10 ms·

Most states in America ban municipal fiber. They saw EPB (Chattanooga) and said, no, we must make sure that doesn't ever happen again. That is how 'free' market

Most states in America ban municipal fiber. They saw EPB (Chattanooga) and said, no, we must make sure that doesn't ever happen again. That is how 'free' market is done in US, all the rules are to make sure the richest people become richer.

db48x 7mo ago
Stop calling it a free market! These stupid rules keep it from being free.
- jjice 7mo ago
  I believe that was the parent's point in surrounding "free" in quotes.
bigstrat2003 7mo ago
I agree that's a scourge. But of course, it would be very disingenuous to call that a free market. It's not free due to corporate interference, which is why the situation is so bad for consumers.
- tombert 7mo ago
  I think that's why they had 'free' in scare quotes.
carefree-bob 7mo ago
woah, I didn't know this. How many states have laws banning municipal fiber?
- jdeibele 7mo ago
  https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-2023 https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... It’s from 2023 but says 16 to 19 states.
  - m_mueller 7mo ago
    this is insane. I guess it's that easy for telcos to lobby the legislators for keeping up their rents?
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > guess it's that easy for telcos to lobby the legislators 16 states having restrictions while two go explicitly pro-municipal broadband doesn’t seem like a lobbyist’s panacea. Skimming the list of states with restrictions, they look like red states trying to bridle their blue cities. Partisanship seems the more-parsimonious explanation.
      - m_mueller 7mo ago
        ~100 million consumers (assuming average sized states are impacted) being essentially defrauded by a cartel of telcos - doesn't really matter what you wanna call it but I'd say it's a pretty major deal.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > it's a pretty major deal Never disagreed.
    - shimman 7mo ago
      You're assuming they are giving these people hundreds of thousands of dollars, they aren't. These are mostly state politicians that make between $50k-80k who rarely get a campaign donation above $10k. These corporations absolutely give them the bare minimum (seriously talking between $500 to $4k maybe), it's only federal Senators that typically make the big bucks since they have the ability to single handedly gum up the system to prevent legislation. But yeah, it's not only easy it's very cheap. This is why you need a workers party so workers can effectively collaborate together to either primary the politician or convince them otherwise. Oh and you can't just do this once either, it takes an entire life's worth of work and it never ends.
art0rz 7mo ago
What happened on Chattanooga?
- fancyfredbot 7mo ago
  It was apparently very successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPB
  - abustamam 7mo ago
    Unfortunately too successful!
- driverdan 7mo ago
  Resident here, it's great. EPB is the power company and internet provider. They run fiber anywhere they run power. They also have good customer service, local knowledgeable phone support, and inexpensive support services like installing ethernet drops for $50 each.
justin66 7mo ago
> That is how 'free' market is done in US, all the rules are to make sure the richest people become richer. In all fairness, we put an awful lot of effort into making the poor poorer as well.
- illusive4080 7mo ago
  This statement is easily refuted by looking up statistics on poverty.
  - eatsyourtacos 7mo ago
    Except the definitions of poverty are defined to make it seems like it's not poverty. When you have a massive amount of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck, is one small medical emergency away from bankruptcy / can't pay their rent/mortgage. Will lose their job because of little to no protections. Very little social safety nets... most people are a lot closer to 'poverty' than looking at simple statistics.
    - illusive4080 7mo ago
      The definitions of poverty are used to measure relative wealth, not whether someone lives paycheck to paycheck. As income increases, paycheck to paycheck reports decrease, but at a certain point it then increases again. Living paycheck to paycheck is a poor measure, because you can buy a house that’s too expensive for your income, or a car, eat out too much, or make a variety of other poor life choices. That’s why the poverty index is good at measuring relative decreases in poverty because it ignores poor life choices.
    - slibhb 7mo ago
      Living paycheck to paycheck is usually a choice: people earn a lot of money and spend it immediately. The fact that this leaves them vulnerable to misfortune doesn't mean they're poor.
      - aaarrm 7mo ago
halapro 7mo ago
This is the most American shit ever. Pro-consumer regulations are rejected to the point that they start regulating against their own constituents.
socalgal2 7mo ago
good cherry picking there

db48x 7mo ago

Stop calling it a free market! These stupid rules keep it from being free.

