black people ? Or is this just something you reflexively use ?

    7. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      But, they won't give control over to the even smaller local governments,

      Of course they've given control over to the local governments. Local governments are the ones who create the franchise rules they expect private companies to live by. What local governments aren't being allowed to do is create rules for private companies that they themselves can simply ignore to the detriment of the companies.

      Local governments should have the right to compete with overpriced ISPs.

      Why? Shouldn't the right to compete belong to a company that isn't overpriced, instead of shutting out all other competition by running the service with taxpayer dollars? And why is there some limit to just competing with "overpriced ISPs?" Extending your claim further, shouldn't local governments be competing with overpriced restaurants, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, auto mechanics, car dealers, florists, landscapers, house painters, television repairmen, hotels, grocery stores, ... Why shouldn't we just say 'give everything you have to the government', and the government will give you what you need in return? Is that the society you want? Oh, before you answer, remember that it won't be your decision about what you need, it will be the government that decides.

    8. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It can also wreak havoc for people or businesses that operate in multiple places in a single state,

      Oregon just passed a higher minimum wage law that is different depending on where you are in the state. This is already raising the question of what a state university that has employees spread out around the state will have to do. Does everyone doing the same job at today's minimum wage get paid the same new minimum wage (the highest one) no matter where they live, or can they have different wages? How will the unions respond to that?

      And then, how do the differing minimums apply to any proportional raises given to people who were making above minimum?

    9. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by AlejoHausner · · Score: 2
      No no no. That's not at all what I was talking about. I guess the topic is pretty inflammatory, and I didn't do a good job of saying what I meant.

      Of course states are free to set their own laws, according to the 10th ammendment. My point is that "states' laws" has come to mean more than just the fact that states have rights to set their laws. It's a cryptic way to talk about the power of whites over blacks. Look at wikipedia's page on Lee Atwater, a Republican strategist who used just such language to covertly play to southern white prejudice, in order to get Republicans elected. There's a snippet from an interview, on that wikipedia page, where he explains that you can't use racial epithets, but you can talk about states' rights, and the voters will understand that you're supporting racism, and WILL VOTE FOR YOU.

      I just responded to the use of this phrase, because that's what it means to me right now. And I think that corporations are, not by accident, trying to use that covert language to get state legislatures in the South to support their campaign against municipal broadband. You may think I'm inferring too much, but it really seems obvious and creepy to me.

      Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you like.

    10. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      http://movetoamend.org/action Sign on help us do something about it.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    11. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you're not wrong. It's just hard to say it right, and the best lies are always tightly intertwined with something good.

      Yes, there's a wink-wink association with cries for "state's rights" and Jim Crowe, but now it's being used for a lot of other stuff, not just knee-jerk dog-whistle issues. And political professionals, influence peddlers, high-priced consultants know this, because, well, that's their job. It ain't a tin-foil hat conspiracy... public relations and political professionals make their living thinking about this stuff, 7 days a week, just like there are people at Taco Bell working every fucking day on some new sweet, salty, crunchy, mouth-watering monstrosity to clog our arteries, spike our blood sugars, drive us into orgasmic euphoria and liberate the dollars held prisoner in our wallets.

      The successful influence peddlers get rich, and in turn get hired by bigger clients, like AT&T, so they can use their bag of tricks to get AT&T what it wants. If there's a sucker for something, there's gonna be a guy for hire out there who knows how to turn his screws.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    12. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's because nobody should be upset by ridiculous travesties like this

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Use of the interstate commerce clause to control what happens entirely on a farm.

      Your attitude is why we can't have nice things like a constitution, or a legal system that the common man can use to protect himself.

    13. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The default for right turns in NYC is that it's illegal on red. There are two intersections in the entire city with explicit signs to allow it. The default outside of NYC is the opposite.

      You may need to pick a better example.

    14. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by swb · · Score: 1

      Well, that's how it is in Minnesota, and the logic of statewide uniformity was part of the State Supreme Court's decision outlawing red light cameras in this state.

    15. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Given that the two groups are largely the same, your argument fails, and is also an example of some epic level projection.

      And yes, opposition to social programs that predominately benefit minorities, because low income/poor people are predominately minorities, is in fact the most frequent example of modern racism.

      You start out in 1954 by saying, “***, ***, ***.” By 1968 you can’t say “***”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “***, ***.” -- Lee Atwater, 1981

      http://www.thenation.com/artic...

