TN Could Give Fastest Internet for Free, Will Give Comcast and AT&T $45M Instead | Hacker News Reader

TN Could Give Fastest Internet for Free, Will Give Comcast and AT&T $45M Instead

motherboard.vice.com

177 pointsmikro96 comments

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...

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

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/ 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/

It's vice. of course it's slanted.

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?

A small but important point - this was an act of the state legislature, not Congress. That said, The voters of TN should absolutely hold their elected officials accountable.

That is what I meant, wrong words though.

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.

This is how violent revolutions start. Its as if no one knows history.

> 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 sums up the majority of rural republicans in my area. It's a sad realization that people so often put not being at the bottom above their own best interests.

It's not essentially rural, it's ingrained into the American psyche (along with the belief that what's good for the rich is good for me, because I'm gonna be rich!).

Story from 2003: 39% of Americans believe they either are or will one day be among the top 1% of earners [1].

1: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hop...

That is called ambition. Its why we are at the top of the food chain.

Nobody ever ended up on top of the world by not believing in themselves.

There is hustle, and then there are statistics. I don't fault you for trying hard, but let's not make policy based on your feeling about hustling.

19% in the linked article already think they're in the top 1%. That's not "ambition", that's just ignorance.

The article also had an interesting point as to why so many think they're in the top tiers: they're not surrounded by things they can't afford. Contrast my home state of Indiana, where I would have been hard pressed to tell you where to buy a Ferrari in the entire state, with the Seattle, WA area where I can list two Ferrari dealers within 30 minutes of my house. If the prancing horse isn't your style, there's a Lambo dealer in Bellevue. (Next door to the Rolls/Bentley dealer, IIRC.) I see multiple Teslas on the way to work, and I no longer think anything of seeing a Ferrari or Lambo on the way to work once or twice a week. I've regularly bicycled through Medina, WA (where BillG lives). I know what ridiculous wealth looks like, and I know that I'm not currently that wealthy and realize it's extremely unlikely that I ever will be. But if I lived in Zionsville, IN (which has, last I checked, the only Rolls-Royce dealer in the entire state) where a half million buys 5400 square feet and an acre in a super ritzy neighborhood, I might think I've "made it" and am amongst those in the top tier.

Anyway, I digress. There's ambition, then there's delusion.

And for that, the top 1% of earners are truly thankful.

And to find what percentile your individual income is at: http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/

I don't disagree that its a feeling not limited to rural republicans but they are the ones I see voting in direct conflicts with their best interest. I don't buy that its because they're voting for their "future rich self" but rather that they're voting to keep other people beneath them.

> 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

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.

That's literally Satan explaining his MO in a poem.

I have to say I'm happy to call out your ad hominem there, which makes me the devil's advocate.

Do you disagree with Mr Satan's point or do you reject it simply because it comes from him?

To elaborate, it's Satan's MO as described by a person. Since ipso facto, Satan, conceptually described by a person, acts solely against each individual's well-being, the poem is meant to describe this reasoning as detrimental to the individual.

So to respond to your question, I do disagree with "Satan's" point.

It is clearly in the interest of an individual to keep all of what they are given, rather than to spend a portion simply to lower the portion given to another.

Along the same train of thought, I would say, "The least of us can achieve greater heights when lifting each other up, than the greatest of us can by pushing each other down."

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..."

> 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.

Quote aside, I think you're right. America was founded on certain principles of equality, because that makes for a better society. For example, titles and aristocracy are banned in the Constitution. It's better to avoid making second-class citizens.

> America was founded on certain principles of equality

Very limited principles of equality. Slavery, natives, women, unlanded peasants...

That's true, but it's also true that we've worked to reduce those inequalities instead of pretending that they don't really hurt anybody.

We don't know that its irrational. If you don't like the other person, you get personal satisfaction from hurting them. The satisfaction of hurting them is worth more to you then the utility of the money you are giving up. Perfectly rational.

That and their relative amount of money is greater. Would I rather have 60% more money than someone or half as much as someone?

I'm not saying it's the best decision but there are rational explanations.

When I read this, I just imagine John Nash spinning in his grave.

Exactly: the people this hurts the most are usually the ones voting for these politicians. So I don't even have any sympathy for them any more. If they want to vote to screw themselves over, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

> 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.

Tennessee also has the lowest state debt per capita of any state, $6,400 versus $20,500 for California. It's got only $415 in unfunded pension liabilities per person, versus $3,250 in California. It's among the top-10 states for lowest tax burden, lower unemployment than average, and higher than average growth in GDP per capita.

Tennessee has made a conscious decision not to pay for public services now by pushing the burden onto future generations. After the governments of places like California and Illinois collapse under the weight of their debts, places like Tennessee will at least be able to plod along offering limited government services in a sustainable way.

When will California collapse?

