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

[Mark Turner <jmarkturner AT gmail.com>]

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