      To be absolutely clear, I want benefits for all persons living here.
      But when earning enough to be part of the top 1% of African Americans still means being only in the top 40% of White Americans, there is a systemic problem. And its not our side that is using racism to single out a group or protect a group.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by vm146j2 · · Score: 1

      You have it a little backwards; pre-civil war the slave states were against states rights as that implied the ability for states to allow escaped slaves to exist in relative freedom in the North. They depended on the strong federal government to defend the slavery laws which were embodied in the constitution, (as well as the national tariffs that protected the cotton growers from competition.) It wasn't even talked about much once the Union occupation / reconstruction ended, since Jim Crow was tolerated on a national level. It was really only after Truman integrated the military, and especially Brown vs. the Board of Education that it became such a standard complaint from the racists that their state laws should overrule anything else. That ATT and Comcast can profit off of that, well, that's the free market for you!

      --
      "Lost time is not found again."
    17. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      I really despair at the deficiency of our education system.

      yes, and you're one of the prime examples why.

      Logical fallacy for the win. Good Job

    18. Re:States want "rights" over local broadband by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt it. It's where the laws come from, how they're used, and who they hurt that bothers me. Republicans are supposed to be about liberty, but they're about as freedom loving as North Korea is democratic.

  3. Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community network! by linuxguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is that every time you hear these oppressive state laws being made, it is usually safe to assume that it is happening in a Red State? How is it that the Republicans, the champions of liberty and freedom that they are, allowing this to go on?

    I live in Oregon. You can buy as many Teslas here as you can afford. And we have a few community broadband networks too. Sandynet is one example that offers 1Gbps service to local residents. And there is no law preventing more from being setup.

  4. Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by rsborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why is that every time you hear these oppressive state laws being made, it is usually safe to assume that it is happening in a Red State? How is it that the Republicans, the champions of liberty and freedom that they are, allowing this to go on?

    I live in Oregon. You can buy as many Teslas here as you can afford. And we have a few community broadband networks too. Sandynet is one example that offers 1Gbps service to local residents. And there is no law preventing more from being setup.

    According to this Ars article:
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    You need to blame the ALEC. ie, the corporatist takeover group that's metastasized since Citizens United.

    Red, Blue, all fair game for the corporatists.

    Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other funds to pay for the start-up expenses that any capital-intensive project must pay until the project is constructed and revenues become sufficient to cover ongoing expenses and debt service."

    Arkansas: Only municipalities that operate electric utilities may provide communications services, but they aren't allowed to provide "basic local exchange service," i.e. traditional phone service.

    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.

    Colorado: Municipalities must hold a referendum before providing cable, telecommunications, or broadband service, unless the community is unserved.

    Florida: Imposes special tax on municipal telecommunications service and a profitability requirement that makes it difficult to approve capital-intensive communications projects.

    Louisiana: Municipalities must hold referendums before providing service and "impute to themselves various costs that a private provider might pay if it were providing comparable services."

    Michigan: Municipalities must seek bids before providing telecom services and can move forward only if they receive fewer than three qualified bids.

    Minnesota: 65 percent of voters must approve before municipalities can offer local exchange services or operate facilities that support communications services.

    Missouri: Cities and towns can't sell telecom services or lease telecom facilities to private providers "except for services used for internal purposes; services for educational, emergency, and health care uses; and 'Internet-type' services."

    Nebraska: Public broadband services are generally prohibited except when provided by power utilities. However, "public power utilities are permanently prohibited from providing such services on a retail basis, and they can sell or lease dark fiber on a wholesale basis only under severely limited conditions."

    Nevada: Municipalities with at least 25,000 residents and counties with at least 50,000 residents may not provide telecommunications services.

    North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public entities must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their incumbent competitors."

    Pennsylvania: Municipalities cannot sell broadband services if a "local telephone company" already provides broadband, even if the local telephone company charges outrageously high prices or offers poor quality service.

    South Carolina: The state "requires governmental providers to comply

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by linuxguy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by redmid17 · · Score: 1

      Do I see a technical difference? Yes.

      Is there an actual difference? No.

      Just about anywhere where private companies do not provide service, there is not going to be a public utility to provide service. These are going to be exceedingly rural areas with such a low population density and/or awful terrain that no company will put any infrastructure in. These people are going to have to rely on mobile or satellite communications 99/100. It sucks, and I definitely am "pro-utility internet", but it's such a negligible difference it's not worth counting.

    3. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by rsborg · · Score: 2

      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.

      I hear ya. However, ALEC and other corporate vehicles of domination don't rest and will slowly destroy all states ability to govern unless it benefits their corporate masters. Until we solve the problem of money controlling elections, you're going to see more and more of what Comcast and AT&T pulled off in Tennessee - even in blue states. It's like an infection - you cant just play Prince Prospero and try to hole up in your blue fortress away from the disease - it is coming unless we remove the conditions that promote the problem.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    4. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I think I dodged a bullet there.

