dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-03-29 09:22:07: We've discussed in great detail how for four consecutive years North Carolina incumbents Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink have been trying to pass laws that either outright ban, or constrain the ability of individual communities to deploy fib.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

ToiletMint

join:2009-12-07
Pine River, MN

rly?

Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?


scooper

join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2

Welcome to the corporate states of America.

Government by and for the corporation. Best Government money can buy.

When will some fool judge rule that they can vote ? - oh wait - they can lobby and give political money....



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

The key features of the bill sound reasonable

»www.boston.com/news/local/massac···use_ok/?

quote:
Future municipal enterprises couldn't borrow money for capital costs without voter approval. They also would be barred from offering Internet services at below cost or use funds from other city-sponsored utilities.

At least five communities already have offered the service, including Wilson and Salisbury. They would be exempt from new requirements.

Entirely reasonable positions to take to level the playing field.

The bill includes exemptions for existing community systems and were in the passed bill:
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/B···utton=Go
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/sessions/20···9v2.html
quote:
(c)  The provisions of G.S. 160A340.1, 160A340.3, 160A340.4, 160A340.5, and 160A340.6 do not apply to a city or joint agency providing communications service as of January 1, 2011, provided the city or joint agency limits the provision of communications service to the following service area boundaries:
(1)        For the joint agency operated by the cities of Davidson and Mooresville, the service area is the service area designated in the initial notice of franchise filed with the Secretary of State, and the contiguous area where the agency is offering service as of the effective date of this act connecting the cities of Davidson and Mooresville with areas set forth in the initial areas of franchise.
(2)        For the city of Salisbury, the service area is the corporate limits of the cities of Salisbury, Spencer, East Spencer, Rockwell, Granite Quarry, and the corridors between Salisbury and those cities only to the extent necessary to provide service to those cities.
(3)        For all other cities or joint agency offering communications service, the service area is the area designated in the map filed as part of the initial notice of franchise with the Secretary of State as of January 1, 2011.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to ToiletMint

Re: rly?

said by ToiletMint:

Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?

No, but 15 Dems voted yes.
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/v···&RCS=155
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

reply to ToiletMint

said by ToiletMint:

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Re: The key features of the bill sound reasonable

How dare you drag the facts into this! it is much funner to complain that the government should be able to run a network without any problems that face private businesses.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

Expand your moderator at work

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to pnh102

Re: rly?

said by pnh102:

said by ToiletMint:

The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it.

We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?

Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."


elefante

@verizon.net

Another sad day in America

That is all well and fine, but in normal circumstances when a new competitor enters into an area w/ high barriers to entry they sometimes have to come in as a loss leader to gain market share, and telcos are notorious for that. So essentially they are asking munis to play fair, where by the same token they are not.

Also wording is a little vague on redirection capital budgets, because in many cases these budgets also include grants that may go into the general fund, and these telcos know that so they are trying to cut that off also.

So this is essentially the telcos raising the barrier to entry even HIGHER than the "normal" market which of course is already distorted by decades of favorable treatment.

This is the downfall of America where areas of public good (and internet is one of them) should have public support or at least competition of thus to satisfy the public good. It is sad that the legislature is choosing the private corporation over the public good.

The end result is that the common people suffer and the rich (set up by laws and barriers to entry) continue their march. For those who think this is capitalism it is not, its private mercantilism. Look it up.



batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

1 recommendation

Don't confuse me with the facts.

Every one of these tax payer funded projects are an overbuild in areas where broadband is now offered so this bringing 100/100 to the outhouses is B.S.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

Re: rly?

said by amigo_boy:

We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?

Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

1 recommendation

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

said by talz13:

I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

talz13

join:2006-03-15
Avon, OH

Ok, that explains the public funding aspect. Thanks for the explanation!



OldschoolDSL
Premium
join:2006-02-23
Indian Orchard, MA

1 recommendation

Government for rent

Slightly used Government for Rent. Must be willing to sell out the people and keep topics within secret meetings private, until it's to late for the public to react.

