
TN Could Give Fastest Internet for Free, Will Give Comcast and AT&T $45M Instead - mikro
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/tennessee-could-give-taxpayers-americas-fastest-internet-for-free-but-it-will-give-comcast-and-atandt-dollar45-million-instead
======
dtparr
Reading the actual bill [0], this coverage seems slanted. The bill
specifically allows rural electric and phone co-ops to offer broadband, and
also says that they can provide it outside their service area as long as they
get the permission of the municipal/co-op who does service that area.

Also, the grants are not specifically to Comcast/AT&T, or even just to private
businesses. From the text of the bill, the grants have to be able to go to:
"political subdivisions or entities of political subdivisions, corporations,
limited liability companies, partnerships, or other business entities that
provide broadband services; cooperatives organized under the Rural Electric
and Community Services Cooperative Act or the Telephone Cooperative Act, and
any other entity authorized by state law to provide broadband services."

While I'm all for freeing EPB to do their thing wherever they can, this
article seems to be slanting things more than a bit.

[0]-[http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNu...](http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0529)

~~~
thomastjeffery
While the law may allow for ISPs other than Comcast/AT&T, is that actually
going to happen?

~~~
dtparr
Actually, probably. My parents are in very rural TN, and they get their
telephone and internet from a rural co-op [0]. A few years back, that co-op
got a grant (though, federal I think) to roll out fiber, which blew everyone's
mind. They can get up to a 100/100 internet package for $130/mo now after
having been stuck on dial-up well into the 2010s.

It's not going to do anything for cities, but there are alot of people who
don't live in major cities. It's all the areas outside that that have no
broadband of any sort that this bill is helping.

Check out
[http://www.tnelectric.org/members/](http://www.tnelectric.org/members/) for a
map showing all the land areas served by electric co-ops who would now be able
to provide internet and apply for grants, and that's not including places that
have telecom co-ops for their internet but get power via a city/county
organization.

[0] - [http://wktelecom.coop/](http://wktelecom.coop/)

------
bkmartin
Other than voting out members of congress... is there any legal action that
can be taken against the lawmakers for such a brazen act that goes so strongly
against the good of the people? When the math is so cut and dry, are they no
longer upholding their oath? Any lawsuit to file or impeachment proceedings?
What can a citizen do when a large group of legislators does something so
financially irresponsible for their people?

~~~
saboot
I am a TN resident. While my purple state district resembles a hairy amoeba
reaching out into deep red areas, there will be no accountability.

They won't expand Medicaid, are in the process of out sourcing many state jobs
(parks, university) and will continue to stick it to working families.

Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure there's
still someone else in a worse situation than themselves.

~~~
ryandrake
> Many of those who would receive help are most concerned in making sure
> there's still someone else in a worse situation than themselves.

This is true and explains a lot of situations where people seemingly vote
against their own self-interest. The fact that responders choose to reject in
the Ultimatum Game[1] shows this in action.

But an even more fascinating example than the ultimatum game (sorry can't find
the link) is research that shows subjects are willing to pay money to burn the
money of others, just so the other test subject ends up with less. For
example, offer to give test subject A $10, tell him that you're giving subject
B $20, and then give subject A the option of giving up $2 of those $10 just to
reduce the subject B's gift from $20 to $5. It was found that a percentage of
people will be willing to accept that choice even though it's not the action
of someone with rational economic self-interest.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game)

~~~
krapht
I dislike people who claim it's not in a respondent's self-interest to do
this; that it's somehow irrational. Status is relative - as the old saying
goes, it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
But that saying, authored by Milton in Paradise Lost, is ascribed to
Lucifer/Satan. Not exactly a fountain of wisdom and good judgement. Also,
Milton wasn't particularly orthodox, but in conventional Christian theology
Satan is not said to rule in Hell- he suffers with the rest of us.

In an absolute sense, though, it would only be better to rule in Hell than to
serve in Heaven if the status of a servant in Heaven was worse than that of a
ruler in Hell. Status is relative, but not only relative to the other
participants in the study - it's relative to the entire population. I'd prefer
to get $10 and have one neighbor get $20 than $8 and $5, because the wealth of
millions of people establish the price of goods to me, not one person getting
a little more. In a world where a million people get $0, I get $10, and
someone else gets $20, I'm relatively wealthier than if a million people still
got $0, I got $8, and my neighbor got $5.

Yeah, it might be more economically rational to seek to get $8 million if the
entire world was going to get $20 million if I didn't take the option, but
then there's the old saying "a rising tide lifts all boats..."

