Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chtechcomm - Re: [Chtechcomm] Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act pending Federal legislation

chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chapel Hill Technology Advisory Committee

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terri Buckner <tbuckner AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: ggerdau AT intelor.com
  • Cc: Mark Kleinschmidt <mark AT cdpl.org>, Chapel Hill Information Technology Advisory Committee <chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org>, 'David Lewis' <dnmjlewis AT hotmail.com>, Gregg Gerdau <ggerdau AT intelor.com>
  • Subject: Re: [Chtechcomm] Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act pending Federal legislation
  • Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:58:11 -0400

John McCain is also sponsoring Senate Bill 1294, an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that will "preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services." The clear contradiction between these two bills sponsored by the same individual is confusing and deserves more investigation. For links to S 1294 and a concise review of Community Internet initiatives, see http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/.

The original Telecommunications Act as well the 1996 revisions have failed to achieve their intended purposes of making cable services more competitive, rather than regulated. The merging of technology, specifically the Internet, and broadcast media is further confusing that purpose. Big business vs open government vs knowledge economy...a debate that will rage on for several more years.

I continue to believe that Chapel Hill should act quickly to put some kind of municipal network in place as a contingency measure. In this case, haste might avoid wasted opportunity.

Terri

Gregg Gerdau wrote:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/intheknow-20050729#story2 is one of the better links, in my opinion, to information and analysis of the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act that was introduced by Senators Ensign and McCain on July 27th. While there will be much written about the loss of cable franchise fees (and the franchises themselves) contemplated by this legislation, most disappointing is "A state or local government seeking to provide a communications service must give notice of and permit non-government entities to bid to provide such service – preference is to be given to non-government entities. Existing government owned network offerings are grandfathered." which doesn't appear to be good news for municipal wi-fi projects.

Thanks to Bob Avery and Chad Johnston for the initial information. Please share your further thoughts and additional links on this subject.

Gregg




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page