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

["Cristóbal Palmer" <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com>]

On 7/24/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> 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:

You're about to quote a profitability constraint.

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

Yep. There it went.

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

What now? You think local government officials would draw up sham
plans that they don't intend to comply with at all and people would be
happy with that?

> 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.

You have it precisely backwards. This bill's intention was to
reinforce and guarantee the continued highly profitable duopoly of
Cable and DSL internet providers.

Ever heard of Rural Electrification?

http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm is the top google hit.

Broadband internet is to this century as electrification was to the
last. TWC and other companies have repeatedly shown themselves to be
unwilling to invest in the infrastructure that will keep _all_ of this
country ahead of the curve for another century. We should be
petitioning our government to step in before it's too late. Or google.
:P

Cheers,
--
Cristóbal M. Palmer
celebrating 15 years of sunsite/metalab/ibiblio:
http://tinyurl.com/2o8hj4