~~~
colanderman
> Not exactly a fountain of wisdom and good judgement.

But certainly a font of great insight into base human desire, according to
many traditions. It's why "a deal with the Devil" is a trope: the Devil knows
exactly what to offer humans in exchange for corruption. So, the GP's quote is
apt: an offer to "rule in Hell" vs. "serve in Heaven" is indeed a tempting one
for many people.

------
micah_chatt
For reference, with EPB 100M is $60/mo, 1G is $70/mo, and 10G is $300/mo. EPB
is hugely popular here in Chattanooga, not just because of the internet
speeds, but for stellar customer service. Install of fiber internet: free.
Don't want internet for a month: no contract, no penalty. Have a problem and
need to talk to someone: Call in 24/7 and talk to a human right away.

------
dvdhnt
Chattanooga resident here.

I was living downtown and had EPB. Not only are their speeds fantastic and
prices quite reasonable, their customer service is amazing.

We recently moved right outside of their coverage area and are forced to use
Comcast. The bill is higher, speeds slower, and customer service nonexistent.

~~~
thomastjeffery
> customer service nonexistent.

s/nonexistent/abusive/

Their customer abuse is prolific.

------
tgb
The title seems misleading: the alternative is not free internet, but internet
expanded out to the suburban/rural areas for free, which then charges
customers for access. This is in comparison to paying commercial companies to
expand to those areas. It's really just less expensive, not free.

~~~
fnovd
EPB wants to build the _infrastructure_ for free. There would still be a
monthly cost to _use_ the infrastructure. With Comcast, it's the worst of both
worlds.

~~~
walkon
How can the infrastructure be built for free? Volunteer labor and donated
capital?

~~~
dtparr
He means without subsidizing from the government. EPB would cover the CapEx

~~~
rayiner
EPB is owned by the government of Chattanooga, TN.

~~~
tgb
But makes a profit and would fund the expansion with its own money, not tax
payers'.

------
aNapierkowski
I would love for articles to start giving names of state legislators that
voted to pass the bill being reported on. This would make it much easier for
voters in these areas to know who's voting for what.

I guess it probably is more work than is beneficial for the journalists?

~~~
stevenwoo
[http://nooga.com/175741/bill-to-increase-high-speed-
internet...](http://nooga.com/175741/bill-to-increase-high-speed-internet-
access-for-rural-residents-heads-to-haslam/)

It was almost unanimous. This coverage talks about it in a totally different
way.

~~~
strictnein
Yeah, I've started to eye Vice articles with more and more suspicion, and this
is another example of why. There's a lot more playing out here than implied by
the Vice story. The headline is especially egregious and inaccurate.

~~~
dtparr
Yeah, reading the bill
([http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNu...](http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0529)),
it seems pretty apparent that it's actually a step in the right direction,
opening things up for co-ops and making money available to anyone willing to
build out to under-served areas, not a handout directly to incumbent ISPs.

Would I have liked for it to have included the city and municipal entities
too, sure, but one thing at a time.

------
evv
Why is anybody surprised? This is a classic telco playbook:

\- Promise awesome infrastructure

\- Lobby to get taxpayers to pay for it

\- Refuse to deliver, without recourse

\- Profit!!!

~~~
rattray
I can't imagine anybody is surprised a telco would follow that playbook.

The fact that step 2 actually worked – while not _surprising_ in the current
political environment of corruption – is still abominable.

~~~
eximius
Honestly, the fact that _step 3_ works surprises me more.

------
saboot
Here in Knoxville I see billboards welcoming Gig-Speed internet by Comcast.

It costs something like $300/mo with a two year contract and some ridiculous
$2000 or so installation price.

Gee, thanks?

~~~
Xcelerate
Also a Knoxville resident. I asked Comcast about the gigabit pricing and $300
sounded about right. That's absurdly high. I really wish Knoxville would copy
Chattanooga and run its own ISP.

~~~
saboot
Our city council has stated clearly that Comcast is "just fine"!

------
exabrial
Are there are build-out guarantees on the contract? I'd love to see the
companies be sued once they fail to deliver.

