Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Could Give Taxpayers America's Fastest Internet For Free, But It Gave Comcast and AT&T $45 Million Instead (vice.com)
Chattanooga, Tennessee is home to some of the fastest internet speeds in the United States, offering city dwellers Gbps and 10 Gpbs connections. Instead of voting to expand those connections to the rural areas surrounding the city, which have dial up, satellite, or no internet whatsoever, Tennessee's legislature voted to give Comcast and AT&T a $45 million taxpayer handout. Motherboard reports: The situation is slightly convoluted and thoroughly infuriating. EPB -- a power and communications company owned by the Chattanooga government -- offers 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, and 10 Gpbs internet connections. A Tennessee law that was lobbied for by the telecom industry makes it illegal for EPB to expand out into surrounding areas, which are unserved or underserved by current broadband providers. For the last several years, EPB has been fighting to repeal that state law, and even petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to try to get the law overturned. This year, the Tennessee state legislature was finally considering a bill that would have let EPB expand its coverage (without providing it any special tax breaks or grants; EPB is profitable and doesn't rely on taxpayer money). Rather than pass that bill, Tennessee has just passed the "Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017," which gives private telecom companies -- in this case, probably AT&T and Comcast -- $45 million of taxpayer money over the next three years to build internet infrastructure to rural areas.
Making legislated monopolies great again!
Government working for it's constituents at the finest.
The US is super corrupt. Film at 11.
Making corporations all-powerful and unstoppable... by placing the GOP in power, voters have assured themselves of many years of getting boned by corporations getting their way. Golf clap for a master job the GOP did getting people to vote against their own best interests. Bravo, my friends.
Is someone lobbying to repeal this law? Why that's DE-REGULATION! I mean, without regulation there will be total anarchy.
This has absolutely zero to do with the law lobbied for by telecom. It has everything to do with the fact that Chattanooga has no rights of way outside its city limit, and has no right to build infrastructure there. That would fall under the purvue of Hamilton County, which voted against funding for it. So, in order to get the infrastructure built outside city limits, it must pay someone else to do it who DOES have rights of way.
Why have one regulated monopoly do the whole thing. Allow private investment with public contribution to serve rural areas where access is more difficult.
A lot of the reason rural areas are under served is the fact easements are harder to obtain. Unlike in urban and suburban areas were easements are granted automatically to utilities, you have to get permission in rural areas from landowners who can tell you to pound sand.
This is what happens when you let one party have a complete stranglehold on state government. The number of Republicans in the state senate are almost 6 to 1 in favor of Republicans. It's almost 3-1 in favor of Republicans in the state house. The governor in Republican and there's no accountability. Voters have shown consistently that the vast majority of them only care about whether a D or R is next to a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable. I'm sure we'll get a few "Throw the bums out" posts, but that's not going to happen. Most of the state governments in the southeastern USA have sizable Republican majorities. I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states with huge majorities in the state legislature. It's what happens when one party gets entrenched and there's no hope of getting them out.
It maybe no-additional-cost-charged-directly to the user, but it's not free.
I know the intent of the article is to make people enraged, and it certainly seems like something's going wrong here.
However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market.
While certainly there are some circumstances, and this may well be one, where government can beneficially 'manage the commons' better than private or for-profit interests, there's something troubling about government agencies, on taxpayer funds, driving private firms out of business.
Yes, I see from the article that EPB runs a profit, and doesn't take tax money for operation. But do they bear the long-term capital costs that a private firm would for infrastructure? They certainly get use of city right-of-ways, no? In disputes over land use or zoning, I have to imagine they get a far more sympathetic hearing from city agencies?
In any case, it should be in the interest of any citizen to doubt the wisdom of establishing and protecting anti-competitive markets in the long run, not to mention the idea of a business having (essentially) the power of law enforcement on their side.
http://reason.com/archives/201...
-Styopa
This decision is completely gay
What a load of crap.
In other news, Chattanooga has discovered a way to expand infrastructure without paying for any labor or buying any materials.
If it were for Ajit Pai, Comcast and AT&T would get $450M instead of meager $45M! Ajit Pai is making Internet great again!
Even Hitler din't give millions of dollars of taxpayer money to broadband companies
please tell us why you tolerate this corrupt behavior by your legislators? $45 million isn't pocket change. Are you really going to ignore this the next time your representatives run for re-election?
Some of that down home southern justice on the lawmakers responsible for passing this bill and after the next round of elections, with thoroughly cowed elected officials, see that more community friendly options are passed instead.
However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market.
