I am all for this technology and am also very keen on competition, but do not like the idea of government competing with private businesses.

When I asked the EPB people at the public forum, why Memphis failed so miserably at this same project, I was just told the EPB had a different business plan. Yea right, and this new business plan has not been tried before?

I have asked for reactions from several of my friends and family members.

First response:
The debate over cable versus EPB doesn't seem to be over competition. I think everyone agrees competition is a good thing for us consumers. The debate seems to center on whether government subsidies can be used to create a new business that competes with already-existing private enterprise. In this case, all electric rate payers would be subsidizing a new venture, whether or not they choose to subscribe to it.

If you or I were starting a business, we wouldn't get that kind of subsidy to start us out. We wouldn't be able to use that as a fallback, either, as EPB will. To be fair, EPB has assured the City Council that its fiber optic venture will not fail. However, EPB officials note, even if it does fail (I thought it couldn't?), it would probably only mean about a two-percent increase for ratepayers.

There's your question: why should ratepayers who don't subscribe to EPB's cable TV, internet or phone service be forced to pay higher electric bills because the other venture didn't work as theorized?

Love competition. Want competition. Want cable competition and internet competition.

But I want to be very, very careful about government subsidies under the guise of competition really being used to create a brand-new monopoly.

Second one:
EPB is owned by the city (the government) and the government has no business competing against private entities.

The plan as I understand it is for any overruns to be funded by our power rates. Using my last example, let’s say EPB wants to make some software. They decide to charge $5 per package when we sell the same product for $1,000. As time goes by, they charge more for our electric power to make up for the under funding in the software sales.

I am pretty sure it is illegal under their charter to do so. According to one article: "The experts have concluded that there are also undeniable cross-subsidy issues in the current EPB Plan. The plan calls for the use of electric ratepayer money to build the cable and Internet infrastructure. Using electric ratepayer money to subsidize the cable venture is strictly forbidden by Tennessee law. Such blatant violation of law cannot be tolerated"

Third one:
Democrats love this stuff because; more and more people get on the public dole. Government run agencies tend to have a much higher union participation than private entities and union members tend to heavily support democrats.

Calder Willingham

* * *

Mr. Willingham,
EPB electric customers have been funding a portion of EPB's current venture into telecommunications for several years now. EPB originally built a fiber network to their substations on the dollar of the electrical customers of Chattanooga under the guise that they needed their own internal communications network instead of using any of the multiple private businesses who sell communication services in Chattanooga.
These cables were placed by the electrical workers employed by EPB to maintain/build a power distribution network to provide exclusive electrical service (no competition there) to the citizens of Chattanooga. EPB then decides since they have this fiber network to their substations, why not try to sell part of it to the local businesses at a discounted rate over the current communication providers. Of course anyone can sell something cheaper when someone else funds the product. If you pay EPB for your home electricity, then EPB inflated your bill to buy and place this fiber. I'm sure there are some businesses in town that thank you for paying a portion of their communication bills.

I personally don't think the government has a place competing in private enterprise. If our city is bent on doing so, shouldn't they have to compete fairly without using the employees and assets of their electrical distribution monopoly to fund a portion of their "private" venture? If EPB can capture 1/3 of the communications/internet/CATV market, should the other 2/3's of their electricity customers have to pay an inflated electric bill each month to provide that privilege?

Tim Manley
Chattanooga

* * *

Those who argue that government has no right to compete with private businesses to provide public services are wrong. We do this all the time, and no one complains.

Consider private schools, many of which are private profit-making businesses. They don't complain that government runs a free public school system, paid for by taxpayers, that directly competes with them. Private schools offer their services for the price they choose, and if they get customers they win, and otherwise they lose. What's wrong with that? That's the American way.

Would private security services complain that the government's police force cuts down on the number of people who buy burglar alarms? Maybe automobile dealers and taxi companies should complain that the bus service is unfair to them. But they don't complain, they compete.

Somehow Comcast and AT&T think they're special, and they shouldn't have to compete. I don't think there's anything special about them at all. They sell an inferior service at high prices, and quite frankly they make free enterprise look bad. If they can't compete, let them lose.

Robert L. Fast
Chattanooga