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

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

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
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