      Having lived in Texas there is more truth in that statement than you probably intended.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      http://movetoamend.org/action I humbly beseech any and all desiring to play a part in combating the domination of corporations over our individual and collective lives to diligently research movetoamend.org , and perchance lend your good name to the cause.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    6. Re:Uh since when are CA and WA red states? by rabbin · · Score: 1

      More on ALEC http://billmoyers.com/segment/...

  5. Regulatory Capture by headkase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's called: Regulatory Capture, and it is a failure mode in government.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Regulatory Capture by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Indeed. If I lived in one of the affected states it'd be something I'd be pushing my local congress on.

      It's one thing to drive a competitor bankrupt via being better at it. It's quite another to use regulations to ban competition at all.

      And, as far as I'm concerned, if you manage to piss off the locals enough that a majority votes to form a cooperative* or such to compete with you, you've done screwed up so bad that I don't have an ounce of sympathy for you.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:Regulatory Capture by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to drive a competitor bankrupt via being better at it. It's quite another to use regulations to ban competition at all.

      And what is it when a government can drive a private company bankrupt by cutting prices for equivalent service, because the government has the taxpayer's general fund to absorb any temporary (or long term) losses and no need to make a profit to pay back the investors?

      In business-land, large companies who move into an area and drive their competition out of business by charging below cost are guilty of dumping. Should government be allowed to that?

    3. Re:Regulatory Capture by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In business-land, large companies who move into an area and drive their competition out of business by charging below cost are guilty of dumping. Should government be allowed to that?

      1. The local government isn't "moving into the area". It's already there. Also, in this case the "taxpayer's general fund" is coming out of the investor's pockets, IE the same citizens that started up the cooperative.
      2. If, like I said, you manage to piss off the locals enough that they willingly vote for a bond issuance to fund the startup of a competing cooperative, that means that you done screwed up(to put it politely), and I have no sympathy for you. Because it usually means that you've been raping the area for decades using your monopoly to provide lousy service at high prices.
      3. Most of the time it's not structured to come out of the general fund, but is done via special bond issuance. Payback terms vary.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Regulatory Capture by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      1. The local government isn't "moving into the area". It's already there.

      They are moving into a new venture, which makes them a new competitor. The "moving into the area" part of the "dumping" issue is irrelevant. I'm sorry you fixated on that.

      Also, in this case the "taxpayer's general fund" is coming out of the investor's pockets,

      Involuntary investors.

      2. If, like I said, you manage to piss off the locals enough that they willingly vote for a bond issuance to fund the startup of a competing cooperative, that means that you done screwed up(to put it politely)

      Most bond measures pass with a plurality that consists of a minority of the voters. Getting one more than half of a 25% turnout means that you only had approval from 12% of the registered voters, and since there are people who are not registered you've got a lot less than 12% of the taxpayers.

      That's if there's a bond measure to start with.

      And if there are that many pissed off subscribers (not just voters in general), that area is ripe for competition -- from private companies.

      and I have no sympathy for you.

      And, it appears, no sympathy for any potential private companies that might come in to provide the competition you seek. A government competing with private ventures competes with them all, not just the incumbent. If it is really hard to get a second private company to come compete with the incumbent when the government isn't trying to put the incumbent out of business, imagine how much harder it is when the newcomer would be the third competitor, and the government is trying to put both of you in the dumpster.

      3. Most of the time it's not structured to come out of the general fund,

      Perhaps at the beginning. But when the costs exceed income, it has to come from somewhere. How many things do local governments fund from the general fund because the special funding isn't enough, or additional taxes are created to fill the gaps? The answer is "a lot". It is a lot easier to draw from the general fund than to run another bond measure to make up the difference. And how many "special funds" have been diverted into other uses? Also "a lot".

      Here's a trivial example from our own local government. We had a section of five lane road in town that the contractor did a crappy job on, and the legal issues went on for a very long time. Finally, to pay for fixing it, since the contractor wasn't going to, we got a new tax applied to our water bill. (A tax on water to pay for a road!) It was earmarked specifically for that fix. That part of road was fixed. Did the tax go away? Of course not. It was money, it was already being collected, so let's use it for other things. I don't expect it will ever go away. And because the city realized how easy it was to add taxes to the water bill, we now have taxes on the water bill to pay for sidewalk repairs and tree trimming and free bus service.

      It's amazing to see the dichotomy between those who have absolutely zero trust in government, and those who have unlimited trust in government to spend tax money the way they promised to. It's almost like "I don't trust the government to not do what I don't like, but I trust them to do what I want them to." And when you consider that these are the same local governments who have allegedly been bought off and giving megacorporate cable companies dejure monopolies, to suddenly trust them with a bottomless bucket of money to do the same thing ... it boggles the mind.

    5. Re:Regulatory Capture by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      They are moving into a new venture, which makes them a new competitor. The "moving into the area" part of the "dumping" issue is irrelevant. I'm sorry you fixated on that.

      Okay, fine. I'll broaden my scope: Competition is good. Companies are not guaranteed a profit, are not to be granted a guarantee that they will break even. Survival of the fittest.

      Involuntary investors.

      I did specify a vote, remember? One might as well complain about losing the vote about funding parks, schools, fire departments, police departments, and other public services. Actually, no. Most people get LESS of a vote on that stuff.

      Most bond measures pass with a plurality that consists of a minority of the voters. Getting one more than half of a 25% turnout means that you only had approval from 12% of the registered voters, and since there are people who are not registered you've got a lot less than 12% of the taxpayers.

      As somebody who votes every election, even if it has to be absentee, let me get my violin out.

      And if there are that many pissed off subscribers (not just voters in general), that area is ripe for competition -- from private companies.

      True, but said private companies have to identify target locations, gather funds of their own, be able to expect a reasonable profit, and all that.

      And guess what? Even the private investors still have to be worried about being sued into bankruptcy by the major telecoms, which will dump money into killing any potential competition between lawsuits and only offering discounts and upgrading infrastructure where there's competition, making them actual dumpers. Well, unless you're lucky enough to be a 'test city' for google fiber or such.

      And, it appears, no sympathy for any potential private companies that might come in to provide the competition you seek.

      If a private company comes in, provides competition, superior service than the incumbent, then the proposals to set up a municipal system tend to die on the vine. It's only when this fails to occur, when they fail to be able to attract any new competition, that this happens.

      But when the costs exceed income, it has to come from somewhere.

      You treat this as an inevitability when it's not. Sure, it 'has' to come from somewhere. You're neglecting other possible sources: Increased fees, borrowing more money(attached to the company, not the government), selling stock or assets, hell, even declaring the venture a bust and shutting down.

      And because the city realized how easy it was to add taxes to the water bill, we now have taxes on the water bill to pay for sidewalk repairs and tree trimming and free bus service.

      Run for office. That being said, they're still pikers. One of the taxes on phone lines is a line item to pay for the last US-Mexico war.

      It's amazing to see the dichotomy between those who have absolutely zero trust in government, and those who have unlimited trust in government to spend tax money the way they promised to.

      You think I have 'unlimited trust in government'? BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHA *THUD* (oww...)

      nd when you consider that these are the same local governments who have allegedly been bought off and giving megacorporate cable companies dejure monopolies, to suddenly trust them with a bottomless bucket of money to do the same thing ... it boggles the mind.

      Actually they're NOT the same local governments. Some local governments are in the pockets, some are not. What you do is if they're in the pocket is that you run for office, get OUT of the pocket, and screw said corporations that are screwing your constituents as hard as possible.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Regulatory Capture by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Okay, fine. I'll broaden my scope: Competition is good. Companies are not guaranteed a profit, are not to be granted a guarantee that they will break even. Survival of the fittest.

      Yes, and the "fittest" does not include a taxpayer subsidized, non-profit government department trying to take customers away from existing companies. If the government didn't have the taxpayer funds to prop them up, they wouldn't succeed, and so they cannot be "the fittest" in any sense of the word.

      It's also a matter of fairness, not just fitness.

      I did specify a vote, remember?

      And I already discussed the numbers when it comes to most bond measure votes. Twelve percent of the voters are "voluntary", which makes 82% of them involuntary, as will be anyone who moves into the area.

      True, but said private companies have to identify target locations, gather funds of their own, be able to expect a reasonable profit, and all that.

      Yes, and the fact that none, or at best very few, have done that tells us all that there is no burning need for the service that will pay the costs of providing it. Thus the government has to do it -- and you pointed out I assume it will be at a loss, because of this very reason.

      If a private company comes in, provides competition, superior service than the incumbent, then the proposals to set up a municipal system tend to die on the vine.

      And we know why they won't come in, and they have even less reason to try when they know the government is competing against them.

      You're neglecting other possible sources: Increased fees, borrowing more money(attached to the company, not the government),

      We're talking about government provided gigabit broadband. The government (and the taxpayers, all of them) ARE the company. How can you claim that another bond measure would not attach to the government?

      selling stock or assets,

      How many fire trucks should a city sell off to get the money to pay for gigabit broadband for the relative few who use it?

      You think I have 'unlimited trust in government'?

      You deliberately left off the modifier in that statement. "To spend tax money the way they promised to." That's a pretty significant limit in the grand picture of things, but it is a trust that is interestingly present when someone wants something "for free" from the government but ubiquitously absent when it comes to trust about things like use of drones or GPS tracking.

      Actually they're NOT the same local governments. Some local governments are in the pockets, some are not.

      It is the SAME government that was in the pockets of Comcast execs and sucking up all the money from Comcast that is now trying to increase the size of government and fees and taxes by running their own gigabit broadband service. Same one. Had they not been in the pockets of Comcast, Comcast wouldn't be there. At least that's the standard refrain when anyone talks about the corrupt cable monopoly and the fiendish government syncophants who let them rape the residents.

    7. Re:Regulatory Capture by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the "fittest" does not include a taxpayer subsidized, non-profit government department trying to take customers away from existing companies. If the government didn't have the taxpayer funds to prop them up, they wouldn't succeed, and so they cannot be "the fittest" in any sense of the word.

      Again, you're assuming that they can't be commercial successes on their own. Absent lawsuits, they generally succeed. I'm waiting to see how the natural gas utility my local community is setting up will fair.

      It's also a matter of fairness, not just fitness.

      Indeed. If the local for-profit monopoly insists on not treating it's customers fairly, it deserves what happens when said customers say they aren't going to play that game anymore. (Of course, at this point I'm having fun with my responses).

      And I already discussed the numbers when it comes to most bond measure votes. Twelve percent of the voters are "voluntary", which makes 82% of them involuntary, as will be anyone who moves into the area.

      Moves into the area, sure. Remember Home Owner's Associations? You agree to the existing rules when you move into the area. Also, you are aware that voter turnouts have been trending up for years, right? So it's probably a higher percentage than 12% voting for it, especially if the vote is held during a presidential election. Also, the 82% aren't involuntary, they're going to be a split between "supportive", "unsupportive", and "completely uncaring".

      Yes, and the fact that none, or at best very few, have done that tells us all that there is no burning need for the service that will pay the costs of providing it. Thus the government has to do it -- and you pointed out I assume it will be at a loss, because of this very reason.

      A government forming a utility cooperative is actually a fairly normal event. Like I said, one is currently occuring for natural gas in my area. Government funding has been minimal, mostly enough to pay for the studies and people to run the program, the actually construction costs were raised by getting commercial(non-government backed) loans.

      And we know why they won't come in, and they have even less reason to try when they know the government is competing against them.

      Actually, you don't know this. Like I said - it's happened. Hell, the proposals have died when the current service provider, upon hearing about the possibility of competition, stepped up it's game and provided better service. It's only when they don't care even in the face of the threat that it goes through and a municipal system is set up. On average, said municipal systems are able to do what they're supposed to: provide internet access(or gas) at a reasonable rate while paying off all the expenses of setting up the system at a reasonable rate.

      We're talking about government provided gigabit broadband. The government (and the taxpayers, all of them) ARE the company. How can you claim that another bond measure would not attach to the government?

      Do you need me to explain how a LLC works? Hell, look up how Trump operates, it's a virtually ideal example. Trump's companies declare bankruptcy 'all the time', he's not held financially responsible for them.

      How many fire trucks should a city sell off to get the money to pay for gigabit broadband for the relative few who use it?

      'relative few'? And you're a slashdotter? As for fire trucks, those are a lousy thing to sell. I was thinking about stuff like a municiple building that they're not using any more, land held in reserve, etc... Hell, first thing you'd do is sell any assets that the cooperative purchased that turn out to not be necessary.

      You deliberately left off the modifier in that statement. "To spend tax money the way they promised to."

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:Regulatory Capture by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Again, you're assuming that they can't be commercial successes on their own.

      That's a pretty much demonstrated fact. Were such systems to be commercially viable, someone would be doing them. Even if it were just the incumbents. But we must have government do it because nobody else will. There's a pretty telling bit of evidence about the commercial viability of such systems.

      Also, consider what AT&T and Comcast are doing. You're implying that they're competing against AT&T & Comcast by running their own 'gigabit service'. This implies that the commercial companies have gigabit service

      No, that implies that AT&T and Comcast have internet service which customers will abandon when the government offers them cheap gigabit service. If you doubt that is a fact, then there is little hope of this discussion being productive. They may change providers because of the technical advantages, or they may change just to give the finger to the big companies they hate, but they are the intended customers for any government gigabit service.

      Here's the truths: if gigabit internet is such a critical service to so many people, someone would be selling it to them. If gigabit service is so critical to a specific customer and nobody exists to sell it to them, they'll be buying the next best thing. That would be broadband from an incumbent.

      This is a part of the reason people are pissed at them.

