Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] N.C. Bill Limiting Municipal Internet

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver AT buni.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] N.C. Bill Limiting Municipal Internet
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:42:17 -0400

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.

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.

So I'll play your game...here is my analysis of this prickly little morsel of corporate welfare...

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H1587v2.html
(7d)
"Upon making specific findings as to the factors in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the local government shall, by a majority vote, call for a special election under G.S. 163-287 on the question of whether the local government shall provide the proposed communications service to the public through a local government owned communications service provider. If a majority of the votes cast in the special election are for the local government providing communications service, the local government may provide the communications service as authorized in this Part. "

special elections are expensive and not required for most other normal business. I do not see why this issues is special.

"A bond issued pursuant to this section shall be secured and paid for solely from the revenues generated by the local government owned communications service provider. A local government may not pay the origination, financing, or other carrying costs associated with bonds issued under this section from the local government's general fund or public enterprise funds."

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.

" 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."

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. However why does this city/local utility get special treatment? Why is it not just sewage, etc. Why do my parents pay lower taxes and yet their garbage pickup (municipal) is cheaper than mine? Because sometimes *gasp* such services are best provided as a public good :-)

"Shall annually remit to the general fund of the local government owning or having an economic interest in the communications service provider an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the local government or county in which the local government is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the local government-owned communications service provider because of its local government status. The amount remitted to the local government's general fund shall include a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the local government-owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider."

I don't want the city/county/etc taxing itself. That is a waste of paper and is needless bureaucracy.

"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)

"To ensure that local government-owned communications service providers and private communications service providers are, to the extent possible, able to compete equally and fairly in the marketplace, the Department of Insurance shall determine the State average market rate for private liability insurance for communications providers, and the rate paid for liability insurance by local government-owned communications providers shall be equal to or greater than that rate. If a local government-owned communications service provider pays less than the average market rate for liability insurance as established by the Department of Insurance, the local government-owned communications provider shall remit the difference to the general fund of the local government that owns the communications provider."

Um again why? If the insurance industry has decided that municipalities are a lower risk than the industry as a whole...why since we've hobbled the crap out of the utility's ability to start up (especially since barrier to entry and startup costs are the biggest problem for creating such infrastructure) do we then need to take a second pass and make sure the insurance industry doesn't cut the municipal utility any breaks?

""§ 160A-329.6. Injunctive Relief.

The provisions of this Part may be enforced by any party aggrieved by the actions of a local government communications provider by bringing an action for injunctive relief in the superior court in the county in which the local government communications provider is located."

SECTION 2. G.S. 62-3(23) is amended by adding the following new sub-sub-subdivision to read:

"l. The term "public utility" shall include any municipality providing service as defined in G.S. 62-3(23)a.6. and subject to regulation under Part 1A of Article 16 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes.""


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..

however version 3 is just fun: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/House/HTML/H1587v3.html

It is a big waste of money for a "study" that will say what the cable cos want it to say :-).. I wonder who we can get to do this....well I know who...these people are experts http://www.ncta.com/

Hey maybe they can study net neutrality for us while they are at it:
"Confused about the issue? See the industry's newest advertisement."
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526

Wow it is so simple now! :-)

-Andy


Phillip Rhodes wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Its easy to be "against" but what are you "for" rather than some
half-baked untested political ideology -- give me a *practical*
proposoal to free us from the crappy assed service of TWC and BellSouth
etc.

Background:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative>

Example: Electrical cooperatives in the Missouri and Illinois, who
already have access to right-of-ways, poles, etc., entering the
broadband market to serve their communities:

<http://www.cbn.coop>


So yes, broadband by voluntary cooperatives can be done.


TTYL,


Phil

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

iD8DBQFGpsL8dkzqYMZbBuwRAlocAKDowo0hQBaSLGmCakUk4dLNUXKi0wCeMUgg
HcZrGmBfeqQFDYeTzjApc+8=
=RqWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page