[internetworkers] N.C. Bill Limiting Municipal Internet
Andrew C. Oliver
acoliver at buni.org
Wed Jul 25 19:52:50 EDT 2007
The crux of our differences:
"Real results are more important than partisan battles. Good ideas
should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political
ideology." - Michael Bloomberg
-andy
Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> Broadband coops...Okay but they don't actually exist or at least
>> anywhere near here. I'm not going to start one. I will however vote
>> for a local fiber optic network if it were to come to pass provided
>> there was a reasonable tax associated. I mean shit it can't be worse
>> than what I pay Time Warner! So the next step Phil, propose some
>> legislation or something that makes this happen... a new FDR-style New
>> Deal Coop for broadband! I'll sign up for service.
>
> Oh, wait... you wanted easy, convenient, fast, cheap and
> reliable... my bad. Sorry, I have nothing to offer you. Well, unless
> you'd like to go to my "happy place" and dream along with me about
> a world where we can have all that... I hope you like Key Lime
> Pie and NY style Cheesecake though, that's the only food that
> is served in my "happy place." :-)
>
>
>> However this is where I have ideology. Is support decreasing the
>> centralization of power from the federal and state governments and more
>> restored to the local governments where I have a stronger vote. (To be
>> clear Federal power decreased and restored to states, states power
>> reduced and restored to local). So I'm not for anything that says what
>> I can and can't vote my local government to do unless its something
>> clear like race discrimination.
>
> In that case we have a difference in values / principles and there
> probably isn't much point in talking about this anymore. I consider
> the state preventing LocalGov from running a taxpaper subsidized
> business of this nature to be a valid role for the state.
>
>
>> special elections are expensive and not required for most other normal
>> business. I do not see why this issues is special.
>
> Popular referendums should probably be more common, although I'll allow
> that it would be nice if it could be done in a more cost effective,
> reliable, efficient manner. Maybe that's a business somebody should
> start...
>
>
>> Which means you must borrow and cannot use any general funds. Ironically
>> while most money is raised via property taxes (a truly regressive system
>> that does bad things for education I admit) and such networks might
>> raise property values...they cannot be funded from that benefit.
>
> "might raise property values" doesn't seem like much of a justification
> to me. But to be fair, I've never been one to look at property / houses
> as an investment. When I buy a house, it'll be to be a home for the
> forseeable future, and I'll just be hoping to get as much back as I can
> if I'm ever forced to sell. <shrug />
>
>
>> A very difficult thing to do if in the first year it is not immediately
>> profitable. Very few cable or communications providers are able to
>> operate this way and be immediately profitable. This is to say most
>> business operate at a loss at first. Often times market pressures do
>> not allow you to raise the cost. However if the infrastructure and
>> startup costs over time balance out then they may become profitable.
>
> Well then contact your representative and petition him to introduce
> an amendment allowing for a "startup period" of unprofitability. How
> long would you propose? 2 years? 3? More?
>
>
>> I don't want the city/county/etc taxing itself. That is a waste of
>> paper and is needless bureaucracy.
>
> It is needless bureaucracy. I prefer a bill that handles trying to
> "level the playing field" in a different manner. No, I don't have
> a concrete proposal to offer at the moment though.
>
>> "Shall provide nondiscriminatory access to private communications
>> service providers on a first-come, first-served basis to rights-of-way,
>> poles, conduits, or other permanent distribution facilities owned,
>> leased, or operated by the local government unless the facilities have
>> insufficient capacity for the access and additional capacity cannot
>> reasonably be added to the facilities. For purposes of this subdivision,
>> the term "nondiscriminatory access" means that, at a minimum, access
>> shall be granted on the same terms and conditions as that given to a
>> local government-owned communications service provider and at rates that
>> do not exceed the rates prescribed for attachments by cable service
>> providers providing cable service as provided in 47 U.S.C. § 224(e) of
>> the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and in 47 C.F.R. §
>> 1.1409(e)(1)."
>>
>> Why? And okay so they have to raise the rate on ME until its profitable
>> but can sell to the cable company potentially at a loss? SCREW THAT!
>> Who decides what is non-discriminatory? Does that mean TWC can buy up
>> all the bandwidth then sell it back to me at 2x what they paid? (while
>> funneling it through charlotte and bottlenecking it there to a slow drop)
>
> I didn't read that quite the same was as you did, methinks. I think
> it's just saying that the LocalGov can't intentionally block out
> private competitors by gouging them for access to rights-of-way, poles,
> conduits, etc.
>
>> Um again why?
>
> I'll by that. I'm not a big fan of the State regulating insurance
> rates in the first place.
>
>
>> and there is the real meat. ... the ability of the phone and cable
>> companies to threaten and tie up any locality that tries to do this in
>> court until rapture..
>
> I'm pretty sure they could so that even under the current system.
> Having a specific law addressing the relationship between LocalGov
> and PrivateCo in this regard, would probably be beneficial in making
> the outcomes of such suits more predictable and consistent. Or
> at least one would hope.
>
>
> TTYL,
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site! http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/attachments/20070725/6b0e5801/attachment.bin
More information about the InterNetWorkers
mailing list