Tennessee Makes It Clear Protecting AT&T And Comcast From Broadband Competition Is Its Top Priority
from the protectionism-ahoy dept
We've noted a few times that Tennessee is one of numerous states that have literally let incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast write state telecom law. Most notably, around 20 states have now blocked towns and cities from building their own broadband networks -- or striking public/private partnerships -- even in cases where the market has clearly failed. It's protectionism pure and simple, and when the FCC voted last year to try and gut these laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, ISP allies in Congress were quick to assail the FCC for "violating states rights" (to let incumbent ISPs dictate all telecom policy, apparently).Tennessee's law prevents a popular Chattanooga-based utility-run ISP, EPB, from expanding its up to 10 Gbps offerings. Tennessee Rep. Kevin Brooks recently tried to pass a bill that would have dismantled the state's restriction, but his effort ran face-first into a lobbying wall constructed by companies like AT&T and Comcast. He then recently tried to strip down the measure so it simply let EPB expand near its headquarters and to one neighboring county, but that provision was also shot down 5-3, with one of the nay votes being that of Rep. Patsy Hazlewood, a former AT&T executive.
Needless to say, Brooks isn't particularly impressed with state lawmakers who continue to let AT&T and Comcast dictate state telecom policy while the state becomes one of the least connected in the nation thanks to cronyism:
"Residents and business people alike in northern Hamilton and portions of Bradley counties say they either have no service, lousy service or wireless service that makes it very expensive to upload and download documents for work and school. Asked who was lobbying against the bill, Brooks said, "the list of who was not would be shorter. I heard they hired 27 lawyers to fight."Incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast, meanwhile, continue to insist that nothing is wrong with the scattered, expensive broadband service they're currently providing the state. And, as we've seen in other states like Missouri, they continue to frame the issue as a partisan one to intentionally sow partisan division, distracting locals from what's actually happening. But again, there's bi-partisan support for leaving the right to improve local infrastructure in the hands of local voters, and not incumbent providers with a vested interest in keeping prices high and mediocrity the norm. And towns and cities wouldn't be exploring getting into the broadband business if they were genuinely satisfied with the current offerings.
...Brooks, R-Cleveland, and other proponents later blasted powerful investor-owned telecommunication providers such as AT&T and Comcast for the loss. And conceding defeat this year, they vowed to return in 2017. "It's a testament to the power of lobbying against this bill and not listening to our electorate...the voice of the people today was not heard. And that's unfortunate."
For a while broadband efforts from the likes of Google Fiber and Tucows had been shining a spotlight on the need for public/private partnerships to fill in the broadband coverage gaps incumbents refuse to address. But recent votes in Missouri and Tennessee show that old telecom habits (like letting ISPs write awful protectionist law in exchange for campaign contributions) die hard.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, competition, muni broadband, municipal broadband, tennessee
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That's some catch, that Catch-22!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Often times those companies complain about regulation, but in truth they leverage that regulation (lobby) more often than not to raise the barrier of entry to prevent new competition from even forming to begin with. You will find an all too willing Politician ready to sell out their voters for some quick cash!
Neither Party is the Party of free markets, its just that the right tends to lie less about letting businesses run rampant compared to the left. The left whom constantly play the Class Warfare card upon an ignorant electorate... a war they NEVER intend to fight because they are rich as fuck themselves.
Someone should let those poor unfortunate voters know they are being screwed...
Class Warfare, where only the Poor can perform it the same way that only a White person is a Racist.
There is no such thing as Businesses/Rich waging class warfare against the poor, just like there is no such thing as a black or brown racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without regulation, most markets tend toward oligopoly or monopoly. Regulation is vital to maintaining a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some regulation is needed however the laws as they are in place right now in Tennessee go far beyond that minimum and into industry protectionism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]