jjice 7mo ago
I believe that was the parent's point in surrounding "free" in quotes.

bigstrat2003 7mo ago

I agree that's a scourge. But of course, it would be very disingenuous to call that a free market. It's not free due to corporate interference, which is why the situation is so bad for consumers.

tombert 7mo ago
I think that's why they had 'free' in scare quotes.

carefree-bob 7mo ago

woah, I didn't know this. How many states have laws banning municipal fiber?

jdeibele 7mo ago
https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-2023 https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... It’s from 2023 but says 16 to 19 states.
- m_mueller 7mo ago
  this is insane. I guess it's that easy for telcos to lobby the legislators for keeping up their rents?
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > guess it's that easy for telcos to lobby the legislators 16 states having restrictions while two go explicitly pro-municipal broadband doesn’t seem like a lobbyist’s panacea. Skimming the list of states with restrictions, they look like red states trying to bridle their blue cities. Partisanship seems the more-parsimonious explanation.
    - m_mueller 7mo ago
      ~100 million consumers (assuming average sized states are impacted) being essentially defrauded by a cartel of telcos - doesn't really matter what you wanna call it but I'd say it's a pretty major deal.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > it's a pretty major deal Never disagreed.
  - shimman 7mo ago
    You're assuming they are giving these people hundreds of thousands of dollars, they aren't. These are mostly state politicians that make between $50k-80k who rarely get a campaign donation above $10k. These corporations absolutely give them the bare minimum (seriously talking between $500 to $4k maybe), it's only federal Senators that typically make the big bucks since they have the ability to single handedly gum up the system to prevent legislation. But yeah, it's not only easy it's very cheap. This is why you need a workers party so workers can effectively collaborate together to either primary the politician or convince them otherwise. Oh and you can't just do this once either, it takes an entire life's worth of work and it never ends.

art0rz 7mo ago

What happened on Chattanooga?

fancyfredbot 7mo ago
It was apparently very successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPB
- abustamam 7mo ago
  Unfortunately too successful!
driverdan 7mo ago
Resident here, it's great. EPB is the power company and internet provider. They run fiber anywhere they run power. They also have good customer service, local knowledgeable phone support, and inexpensive support services like installing ethernet drops for $50 each.

justin66 7mo ago

> That is how 'free' market is done in US, all the rules are to make sure the richest people become richer. In all fairness, we put an awful lot of effort into making the poor poorer as well.

illusive4080 7mo ago
This statement is easily refuted by looking up statistics on poverty.
- eatsyourtacos 7mo ago
  Except the definitions of poverty are defined to make it seems like it's not poverty. When you have a massive amount of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck, is one small medical emergency away from bankruptcy / can't pay their rent/mortgage. Will lose their job because of little to no protections. Very little social safety nets... most people are a lot closer to 'poverty' than looking at simple statistics.
  - illusive4080 7mo ago
    The definitions of poverty are used to measure relative wealth, not whether someone lives paycheck to paycheck. As income increases, paycheck to paycheck reports decrease, but at a certain point it then increases again. Living paycheck to paycheck is a poor measure, because you can buy a house that’s too expensive for your income, or a car, eat out too much, or make a variety of other poor life choices. That’s why the poverty index is good at measuring relative decreases in poverty because it ignores poor life choices.
  - slibhb 7mo ago
    Living paycheck to paycheck is usually a choice: people earn a lot of money and spend it immediately. The fact that this leaves them vulnerable to misfortune doesn't mean they're poor.
    - aaarrm 7mo ago

halapro 7mo ago

This is the most American shit ever. Pro-consumer regulations are rejected to the point that they start regulating against their own constituents.

socalgal2 7mo ago

good cherry picking there