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

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

Comments

States want "rights" over local broadband

[ITRambo]

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

Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community network!

[linuxguy]

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.

Uh since when are CA and WA red states?

[rsborg]

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

Regulatory Capture

[headkase]

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

Re:Don't let..

[Daemonik]

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

Re:Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community netwo

[AHuxley]

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...

Re:Cannot sell Tesla, cannot setup community netwo

[whoever57]

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

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

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

Re:Don't let..

[Obfuscant]

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

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

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

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

Re:Don't let..

[Calydor]

You seem to be missing a very big point here.

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

This is why I like Federal Gov't

[rsilvergun]

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"...

Re:Don't let..

[sjames]

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

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