Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> that's a lot of ranting and raving but not much in the way of a
> constructive alternative.  This bill imposes (or the last version I
> read) profitability constraints that many ventures can't manage to
> fulfill in the timeline it required.  

Interestingly enough, I could not find any profitability constraints
in either Version 1, Version 2 or Version 3 of the bill, per the
NCGA website.  The closest thing I could turn up is this:


> (2)       Shall not subsidize the cost of providing communications
> service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation,
> or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from
> electric, gas, water, sewage, or garbage services. In complying with
> this requirement, a local government-owned communications service
> provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of
> providing the service. If a determination is made that a direct or
> indirect subsidy has been made, the local government-owned
> communications service provider shall immediately increase prices for
> the communications service in a manner that ensures that the subsidy
> shall not continue, and any amounts used directly or indirectly to
> subsidize the past operations shall be reimbursed to the local
> government's general fund.



Which to my reading only says that the service can't run at a loss, but
must at least break-even.  That seems pretty reasonable to me.

The next closest thing was this (from Edition 2):

> (c)       At the public hearings held under this section, the local
> government shall make available to the public a written business plan
> for the proposed local government-owned communications service provider
> that, at a minimum, contains all of the following:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> (4)       A plan to ensure that revenues exceed operating expenses
> within a specified period of time after the communications service is
> first provided, such time to be consistent with commercial practices for
> similar projects.
> 
> <snip>



Which only refers to what information must be provided at the public
hearings and does not, in itself, impose any operating restraints.

I've read this bill numerous times now, and I still can't see how it
does anything other than prevent local governments from granting
themselves a taxpayer subsidized monopoly which would lock out
future competition.  Maybe it's because IANAL and I'm misinterpreting
the legalese, but I'm just not seeing it.


TTYL,


Phil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGpr/6dkzqYMZbBuwRAurjAJ4lu5xJ+/7Na5Hf/Kg6dyoloKt+7gCg8hPw
v2eIiCJPLGsni4cRgp7sPDA=
=U33N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard