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.

28 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 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=-
    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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).

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

  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 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.

  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 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
  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
  6. 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.

  7. 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"
  8. 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!
  9. 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

  10. 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/