That might be a valid concern if provision of wireline data was actually a free market. It is not and never has been and there is no reasonable prospect of it becoming one in the near future either. Companies like AT&T and Comcast have a government granted monopoly because of the substantial capital costs involved in setting up and maintaining such a network. As such they need to be regulated to assure against abuses. Given that fact it is perfectly reasonable for the government to get into the market with alternative offerings if the private corporations are not providing sufficient value to the citizens.
The article has a funny definition of "free", when the whole argument is
Here's the problem, the bill was called "Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017". So that has to be better than "EPB wants to expand their service". Plus with a name like that, how could any politician not vote for it. If they did, their opponent in the next election would be holding it up as if the incumbent was against broadband accessibility. Politics at most levels has become such a twisted cesspool of lies and misdirection it's no wonder why any decent person avoids running for office.
Through means which don't make sense prima facie, I can switch electric and natural gas providers at will while the utility company continues to provide the connectivity. Why can't we 'nationalize' the fiber but let service providers compete on the service?
I wonder how many Tennessee State legislature woohaas are getting deeply discounted direct tv packages.
Maybe if Democrats weren't relentlessly pushing for bigger government and SJW victimhood identity politics they could compete with Republicans.
But they chose a relentless drive for power and pushing the culture war over policies Americans actually want. Democrats deliberately pushed "blue dogs" out of the party so progressives could control it to-to-bottom. Democrats backed Bloomberg on civilian disarmament, backed Soros and Steyer on funding #BlackLivesmatter, insisted a man changing his name magically made him a woman, and then wonder why ordinary Americans no longer vote for them.
And really, where are Republicans stopping Democrats in such paradisaical deep blue enclaves like Chicago and Detroit?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
> But do they bear the long-term capital costs that a private firm would for infrastructure?
You hit the nail on the head. They took over $300 million in taxpayer money, to build the network. Now that the $300 million is gone, they don't lose significantly MORE money each month but they haven't paid back the $330 million they took from taxpayers. There are 75,000 households in Chatanooga, so that's $4,400 per family they took. If they returned that $4,400 to each household, plus more, then one could argue that they are profitable.
Legislated monopolies, also known as "cable franchises" suck ass.
Does anyone here still believe in "free", that goods and services just magically appear out of thin air? I think just about everyone left on Slashdot is too old for that fairy tale.
Chattanooga EFB took over $300 million from taxpayers. There are 75,000 households in Chatanooga, so the cost is $4,400 per family even if you don't get the service, with an additional monthly charge if you want the service. When you have to pay $4,400 plus $60-$150 per month, that's not free. That's not anywhere near free.
Primitive Voting promotes 2 party rule. The single biggest fix one can make is to put in a modern voting system which allows more than 2 parties to get access to power (and by modern I do not mean electronic!) Divide up the duopoly control over the system.
That is just 1 big thing; there are so many other problems wrong in the system (and the citizens) no single thing will fix it. The American Empire is falling after such a short run; I never read about one that turned it around.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.
Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all. Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading. We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I've been arguing for years that if telecommunications companies take public money for expanding infrastructure, they need to be designated as common carriers.
in the 1990s, back when it was Bell Atlantic (before Bell Atlantic-NYNEX, before Verizon) got public money to build out infrastructure in the general I-95 corridor. They then didn't do it for YEARS.
We need to go back to the old ISP days -- line (physical connection) was separate from port (data to the internet), and the ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers ... ie, phone companies) were required to publish tariff rates at which people could buy dedicated lines from them. ... and I believe common carriers, they're not sell information on their users other than basic directory to third parties.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I would have expected something utterly stupid from West Virginia, and something utterly corrupt from New York.
Are you sure that the right state is mentioned in the article?
In the 2000's, Portugal's ANACOM (kind of our very own FCC, but much more "lobby-able") allowed the subsidization of copper, cable and fiber installation to unserviced areas exclusively to Portugal Telecom (PT, now commercially known as MEO), then a mostly public company with a big monopoly on phone and internet services but none in cable or satellite TV, with the state itself covering up to the 90 %'s of the cost but ownership being kept by PT. All PT had to do was compromise on maintenance and also service the rural areas where they already had a presence, thus providing close to 100% home owners with basic cable DSL. It was very good - for the 2000's, many villages ended up with 256kb internet services with copper, although they were more expensive than in cities.
