It got amended to exclude the four operating municipal systems
and changed the threshold that a city could use to start service
from 90% broadband penetration to 50%. In essence, the bill was
stripped of two things TWC wanted most.
It will be back at Wednesday's Finance meeting where there will
be public commentary. My POV article will run in Tuesday's
N&O and there are indications legislators are coming around,
so I believe on Wednesday we will be in better shape.
We'll see how much of this the industry wants to salvage. I
expect some surprises Wednesday. Today, though, went much better
than anticipated!
WRAL streamed the whole meeting and it can be watched here:
http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/video/9283673/#/vid9283673
Mark
---
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
So what the hell happened with the bill today!
--[Lance]
On 03/17/2011 10:18 AM, Matt Drew wrote:
I totally agree, Matt. While I sure would like to have the 10
Mbps symmetrical Internet that Wilson has, it's up to each
individual community to decide that - not the state and
certainly NOT TWC's lobbyists.
In Raleigh's case I know a muni broadband system would face
opposition from city leaders and others. I have a good rapport
with Raleigh's leaders and still I have no realistic expectation
that Raleigh will implement a system like Wilson's in the near
future. That said, I certainly am angry that TWC would try to
take that possibility away, however remote that possibility may
be.
We did some real damage to the bill today and significantly
weakened it with amendments. I'm hoping we can finish it off at
the upcoming Finance meeting on Wednesday.
For anyone interested, WRAL's Laura Leslie live-streamed the
meeting in its entirety. You can watch it here:
http://www.wral.com/news/video/9283673/#/vid9283673
Mark
---
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
"Specifically, how does the "ensure municipalities follow
the same
requirements as private vendors" wording really mean "unfairly
keep
municipalities from building their own network"?"
One of the ways that Time Warner and other large cable
companies
currently suppress competition is a series of mapping and
reporting
requirements that are built into the law at the state level
(see
N.C.G.S. 66-354, among others). These requirements are not
easy or
cheap, and a cable provider can be subjected to forfeiture of
all
revenue (not just profit) from their system during the time
they are
not in compliance.
Previous bills have tried to make municipal systems follow
these rules
as well, adding a another layer of bureaucracy and cost - and
I
presume the current bill again attempts to do this.
I'm opposed to municipal broadband, but I'm even more opposed
to TWC
using the state government to tell the cities what they can
and can't
do. These bills are blatant attempts to block potential
government
competition, just as previous "regulations" enabled large
providers to
strangle private competition. It is exactly the opposite of
what we
need in order to get better, cheaper, and more ubiquitous
service.
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
From:
Mark Turner <jmarkturner AT gmail.com>
To:
Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
<internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent:
Monday, March 14, 2011 1:29 PM
Subject:
[internetworkers] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in
Thursday's Finance Committee!
Hello INWers,
Just yesterday, AT&T announced it would immediately
cap it's U-Verse users at 250 GB per month. Anyone going
over that cap (NetFlix users, for instance), will be
socked with overage fees.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Exclusive-ATT-To-Impose-150GB-DSL-Cap-Overages-113149
This is what you can expect if H.129 passes and broadband
competition is eliminated in North Carolina. You can COUNT
on it!
As I stated in my Friday note, a lot of outrageous
behavior took place Friday between the telco lobbyists and
Rep. Avila. Basically, the "negotiation" that was supposed
to take place was entirely one-sided in the favor of the
telcos. In essence, there was no negotiation. Rep. Julia
"My Word Is My Bond" Howard's word has proven to be
worthless.
The bill will be heard at Thursday's Finance Committee
meeting. I'm told NO PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE HEARD, so
we'll just have to make our opinions heard otherwise. CALL
YOUR FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW! And if you attend
Thursday's meeting, please wear RED to show your
opposition to this bill.
Also, Rep. Avila's just sent a skewed report to other
representatives with logic holes big enough to drive a
truck through (though I remind you that the Internet is
not a big truck). Normally I would ignore such tripe as
this, but as many legislators may read it, PLEASE COMMENT
ON IT! Go ahead: rip it apart as the sham that it is:
http://www.innovationpolicy.org/fat-pipe-dreams-in-north-carolina
If you can make it to Thursday morning's meeting, please
do. In the meantime, call the Finance members NOW and tell
others to as well.
Finance Committee:
http://is.gd/ncgafinance
Broadband Petition:
http://is.gd/ncbetterbroadband
Thanks and hope to see you Thursday!
Mark Turner
P.S. Have you made your phone calls yet?
---
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
