Re: Won't sign it or veto it - smartest move The fact that you think this is "smart" is very telling. I would call it being a sell out puddle of primordial ooze.
But hey, to each is own right?
Re: Won't sign it or veto it - smartest move
said by DataRiker:By "smart", he merely meant "best for her career".
The fact that you think this is "smart" is very telling. I would call it being a sell out puddle of primordial ooze.
But hey, to each is own right?
| |Simba7I Void Warranties
Re: Won't sign it or veto it - smartest move Sounds like the MMJ bill here. We all voted for it and they turn around and "modify" it to please the people who voted against it.
Then the governor decides not to sign it or veto it, which seems just as bad as signing the bill.
The problem is that all it does is make people think you ignored it in the hopes of the bill going away.
MyWS[email@example.comG,16G RAM,2x1T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,512M RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital QP DE504,Compaq DP NC3131,2xSun QP GigaSwift, SMC 8432BTA, Gentoo Linux]
| |tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
Re: North Carolina
said by n2jtx:Why would you do that? Pretty soon 238% of the state will be covered in broadband!
Guess I can scratch NC off my list of possible states to relocate to someday :/
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." --L. van Pelt
Re: North Carolina Almost spit out my coffee reading this one. Thanks for the laugh.
| |Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
Re: All you need to know is...
said by vzw emp :While I don't think this law is as bad as some are making it out to be, I do agree she should have used her veto power to nullify it. I voted for her because she ran on a platform of standing up for citizens and sticking to her guns ... I won't be voting for her again.
She took the easy way out. This bill in no way has the best interests of the citizens of North Carolina in mind, it is anti-consumer in every conceivable way (as previous incarnations of the NC legislature determined by killing this bill four times). Saying she's honoring the will of the people through their elected representatives is a lie and she knows it. She criticized the law but didn't use the power at her disposal to do anything about it. Politics at its worst.
Re: Maybe a link to the actual bill so people could read it? Well, slap me silly. The actual bill (now that I found it and took the time to read it) is absolutely nothing like it's characterized here.
To summarize the bill: (let's use the term MuSP for Municipal-Owned Service Provider, to save typing)
- MuSPs must follow all communications regulations like ISPs.
- MuSPs must have separate books, follow accounting principles, and publish an audited annual report.
- MuSPs must serve the municipality, not grow extra territorially.
- MuSPs must provide access to their infrastructure for ISPs at the same terms and rates that they give their customers.
- MuSPs must buy their own advertising, and not piggyback on government communications channels.
- MuSPs cannot be subsidized by other government fund sources.
- MuSPs cannot price their offerings below the cost of providing the service.
- MuSPs must pay back to the city/state an amount equivalent to what an ISP would pay in taxes/fees for an equivalent service.
- MuSPs must hold public hearings before starting up a new service.
- MuSPs must hold a special election before issuing debt bonds.
- A Municipality must hold an open RFP process to allow private bidders to compete for the MuSP business.
- None of this applies to internal municipality networks, MuSPs only fall under this bill if they offer consumer services.
- None of this applies to MuSPs that are serving "unserved areas", which means more than half the households have no broadband service (and satellite doesn't count).
So, basically, the bill says that if a municipality wants to start their own MuSP, they have to do it on a level playing field basis with private services, be open and transparent with their accounting and funding, not subsidize it, pay the same taxes/fees that private industry would, and be open to accepting bids for the service from private industry, rather than just doing it themselves. Oh and by the way this only applies if the MuSP is essentially overbuilding in an area already served by private services -- not if it's some rural underserved area.
How is this "banning or crippling community fiber projects"? All it says is that they have to do it openly and fairly.