Problem: rural lines were never maintained or upgraded. By 2010, internet users in rural areas had ascended to more than 80% due to population renewal - most schools, services and even income tax forms or civil services are now internet-based and people need a solid bandwidth for accessing these services, and these services are not made for 2000'ish bandwidth. Our income tax website for instance is a 50MB Java Applet that constantly fails and requires refresh, does bad caching. Moodle and other educational web platforms, even email, demand decent down and upload speeds for word, pdf or other assignments. In technological terms, we have the xDSL protocol but not even close to the throughput to support it effectively. I've seen multiple cases of people subscribing to 24mbit services, effectively getting 2mbits tops, and the instability at that speed prompts most people to even request a reduction to 1.2mbits to PT so they get a stable service.
Bigger problem: PT/MEO was sold by our previous right-wing government under pretext that it was a demand for targeted Troika goals for having received a bail-out, and a known company dismantler Altice, spearheaded by Luso-French CEO, took the majority share (and abolished the state-owned golden share) of PT, while managing to include a monopolizing contract clause specifically for rural areas, where the installed lines were mostly payed for by the state, but are still fully owned by the company. And they pretty much payed below asking price. Better offers were denied from more decent parties for reasons that were never actually disclosed. PT is now a super-aggressive marketing company, with the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and our best comedians stepping in their commercials. The service, obviously, hasn't improved sh*t the last 5 years.
So now, in Portugal we have at least 4 fiber providers, 2 of them expanding their own line strongly to rural areas not serviced by PT, but they are constantly blocked from providing service because they can't use the tubing that is now owned by PT (part of the lines deal), and new licenses for cabling will not be issued because of the monopolizing clause. They can't even demand the lease of existing lines or tubing in some instances. That's how strong ANACOM is defending PT.
For this reason, Portugal is now becoming a home-3g/LTE playground with actual decent speeds. I am seeing more and more people switching to home-LTE plans because they are much cheaper and immensely more modern and reliable. They are provided by all ISPs unlike landlines because PT does not have a monopoly there, and so prices and plans are a lot more competitive. And yes, I said mobile services in Portugal rural areas are more reliable than landline. That's how bad it gets.
Now, why do I have to live in a country where rural areas get the same treatment as 3rd-world countries, who pretty much skipped landlines for cost, and are jumping to mobile data instead. It is appalling.
Taking taxpayer dollars and creating services for said taxpayers = socialism.
Taking taxpayer dollars and giving them to corporations = capitalism.
I live in TN and I don't have internet at home. Because of this very thing. Comcast and ATT have been colluding with the state and local governments for years to screw us over. I refuse to give these crony fuckers anything. But the rest of my fellow citizens are a bunch of pussies who can't live without their damn cable and netflix.
The Republicans hate free market competition. The days of William F. Buckley Jr are clearly gone....
How many "libertarians" end up supporting the Republican slate (by voting for or not voting at all) and letting nonsense lie this go through...
Just look for pictures of NYC at the turn of the century and you can see neighborhoods with hundreds of power and telephone lines from competing companies going through neighborhoods.
You kind of missed the point but I'll revise. There hasn't been any meaningful version of a free market in power line or wire line telecom or cable TV networks within the lifetime of anyone who will read this.
This is why it will never be that way again and why there should be no corporate interests invested in owning utility lines.
I don't see a problem with a (regulated) private company owning utility lines as long as they don't also own what is being transmitted over those same lines.
Do you know what Tennessee would've looked like with faster internet? Well you would have because it would've meant more videos and streaming from people in Tennessee. You dodged a bullet, try being thankful.
..that has actually been brought up before on Slashdot, but it bears bringing up again.
Why not let each county/city build out a fiber optic network that will serve its citizens, connect to each county that touches them in a peering agreement, then connect to the overall backbone that is the Internet? Once those fiber networks are built out, the county/city can then let any ISP that wants to connect to the fiber and sell services -- with the county/city collecting $XX.xx per connection for upgrades and maintenance. THAT would create competition. Even if the local county/city creates their own ISP, then that service provider/entity must be separate from the entity owning the fiber optics and still has to pay $XX.xx per connection for access to the physical fiber. Fair play and all that.
The county/city entity that owns the fiber should have a completely "hands off" policy (net neutrality) when it comes to data flowing over the fiber and their only concern is the physical upkeep and maintenance.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Someone needs to explain to me why taxpayer dollars freely go to public transportation systems - highways and airports - while taxpayer dollars for internet services go to private corporations whose only perceived purpose is legalized monopolization.
The cable TV and telecommunication corporations' ultimate goal isn't just eliminating competition, their ultimate goal is absolute ownership of the wires/fiber networks that deliver internet services. That is the key to shutting out or hampering competition. We saw this happen when cable TV providers tightened their iron grip on delivery systems when deregulation reared its ugly head.
