Do you understand the significance of being able to borrow against the revenue of the local electric utility? This is what that means: EPB goes to the market and says "hey guys, I need like $200M to make some internet and I can raise the electric rates of all the citizens of Chattanooga to whatever it takes in order to pay it back." There is almost no risk for the lender and if the project were to fail it would be $200M down the drain for the citizens of Chattanooga (at least all the ones that buy electricity, which is probably most of them). Why would you even need lobbyists at that point?
I'm not try to be a cheerleader for the big telcos, but I think there are valid financial reasons cities shouldn't fund these kinds of projects this way.
EPB's fiber network wasn't funded this way. Either state law or charter (can't remember which) forbade them from using electric utility revenue to build out the fiber network. They issued bonds instead under a new EPB Fiber Optics startup to finance the build-out.
The inverse is not true, however. Last year, EPB's electrical division saw a shortfall in revenue due to electricity usage being lower than anticipated. This could have actually resulted in a rate hike to EPB electrical customers, but because EPB Fiber Optics was already profitable, they were able to use fiber revenue to avert an electrical rate increase.
You are wrong. I dug out the documentation associated with the 2008 $220M issuance when I was looking at this yesterday. It is a muni bond issued by the city of Chattanooga "payable solely from the revenues of the electric system" and the project described is "to construct a fiber optic broadband network."
Isn't the same true of any telco when it goes off for a loan to cover construction costs for new infrastructure in a tiny market area? Everyone who doesn't benefit has to pay the cost if it fails in the form of higher prices across the market. It's not like you're going to stop needing a phone or cable any time soon...
Also, the (private "stay-out-of-our-business-unless-you-are-giving-us-corporate-welfare") telcos have and continue to receive billions of dollars worth of financial incentives in the form of subsidies, stimulus tax breaks, etc.
Laws may vary state to state, but in California, municipal utilities can and do lobby, and also have set up a statewide group to lobby on their behalf.
Fully staffed, CMUA has an impressive roster of professionals: experienced lobbyists, regulatory and communications specialists, and legal professionals – all experts in their fields with extensive knowledge of every aspect of California energy and water policies.
No, you don't generally don't need to invest a lot of resources to lobby yourself. (There are other politicians with power to do things than "congresscritters". In this case the relevant body would be ... the municipal owners.)
When state legislatures are passing (bought) laws barring municipalities from doing exactly this sort of thing, then no, the relevant body is not, in fact, the owners.
Actually, TN is one of the states that has passed laws against municipal broadband. From that article:
It’s illegal because Tennessee prohibits municipals from delivering both electric and internet service in any “area where a privately-held cable television operator is providing cable service.”
Workers' unions want to drive expenditure towards projects that employ the most public sector workers, not the ones with best ROI. It also drives up the cost of labor relative to private sector entities that can use non-union labor. Labor is a big part of the expenditures on an infrastructure project.