Requirements are simple... Must present lump sum of cash or open ended, blank check. Lump sum of cash willingly accepted, but open ended, blank check preferred.

Applications can be located at any and all government offices, but preferably directed by members of congress.

Only the rich need apply.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
»www.sociallyuncensored.eu


jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC
reply to ToiletMint

Re: rly?

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.

Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote bothh my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.

I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.

Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.

They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).


jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC
reply to ToiletMint

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.

Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote both my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.

I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.

Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.

They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).


jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC

Useless government

Politicans only serve two things, money and corporate lobbying. I vote, I watch the local legislative news. I write my representatives from time to time and increasingly they care less.

I think its time we forceably remove all of them. Institute new elections but make it illegal for corporations or any other special interests to lobby politicians and esp to make it illegal for politicians to receive ANY kind of private donations. Then if caught it should be punishable by a jail sentence.

These Idiots are not going to change for our benefit. Only the people of this country can fix it.


extreme100
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
reply to pnh102

Re: rly?

said by pnh102:

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?

In this case, it's not an extreme. It's a long-term infrastructure investment which, if left to the private market, tends to become a monopoly. Which is what would have happened if interstate highways had been held to the same standard.

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose. Given how auto manufacturers lobbied for passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and how the interstate highways are used for private purposes, it has a much larger private purpose.

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. For example, moving telecom out of the analog era, freeing up resources to be used for new technologies, redeploying taxes and fees (as well as finite radio spectrum).

It's still not clear why broadband shouldn't be viewed as a long-term infrastructure investment like highways, sewer, water, telephone and electric.

Those latter two items you'll say are private business. But, even those are public utilities. Subject to far more social oversight and planning than a typical investor-motivated business.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose.

Obviously that's not its primary purpose.

...

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.
said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to extreme100

said by extreme100:

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?

That's right, because I was suggesting we should do this. /s
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You'll say the latter three were private business not backed by taxpayer bonds. But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

ToiletMint

join:2009-12-07
Pine River, MN

1 recommendation

reply to OldschoolDSL

Re: Government for rent

Most muni broadband deployments are successful , and continue to thrive. Case in point (Montecello, MN).Most of them pay off the debt and in even in some cases make a profit; which in turn goes towards improvements.

I would much rather have a Muni connection than an Incumbent. Incumbent's use my monthly payment to hire a lobbyist's to screw me over for even more money via shady practices made legal by our elected officials.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: rly?

said by pnh102:

So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.

Broadband would continue to have a similar tangential defense function.

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?

Yes. Moving people away from legacy telecom redeploys taxes/fees to other areas which compete with defense spending. Delivering broadcast entertainment over broadband frees up airwaves which could be used by defense and early responders.

You're not seeing the same tangential relationship as the Interstate Highway Act ('50s and '60s) because you've accepted the IHA as "the new baseline." But, everything else... "no, no! it's socialism!"


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to jkeelsnc

All you have to do is remove corporate "personhood" by a law or Constitutional amendment ( the courts won't reverse the decision ) and you're golden.
But no one really thinks much about this - they immediately reject the idea in typical leg-slap fashion.



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

said by amigo_boy:

said by pnh102:

Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.

You're absolutely right. We've see in many situations where these services were provided by the government that the "borrow now, reborrow later" approach taken by many state and local and local governments has come back to haunt taxpayers. Many states, such as Illinois and California, have used this approach for decades to fund public works and now their residents are being screwed with higher taxes simply to pay the interest on bonds that were used to finance public works projects undertaken years ago.
said by amigo_boy:

But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.

At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service. This cannot happen with a government-funded project.
said by amigo_boy:

Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to scooper

Re: Welcome to the corporate states of America.

Yeah, ever wonder why only the entities that cannot vote get the representation???



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to amigo_boy

Re: rly?

Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.

Expand your moderator at work