I hate the cable and satellite TV providers with a passion, in the last 25 years they have shown they are despicable greedy bastards. They continue to raise prices, restrict program material, and shut out competition who desire to lease their networks. They infiltrate government positions and maintain lobbying services to perpetuate their monopolies. I refused to patronize them and have cut the cable since 2000.
Contrast this with the transportation network. Before the 1950s, many bridges were still privately owned and vehicles had to pay a toll. Likewise with roads that were on private property. These assets were removed from private ownership, which opened the gates to better maintained and patrolled roadways. The public benefits from the arrangement as it permitted freer safer flow of goods and services. Likewise with the airports. Because those arteries are such an essential component to the nation, labor unions are forbidden to initiate any action that could impede them.
Give the $$$ to the cable and telecommunication corporations, and the public gains NOTHING. It is a safe bet that once the networks are established, the corporations will use the "tier" subscription system to restrict high speed internet to the most expensive plans to the consumer. We have seen this already with large telecommunication corporations and with entertainment content with the cable TV corporations. The public taxpayer ultimately LOSES in this deal.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
legislated or otherwise. A lot of folks want these things left in private hands, but they also want the government to take an active role so that rural communities have access at a price they can afford. If you want those two things together the only solution is subsidies. Big ones. Otherwise you have to accept some level of nationalization or state run utilities. Usually you're talking nationalization since the money's coming from the Fed in a lot of cases (since most states with big rural populations don't have enough of their own money to run all that expensive cabling...).
The third option: Low prices due to competition, isn't on the table. Even if these weren't natural monopolies (which given that they often need eminent domain to run cable they are) the amounts of money they make (Comcast charges $80/mo for Internet that costs them $9/mo, support included and that's from their SEC filing so it's accurate) they'll just buy up their competitors.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How do you expect the telcos to supply broadband to even one rural house with that? That won't even cover the interior decorating cost of a yacht these days.
I didn't know Tennessee had the Internet yet.
What, give internet away for FREE, and in the Deep South? Why that is SOCIALIST and will make the Soviets invade us!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It disturbs me how often the word "free" is incorrectly used when referring to public services.
In reference to an article yesterday on a similar topic I posted the following link to a functioning co-op. Co-ops take leadership, but they can really serve the public good in ways that a government bureaucracy or a for-profit cannot. Not a panacea, but the Maryland Broadband Cooperative has a pretty good record I think. As states outlaw municipal broadband it seems to me that this kind of institution is one that they can't sensibly outlaw. They could try, of course, an no doubt will. Anyway, MDBC has put a lot of fiber into the countryside.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
No, one specific grant of federal tax money was $111 million by itself. Which was matching grant. Then there was the state and local tax money, which paid most of the cost.
> $300 million was the total cost including the amount paid for by Internet, cable, and electricity customers
You think they had customers (paying $4,400 each) BEFORE they built it?
A politician's constituents are the people who donated the most to their campaign.
I think that their constituents are those who are waving money in front of their face at any given point in time.
They don't limit themselves to whoever contributed to their campaign.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/sep/16/epb-fiber-optics-gives-city-boost/325362/
According to them, they actually made the city money because they attracted more tech companies. Sure, that 800m is probably inflated and includes their electricity side too, but a one time 200m investment seems like a good idea if it makes them 2 times as much over a few years.
not with someone who has no shareholders and no need to run a profit. You're either going to nationalize it or you're going to create a public option in name only (with a ton of money being handed out to the well connected while you're at it). Do one or the other (I'd prefer the public option) not both.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but why should I have to pay for someone else's Internet connection? I'm devil's advocating here, but I'd love to get a nice, pithy answer to that question. While we're at it how about an answer to "What right do you have to force me to pay for somebody's Internet?". There are sound, logical answers to both of these and they both sound & feel just awful. The left never did get the hang of catch phrases.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because governments, especially central governments, are such a useful tool that they will always form. It's like a box of loaded rifles lying around. Somebody's gonna pick 'em up and use them. The question is never, "Should we have a central government", it's always "Are you going to participate in the one we have".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fucking deplorables...
he still needs votes or he's out the door. Period. Even with Gerrymandering.
Bernie's been talking about this. Folks are pressuring the Dems to move right on social issues. To which he replies: I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ and nobody gives a damn. They want health care. They want education. They want higher wages.