Counterarguments:

(a) The "collapse" you refer to presumes that neither state will be able to tax their way out of its problems, when in fact either could do so without coming close to the tax burdens of European countries that provide similar benefits --- the implied idea here is that the states are so competitive that people would simply move to Nevada or Indiana to escape those taxes. Will they? People who live in Evanston are unlikely to enjoy Munster.

(b) In both states, the "benefit" that's been financed on the backs of future generations is generous, poorly-regulated defined-benefit pension plans for state employees. I agree that's a huge problem, but it's not the same kind of problem as financing for Medicaid, or, really, for social services of any sort.

I'm being glib in talking about the collapse of California as inevitable: I certainly don't know that those states won't be able to tax their way out of the problem. States are somewhat limited in their taxation abilities compared to European countries though, in that they have no ability to control the flow of labor/capital across their borders. That being said, I'd point out that Tennessee doesn't have a San Francisco/LA or a Chicago or a New York. A lot of its economic competitiveness is built on being a low-tax environment.

I think my stronger objection is to the idea that social services are what gives TN its financial advantage over IL and CA, when in fact pensions have more to do with it.

Legally, the residents would need to hold recall elections and vote in new legislators. Realistically, people are going to need to wait until the next elections. America is a democratic republic in name only, the country has become an oligarchy which results in situations like this.

That would set a terrible precedent. The courts should not be in the business of striking down bad laws, only unconstitutional laws.

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.

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.

> customer service nonexistent.

s/nonexistent/abusive/

Their customer abuse is prolific.

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.

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.

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

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

EPB is owned by the government of Chattanooga, TN.

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

My takeaway from this is that Comcast and AT&T will be paid $45m by the government to develop the infrastructure.

Whilst this EPB company will invest their own money for the infrastructure.

This was my understanding as well. with EPB they were responsible for the Cap Ex with Comcast the Cap Ex would be paid for by tax breaks(corporate welfare.)

But the municipal option is willing to expand of it's own accord if allowed, while Comcast and AT&T will receive $40 million to build infrastructure and still charge customers.

I've always found Vice to be a sensationalist, biased media outlet. [In the past, they've based their politically-motivated conclusion on data that supports the complete opposite conclusion][0]. I'm not surprised that this title is similarly sensationalized.

EDIT: Clarified my point.

[0]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-are-so-many-mass-shoo...

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

Your link doesn't apply here. Looks like you missed the point. :) At any rate, I changed my post to (hopefully) be more clear.

How is this relevant to the topic at hand? I don't mean this in a "so you shouldn't post" sense, I simply feel that you ended your post too soon: if vice is biased, and an example of an old, biased article on a very different topic supports that, how does that then demonstrate bias in this article?

It doesn't demonstrate bias in this article, it demonstrates that they completely lack journalistic integrity and their content shouldn't be trusted. Sorry if the example wasn't particularly pertinent to the content of this article, it was the one that came to mind on the spot.

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?

http://nooga.com/175741/bill-to-increase-high-speed-internet...

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

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.

Yeah, reading the bill (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNu...), 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.

https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB1215/id/622577

Thanks, didn't know that site existed.

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!!!

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.

Honestly, the fact that step 3 works surprises me more.

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?

Don't forget the caps

No caps on the gigabit service, if you sign a contract.

Fellow Knoxville TN resident here. It's been really sad (but most certainly not surprising) to see law makers be influenced by Comcast/ATT.

Comcast's recent Gig advertising around here is almost laughable. We've called in to discuss upgrading but their sales and support are clueless.

Side note: As I was trying to comment on this my business class Comcast connection dropped. Go figure.

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.

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

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

That's....sadistic.

Why is it sadistic to expect a corporation to fulfill their promises?

It's not.

The parent is expecting them not to, so he can enjoy the lawsuit that follows.

>"I'd love to see the companies be sued once they fail to deliver."

You've misinterpreted. It's quite reasonable based on history to expect them not to deliver. It's also quite reasonable to feel good about justice when it is so short in delivery to bad actors these days. Also, sadism by definition applies to living beings, not corporations.

"corporation" literally means "body" or "person"

> The parent is expecting them not to...

A fair expectation, given telcom promise history.

It happened with Verizon in NYC. AFAIK the suit is ongoing.

The lawsuit was formally filed four weeks ago. I've anecdotally heard that Verizon is scrambling to restart fiber deployment in order to save face.

Makes sense, there are tons of trucks laying fiber outside of my apartment and elsewhere. The larger question: will it get into my building?

Unfortunately for you, it will be too short to reach.

Often doesn't happen. They'll just promise to deliver, not do it, and then wheedle their way around the penalties. Already this is playing out in New York: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/nyc-threatens-to...

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-verizon-...

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).

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...

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.

>"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...

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

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...

[2] https://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/Web/B849A0203...

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...

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

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

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.

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

I live here. EPB is amazing.

This is infuriating.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com