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

["Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver AT buni.org>]

The crux of our differences:
"Real results are more important than partisan battles.  Good ideas 
should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political 
ideology." - Michael Bloomberg

-andy

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---
> 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