3 ms·

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 f

by tgb 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  How can the infrastructure be built for free? Volunteer labor and donated capital?
  - dtparr 10y ago
    He means without subsidizing from the government. EPB would cover the CapEx
    - rayiner 10y ago
      EPB is owned by the government of Chattanooga, TN.
      - tgb 10y ago
        But makes a profit and would fund the expansion with its own money, not tax payers'.
  - Jonnax 10y ago
    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.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  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.)
pythonaut_16 10y ago
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.
weberc2 10y ago
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-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-are-so-many-mass-shoo...
- sharemywin 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Your link doesn't apply here. Looks like you missed the point. :) At any rate, I changed my post to (hopefully) be more clear.
- gumby 10y ago
  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?
  - weberc2 10y ago
    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.

by tgb 10y ago

fnovd 10y ago

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 10y ago
How can the infrastructure be built for free? Volunteer labor and donated capital?
- dtparr 10y ago
  He means without subsidizing from the government. EPB would cover the CapEx
  - rayiner 10y ago
    EPB is owned by the government of Chattanooga, TN.
    - tgb 10y ago
      But makes a profit and would fund the expansion with its own money, not tax payers'.
- Jonnax 10y ago
  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.
bogomipz 10y ago
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.)

pythonaut_16 10y ago

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.

weberc2 10y ago

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-shootings-committed-by-young-white-men-623 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/why-are-so-many-mass-shoo...

sharemywin 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
- weberc2 10y ago
  Your link doesn't apply here. Looks like you missed the point. :) At any rate, I changed my post to (hopefully) be more clear.
gumby 10y ago
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?
- weberc2 10y ago
  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.