Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mark Turner <jmarkturner AT gmail.com>
  • To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!
  • Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:54:57 -0400

Hi Tom,

Because it infers that towns of 20,000 people somehow pose a threat to multi-state, multi-billion-dollar corporations. I haven't seen anyone mention any jobs that will be "protected" if this bill gets passed. I haven't seen any predatory zoning or other hijinks on the municipalities' parts that warrant more government red tape.

Now, if the bill similarly restricted the commercial providers to the exact same rules, I might be more inclined to call it fair. That's not what is happening, though. Time Warner Cable raised rates in every area they serve in North Carolina except Wilson. That's cross-subsidization, and if cities can't do it then let's keep commercial providers from doing it too.

While we're at it, let's open up Time Warner Cable's books, and their meetings, too. Let's hold elections in TWC service areas for TWC's leaders every two years.

If the commercial providers are willing to do that, then perhaps we can call it a level playing field. Instead this bill slants the field completely in their favor.

To be more specific, the bill would restrict funding for any municipal Internet network to solely use general obligation bonds rather than revenue bonds. That means that even if you don't get the service, you'll still have to pay for it. This is counter to how revenue services are currently funded, such as municipal water systems and the existing municipal broadband systems like Fibrant and Greenlight.

It also requires a vote by the public to authorize networks, yet no vote is needed to sell the public's investment to TWC should the city choose to get out of the business.

A free market wouldn't require a company to go running to the legislature for a fix: it would innovate or die. A free market would work better with more competition, not less. For cable providers who built their networks using the public's right-of-way and connecting to the publicly-created Internet to now pretend that public investment is preposterous.

Here's a more in-depth breakdown of the bill:
http://stopthecap.com/2011/02/17/another-year-another-anti-community-broadband-bill-in-north-carolina/

Hope you can make it on Thursday!

Cheers,
Mark

On 03/14/2011 02:53 PM, Tom Caswell wrote:
I need some help with this one as I'm currently disillusioned with any
"side" in a political argument. On one hand I don't want to stifle
competition. On the other hand I'm not against capping usage or other
similar business practices. Specifically, how does the "ensure
municipalities follow the same requirements as private vendors" wording
really mean "unfairly keep municipalities from building their own network"?
Tom




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page