      This is alot of the reason people are taught to be pissed at them. They are taught that they need gigabit service, when the fact is that most people can get by with 100Mbps or even half that. The vast majority of residential service, for example, wouldn't consume 100Mbps on their best days. It doesn't take even 100Mbps to do email and stream video or surf the web. But gigabit is a handy hook to hang your hatred of the megacorporate incumbent providers on. We hates the nasty Comcasts because we think they overcharge and they don't have good customer service and they encrypt all their channels and they cooks their fishes. And now we can hate them because they don't have cheap gigabit service. It's not a true need (for most people), it's just a prop.

      Hmm... You are aware that there are over 5,000 'local governments', right?

      I am as aware that there are a huge number of local governments as are the people who make the claims that they are all being bought off by Comcast or AT&T or TW or whichever cable company they've given the sweetheart exclusive monopolies to, yes. You should be asking them, since I'm just parroting the claims about the inept and fraudulent backgrounds of any local government that has ever given a franchise to a cable company.

      You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the local government is corrupt for allowing Comcast into town in the first place, and then claim you trust them to be honest in their intent of creating municipal broadband to compete with Comcast.

      I could run for local office and have a decent chance of making it...

      And then you would becomes just another one of the greedy corrupt bastards who is kissing the feet of Comcast or AT&T because Comcast or AT&T has been granted a franchise to rape the local residents with overpriced and underperforming service. You'd like to think that you can avoid those claims by being special and honest an different, but you'll be just another one of "them" to those who know that it takes corruption to create a cable franchise.

      Define "sucking up all the money from Comcast".

      Accepting the bribes from the company seeking the franchise, whether that's actual money or perks or whatever. It isn't always money. But you'd be better off asking the people who regularly make the claims that such corruption exist. They'd have the answer to what they mean by that.

      Define how a government s

    9. Re:Regulatory Capture by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty much demonstrated fact. Were such systems to be commercially viable, someone would be doing them. Even if it were just the incumbents. But we must have government do it because nobody else will. There's a pretty telling bit of evidence about the commercial viability of such systems.

      No, we don't have to have the government do it. There are private companies standing up and doing it. Google, for example. They just aren't doing it fast enough. As for the incumbents, you don't know much about that 'free market' thing, do you? Hint: They don't have to do jack as long as they have a captive market.

      No, that implies that AT&T and Comcast have internet service which customers will abandon when the government offers them cheap gigabit service. If you doubt that is a fact, then there is little hope of this discussion being productive. They may change providers because of the technical advantages, or they may change just to give the finger to the big companies they hate, but they are the intended customers for any government gigabit service.

      Well, of course customers will abandon the incumbents when somebody offers a better service. The trick is, with an initial infusion of capital, said government founded companies are capable of profitably offering said services. Interesting, right?

      This is alot of the reason people are taught to be pissed at them. They are taught that they need gigabit service, when the fact is that most people can get by with 100Mbps or even half that.

      Well yes. I'd be ecstatic if I could get over ten meg. Oddly enough though, 'Not available in my area'.

      And now we can hate them because they don't have cheap gigabit service. It's not a true need (for most people), it's just a prop.

      You need to read closer. Gigabit is nice, yes. But it's not just the speed. It's the cost(cheaper than other company's 10meg services), not oversold to hell(so they actually GET the 10meg, rather than under 1), customer service that can find it's own ass... You know, the stuff I mentioned earlier.

      I am as aware that there are a huge number of local governments as are the people who make the claims that they are all being bought off by Comcast or AT&T or TW or whichever cable company they've given the sweetheart exclusive monopolies to, yes.

      Odd, I never claimed that they were *all* being bought off. Some are, some aren't. Such is life.

      You should be asking them, since I'm just parroting the claims about the inept and fraudulent backgrounds of any local government that has ever given a franchise to a cable company.

      Well, then stop parroting them and start having your own thoughts. You're really making this too easy.

      You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the local government is corrupt for allowing Comcast into town in the first place, and then claim you trust them to be honest in their intent of creating municipal broadband to compete with Comcast.

      Reading comprehension, man. First: They could be completely separate jurisdictions. I mean, Grand Forks vs Lancaster. Second: Most of the time no town 'let' Comcast in, Comacast bought the incumbent cable company that was there long before any of the lawmakers were ever elected. Third: It's entirely possible that NEW government officials have been elected since Comcast came to town, with their own platforms and interests.

      That's without getting into my asking where I claimed that a town would be corrupt for 'letting Comcast in'. Corrupt would be handing them a 99 year monopoly on providing services.