People voted for Trump because he made promises and Hilary didn't. Somebody (538?) showed her ads and campaign were almost completely devoid of content. The Dems are moving on a progressive, populist platform. If they do that get ready for some changes.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See here.
And the difference is _all_ Republicans are in big biz's pockets. They're unapologetic about it. The Laffer curve will trickle it down. I'm not trolling saying that, it's made a comeback.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
cuck's cucking cuckstituents while cucktards recuck them into cuckice
...that don't want companies building and laying lines all over their beautiful mountain landscapes. You and I can't live without Internet. Some think "yes I could," but no you can't; it's too late for us. Because of this created need, there's a lot of people bitching here for no reason at all that have never been to TN or even camping at all. What good are freedoms if there's no blank spots on the map. Do you know how messed up it is to have to go to a park as your only option to but still pick up wifi signals? I don't like dialup either, but some of us have family that remembers the TVA very well, and want to be left alone.
> EPB took a grant for only 112 million
One specific federal matching grant was for $112 million (or was it $111 million?). Do you know what a matching grant is? that means the federal tax payers match what the state and local tax payers were forced to pay. I've given you the link to their financial statement before, so it's not like you don't know this.
> EPB actually serves about 200,000 household
As you did before, you intentionally conflate electric service and internet. As of their latest filing, EPB claims 69,201 households and 6,455 businesses. Again, I've already given you links to their audited reports. So either you know you're intentionally lying to everyone here or worse, you're intentionally lying to yourself as well by making sure not to click the links to EPB financial statements.
Thanks for your informative and interesting reply. What a story! And how does a state manage to make a legal business illegal and get away with it? Corruption pure and simple as you indicated. Seems to me that the left could get some real traction in this area in the future. I wonder what the status of utility and communication cooperatives is nationally. A review would make a good Wired article IMHO. You know. Technology and culture.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
> enhance their electrical grid, which in just 3 years saved their customers $130mil down time
Read that back and about it for just two seconds. Chatanooga is 75,000 households. That's over $1,700 of cost to each household that didn't happen, which they are taking credit for not happening. Somebody is telling you that if they hadn't put fiber on the poles, there would have been blackouts so severe that they would cost each household $1,700.
Did families in Chatanooga each suffer $1,700 worth of service interruptions before they strung the fiber? I doubt it.
Maybe they should let them expand their service area / tax base. There so much bullshit being spouted for political reasons that it's hard to say. For example, people posting here claim that they have three times as many subscribers as what EFB claims in their official filings. EFB financial statements also show the cost to taxpayers as $330 million, while people here focus exclusively on one particular $111 million grant from taxpayers - ignoring most of the cost. So a good cost/benefit analysis is difficult in the midst of the spin and frankly the bullshit.
Via the Constitution, the states created a federal government and delegated certain powers to the new federal government. In the Constitution, they included redundant clauses for one particular point - the Constitution says that the federal government has only the powers that the states delegated to it, and that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. (No mention of delegating any powers to cities, which are another creation of the states.) There is nothing *hypocritical* about saying "let's follow the Constitution, and have the federal government do what they Constitution says the federal government can do, and the states do what they do, as written in the Constitution." This particular decision by the state may be unwise, it may be wise, but it's not hypocritical, it's following the plan laid out in the Constitution, which leaves all powers to the states, except the listed powers they delegated to the feds.
I also have a great plan and intention of building out internet infrastructure!
Give ME $45million, too!
I promise to give most to my CEO and shareholders. Do a shitty job, squander the rest, and then demand more (as $45M is not enough).
On a serious note:
Profitable companies need to spend their OWN profits to make more money.
That is how for-profit invesments work.
If it fails, then your risk was called in!
I'll bet that $45M would be better invested in educating people to build out this infrastructure and bring tax revenue IN!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Will someone explain to me where TN gets this money it plans to use to buy something it will give to citizens for 'free'?
Will someone also provide a link to a cheap economics course for BeauHD.
TN is yet-another state full of morons who voted in hordes for you-know-who. Not exactly an indicator of having a grasp of their own best interests, right? Come on... this is what happens when the National Interest is the driver for decades, and the Public Interest (which includes education) is given the old heave-ho. Get used to it if you aren't already...
Politicians are corrupt and can be bought by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Also, water is wet.
Details at 11:00.
Seriously, though, even if America was once a democracy (which is debatable), it ceased being one long before most of the people on this site were born.The last vestiges of democracy died out in the 50s when the military-industrial complex started to exert its control over the government under the threat of the red menace.
This ain't no different than the countless other times you've grabbed your ankles, so bend over and enjoy it.