~~~
bogomipz
This is playing out right now in New York City with Verizon FIOS:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-
verizon-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-verizon-
fios.html)

~~~
rayiner
The difference was that New York never paid Verizon anything (indeed, Verizon
paid New York millions of dollars for the right to enter the market at all).

~~~
bogomipz
New York City granted Verizon a franchise agreement as this would provide a
needed source of revenue to the city. See page 26. So not only did the city
lose out on revenue but this also represents an opportunity cost for the city
as they could have granted a fiber franchise(an obtained full revenue) from
someone else.

10\. FRANCHISE FEES

10.1. Payment to City: Franchisee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee of
five percent (5%) of annual Gross Revenue (the “Franchise Fee”).

[https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/verizon...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/verizon_nyc_franchise_agreement_approved_by_fcrc.pdf)

~~~
rayiner
There is no out-of-pocket cost, because the city is not paying anything.
Verizon is putting up all the capital. There is also no opportunity cost,
because the franchise is non-exclusive:

4.3. Grant Not Exclusive: The Franchise and the rights granted herein to use
and occupy the Public Rights-of-Way to provide Cable Services shall not be
exclusive, and the City reserves the right to grant other franchises for
similar uses or for other uses of the Public Rights of-Way, or any portions
thereof, to any Person, or to make any such use itself, at any time during the
term of this Franchise. Any such rights which are granted shall not adversely
impact the authority as granted under law or this Franchise to provide Cable
Service.

~~~
bogomipz
>"There is also no opportunity cost, because the franchise is non-exclusive:"

There is most certainly an opportunity cost, NYC is some of the most expensive
real estate in the world and the space in the public right-aways, cable vaults
and trenches is limited and quite expensive. And there are plenty of fiber
providers competing for that limited space:

[http://www.telecomramblings.com/metro-fiber-maps/new-york-
me...](http://www.telecomramblings.com/metro-fiber-maps/new-york-metro-area/)

~~~
rayiner
Is there any evidence that anyone else was clamoring to offer residential
fiber service in NYC that Verizon happened to beat out?

~~~
bogomipz
That's not the point. There was no "bid." Maybe you don't understand what an
opportunity cost is? No other fiber provider in the future is going to go into
city sanctioned "Verizon fiber territory" and try to offer FTTH service now or
in the future.

Also this is a classic telecom tactic, carriers put in skeletal infrastructure
and let it sit fallow. If NYC comes along next year and decides to do Metro
Area Broadband, Verizon's army of lawyers will come along and cry "Foul"
saying the city has an unfair advantage and get an injunction against the
city's plans. They will tie this up in court for as long as possible. Again an
opportunity cost.

And yes there was also a financial cost to the federal taxpayer as well as New
York residents with this FIOS debacle.

First the local cost to New York residents:

>"Verizon raised traditional wired telephone rates in New York some 84 percent
between 2006 and 2009, blessed by regulators in return for its "massive
investment in fiber optics."[1][2]

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-
how...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/14/5716802/game-of-phones-how-verizon-
is-playing-the-fcc-and-its-customers)

[2]
[https://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/Web/B849A0203...](https://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/Web/B849A020314983A3852575D900530827/%24File/pr09054.pdf)

And the cost to the Federal tax payer is that these carriers receive FCC
broadband subsidies for upgrades and investments to their network regardless
of how incomplete the project is. [3]

[3] [http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147360/fcc-adds-9-billion-
to...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147360/fcc-adds-9-billion-to-broadband-
subsidy-fund.html)

------
misc213
Well, in future years they'll be able to generate additional economic activity
by having to go back and install another new network.

~~~
inetknght
you assume that the legal framework would be there for that to actually happen

------
rb808
I really like the idea of a local utility that provides both last mile power
and fiber internet. Looks like Chattanooga has been very well run to get this
organized well.

I am a little reluctant to say that every city should have a publicly owned
utility to run its infrastructure but compared the alternatives it does look
preferable.

------
djschnei
What exactly is a municipal private loan that doesn't cost tax payers
anything?

------
btrautsc
I live here. EPB is amazing.

This is infuriating.

------
cckumarr
the article ends with "exact definition of crony capitalism" noice!!