      And then you would becomes just another one of the greedy corrupt bastards who is kissing the feet of Comcast or AT&T because Comcast or AT&T has been granted a franchise to rape the

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  6. How confusing by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Local democracy is preferable to federal because it's less corrupt right?

    1. Re:How confusing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Local democracy is preferable to federal because it's less corrupt right?

      No, because it's more responsive to local demands and conditions. For example, imagine the feds imposing the same water restrictions whether you live in Washington State with water running out it's ears, and Nevada or California with critical shortages.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re: How confusing by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Local demands like better broadband?

    3. Re: How confusing by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Correct.

      Personally, I've always found that the best utilities are cooperatives. Ergo, if the locals become pissed off enough that they vote to create a local cooperative, more power on them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  7. That sucks by mrun4982 · · Score: 2

    I have municipal run gigabit internet and it's by far the best internet service I've ever had. Cheap ($50/month), fast, reliable, great customer service, and great installers.

    1. Re:That sucks by fullback · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must tell us where you are, so the convenience police can come and put a stop to it immediately!

    2. Re:That sucks by eWarz · · Score: 1

      My city (in TN) is growing so fast they don't have housing for everyone. rekt?

  8. Re:Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community netwo by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

    The maps of the US over the years tend to show the city and state blocking lobbyist handiwork.
    133 US cities now have their own broadband networks (Mar 24, 2011)
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
    Municipal fiber needs more FDR localism, fewer state bans ( Jan 7, 2010)
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
    and the efforts some states have to remove the bans
    Colorado’s muni broadband ban overridden in 44 communities (Nov 6, 2015)
    http://arstechnica.com/busines...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. the laws protect free market... by mornfall · · Score: 1

    ... from the worst of all market predators, small businesses.

  10. Re:Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community netwo by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  11. Sharing by fulldecent · · Score: 2

    Clearly we need to ignore these laws and simply provide a "sharing" computer connection.

    This new service is not marketed as internet, because it is SHARING. And old laws don't apply to new things.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:Sharing by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      We can call it the gig-abit economy!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. I live just outside Nashville... by MetricT · · Score: 1

    If you look up "regulatory capture" in the dictionary, it has a picture of our state legislature...

    There are *so* many things which a majority of Tennesseans are clamoring for (wine in supermarkets, medical marijuana, fiber broadband) but we can't get passed the legislature because some random dumb-ass politician feels it "violates their morals" (or the wallet of their big campaign contributors).

    We desperately need a public referendum system which the legislature *must* act upon, because Tennessee is being held hostage by some seriously stupid politicians.

    Fellow Tennesseans, anybody feel like going together and putting a full page "Please vote for anyone but Patsy Hazlewood because..." ad in the Chattanooga Times Free Press? Because she just tossed a buttload of her constituents who are clamoring for EPB fiber under the bus to make her corporate masters happy. I think they should be reminded of that come next election.

  13. Anyone else remember that picture of the snake by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    cut up into 13 pieces? Crap like this is why we need a Federal gov't. It's too easy for the Mega corps to buy off individual states one at a time....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. This is why I like Federal Gov't by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    it's too easy for the corporations to go from State to State buying each legislature one at a time. I find when most people say they're in favor of small government they mean "Small enough that I can boss everybody around"...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is why I like Federal Gov't by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Oh, this. Wish I had mod points for you.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    2. Re:This is why I like Federal Gov't by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      http://movetoamend.org/action here's a possible answer... check 'em out...

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    3. Re:This is why I like Federal Gov't by Bookworm09 · · Score: 1

      I find when most people say they're in favor of small government they mean "Small enough that I can boss everybody around"...

      Or in the words of Grover Norquist, "Small enough to drown in a bathtub". Which is the creepiest expression I've heard in a while.

  15. Re:Better Off by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    I can compete against a company.

    Umm yeah, try competing against Apple, without being another multinational corporation as well. Between the lawyers, the patent war chests, the copyrights and every other tool they have, you as an individual have very little chance to compete against a mature corporation.

    I cannot do ANYTHING if a government is bahving is ways I do not like; regulatory agencies are a self-perpetuating system that exists only to grow and consume.

    There's these things called elections? Maybe you've heard of them?

  16. Comcast... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I freaking hate Comcast. Where I live I have no other choice. I need it for work. Fortunately my company pays for it. But there was a post earlier today that said Comcast uncapped 1 Gb was $80 per month somewhere in Georgia. I'm paying almost $15 more than that per month for 1/40 the speed. I could probably get faster speeds if I install their new modem. But then I also get to be part of their share-my bandwidth-via-WiFi-with-any-Comcast-customer-that-chooses-to-connect-to-it program.

