That has nothing to do with my point, which is once again that cable is currently a 5 Gigagit per second system, including all the things that it does today. Capacity constraints on cable networks are upstream of the copper portion, in the middle miles between the copper access network and the Internet Exchanges. If the cable companies replaced copper with fiber, these bottlenecks would still exist.

New fiber networks are very lightly loaded because they offer a service that few people want or need. They’re literally a waste of taxpayer money, for the most part.

Deal with the facts, not the personalities. If you can. And no, I don’t want fries with that.

EPB needed about $340M (about $2000/home to reach all of Chattanooga) to build their new fiber network. They got $111M in federal stimulus money (that’s about $650/home), and an additional $230M by floating new bonds. The stimulus money was granted to EPB power to build out a fiber network in support of a smart power grid (exactly how much bandwidth is needed to run a smart grid, anyway?) That’s right. Residents of Chattanooga got a free $650 per home from the federal government. Good deal, if you can get it. And it gets better. The bonds will be paid back not via the revenue from new Internet services, but via a rate increases levied against all electric customers. Since they’ve started this boondoggle, they’ve raised rates twice. Once when they started the venture, and again last year to avoid a downgrade in their credit rating. All in all, electric customers in Chattanooga have been handed a total of 9-10% rate increases over the next 25 years, which is the term of the bond sale. EPB Fiber is running around saying they’ll be able to recover their costs. Technically true, because they don’t really have any. All of the costs were levied on the electricity franchise. So, you think this is a model that should be, and could be replicated across the country?

It’s no surprise that the private network providers would be opposed to this. It’s not really possible to compete effectively against someone that gets free money from the federal government, has a monopoly electrical franchise that you can pass on rate hikes to that customers have no choice but to pay, no mandate to be profitable, and can raise money with tax free muni bonds. A private company would need to raise nearly twice as much cash as EPB to have the same financial resources available to them because the private company is not getting free stimulus money, has no access to tax free investment instruments, has no monopoly to pass its costs back to, and has to finish the year with money to return to shareholders. Who here would keep their company in these markets, and how would you defend that decision to your shareholders?

The legislation that lawmakers are proposing mainly seeks to defend private businesses and taxpayers by requiring local governments that want to compete with private network providers to do so on an even playing field, and be able to pay for their initiatives without sticking the people with more debt. Why is that so bad? The only rational reason that you anti-business Occupiers would be so vocally against this that you want an Arab style uprising is if you know, as most already people do, that the government cannot build and operate a network more efficiently. Otherwise, why oppose a level playing field? Are you afraid the private network forms might win?

What will really be comical is when the private network providers pack up and leave (and take their jobs and taxes with them), and y’all will be standing there with your hands up waiting for the mayor to come install your $350/month broadband (the current rate from EPB for “up to” 1gbps).

Why are you people so darn angry, anyway? Has your internet speed not increased since the days of 14.4 dial? Is there a single content provider serving up content at a speed of a gigabit per second to their visitors? What are ISPs keeping you from doing? What did they do to you that feeds your hate?

If local municipalities want to run private business out of town and serve themselves, that’s a local matter that makes a large part of the FCC charter void, and introduced a whole other debate about USF and COLA obligations. But to make a case for it using ignorance, fear, false choices, and misinformation is just weak, juvenile and irresponsible. 

And I live how the gentleman above calls put Mr. Bennett for earning money from the telecom industry (nothing new, the people who actually hold jobs in this field are routinely vilified here by those who never have) while giving a pass to Mr. Settles, who earns a living selling his views to local governments.