    1. Re:Comcast... by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      I'm paying $80 per month ($79.95) to Comcast for 75/10. I'd love gigabit here, which they supposedly offer for $300/month, $300 sign up, and a two year contract with hefty early termination fees. I say supposedly because they will accept the order then call you back in a month to let you know that they don't really offer it in your area, then refund your money.

  17. Re:Better Off by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    It is far easier to use the ballot box to change a government than to compete with a corporate monopoly by voting with your wallet.

    From all outward appearance, corporations also exist only to grow and consume.

  18. Re:Better Off by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    The ballot box does have a lot of power. The frustration that many feel is that the ballot box is also used by political opponents. The voters may be misguided and keep voting in morons to the state legislature. However the alternative should never be to discard democracy and institute one's own personal political utopia against the will of the people.

    So the means to fight the misguided voter is with education (the soap box).

    I really don't understand some of these posters who think it's better to have no broadband than to allow the municipal democratically elected government to provide such a service. It's hatred of government so blind that it can't recognize when a government is actually doing what the people want.

  19. No such thing as "market failure" by mi · · Score: 1

    even in cases of obvious market failure

    There is simply no such thing, boys and girls...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:No such thing as "market failure" by mi · · Score: 1

      When the 'market' actively refuses to provide a service *at all*

      No such thing either, honey.

      (Post under your own name, if you want further replies.)

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  20. Re:Better Off by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You can in fact compete against Apple software wise -do you think a small team could do better than iTunes? I do.

    You can even compete against them in hardware simply by building something they will not, or is too much of a niche.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Wow, and one adjoining country? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    Which country was it? Mexico or Canada?

  22. Re:Better Off by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    You can in fact compete against Apple software wise -do you think a small team could do better than iTunes? I do.

    Uhuh, try to replace Apple's app store, see how that works out for you.

    You can even compete against them in hardware simply by building something they will not, or is too much of a niche.

    Building something Apple doesn't already build isn't competing with Apple, now is it. It's like claiming that Ford and Comcast are competitors.

  23. Seriously? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Uhuh, try to replace Apple's app store, see how that works out for you.

    Uhuhuhuhu Actually it worked out really well.

    Building something Apple doesn't already build isn't competing with Apple

    Tell that to Samsung Gear makers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Seriously? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Samsung Gear makers.

      If I meet any, I will happily do so.

  24. If you want a place to start... by dbreeze · · Score: 1

    ...at trying to reign in the corporations, I'd recommend giving this group a look and lending your support as able.

    http://movetoamend.org/action

    --
    When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
  25. Need a kickstarter for Fiber by bigpat · · Score: 1

    I agree if we are talking about tax money being used. Taxpayer subsidies undermine the free market and ultimately undermine the service being offered if those services are competing with other public priorities for tax dollars instead of being supported by the fees paid by customers.

    That said it seems there should be a way to get loans to build out fiber without needing billions in wall street investment. Regulations are taylor made to the business model of needing large scale capital investment on speculation. Rather than the incremental small scale organic approach that would foster competition.

    Something like a kick starter for fiber rollouts at the neighborhood, small city or regional level. Or a coop model where customers provide the upfront capital. Say something like $400 set up fee if enough neighbors sign on.

  26. Pfft... by eWarz · · Score: 1

    As someone who lives in a certain large-ish city in TN, feel free to let this dumbass law scare you FAR FAR away from TN. Please don't come here (we already have enough morons moving here as it is), you'll be stuck on dial-up if you do *goes back to his Comcast 300 meg uncapped cable connection and stares at the Google Fiber hut a mile from his house*

  27. Re:Better Off by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Building a product that another company does not wish to build is not, in fact, competing with that company.

    (I suppose, in the grossest sense of competing for dollars, you could claim to be competing. But that's like saying a panhandler is competing with Land Rover.)

  28. ALEC at work. by andydread · · Score: 1

    When you see state laws like this that propagate throughout the states and usually supported by Republican politicians throughout the states you can attribute it to ALEC ALEC is a forum where conservative politicians and big business and interest groups rub together and create legislation (model legislation) for the benefit of those big businesses and interest groups.

  29. Re:Better Off by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Oh?
    You don't get to vote where you live?

    Gee.
    Then it sounds like you either dont live in the US, or you failed to oppose voter disenfranchisement.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  30. What happened to voting? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Big company says NEW SKUB IS BAD. ONLY OUR OLD SKUB IS GOOD. Why is the next step not "Let the citizens decide whose skub to use?" or better yet, let both skubs co-exist and create healthy competition? The entire US is fucked backwards when it comes to this shit... instead of bending over backwards for corporations, they should start bending over backwards to the people buying the shit from the corporations allowing them to exist in the first place.