dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-05-27 18:40:08: Last week North Carolina lawmakers finally passed a law that companies like CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable have been trying to pass for four consecutive years. ..

page: 1 · 2

treichhart

join:2006-12-12

thank god I dont live in NC

thank god I dont live in NC. I live in a village that offers from dsl from (frontier) cable from (time warner) FTTH (local isp hometown cable) wireless (from a local telco where I used to work at as tech support). Wireless part of it I am going also change since I am getting ready to launch my own WISP.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

you do realize that Ohio has a similar law right? It was passed without public knowledge. Many cities/villages will tell you about the law. Clyde, Ohio was a city that started out with BPL and then later wanted to extend the use of the city's fiber network to service the public with tv/internet/phone, etc. Before they could even think of it, at&t/SBC, Verizon, and TWC along with others stopped them in their tracks. Now they have a city wide Fiber network that extends to almost EVERY home/business to read and monitor power meters and to power the VERY LIMITED BPL network. They only built the Fiber Ring in hopes to be a HUGE player in their area for Services other provide.

I have option for Internet, cable and phone as well. DirecTV, DishNetwork, WOW! and TWC and now Clear. Some areas of my city have U-Verse but its limited even though the average income of U. Heights its $49,000+ per month. ATT doesn't care.

davoice

join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC

1 recommendation

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

Here's the bill as enacted if anyone wants to reads it:
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/20···9v7.html

I live here and I opposed the bill vociferously. But the only 3 real problems I had w/ the law:

1) Broadband is defined as anything that reaches a minimum of 768x128kbps in the final bill. (In initial versions it was 4mbps x 1mbps, same as recent FCC rumblings.) They went w/ the FCC "basic broadband tier 1" definition. Luckily they reference the FCC classification instead of the actual speed so if the FCC updates the tiers, it updates the law.

2) Cities can't serve outside their corporate limits. So if someone is on the edge of town but just outside the city limits, the city can't serve them. And if an existing municipal provider who's exempted from the regulation is serving someone outside their limits, they have 30 days to stop serving those customers or they lose their exemption. That's contrary to every other municipal service (water, gas, electric, trash) which is allowed to service areas contiguous to the city but outside the official limits if the people in the fringe areas petition the city for service. This could lead to more forced annexation. And I find it mean and despicable that existing customers, who might have no other option, are being forcibly cut off.

3) The bill requires special elections be held to vote on issuing bonds to start municipal service. Cities should be able to tag this onto existing general election ballots to save money. Requiring separate special elections is just a foot dragging tactic inserted by the telco/cableco lobby.

}Davoice
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

Your definitions set forth by the FCC rumblings and other new laws they try to create don't hold water and the states know it. The FCC has NO legal power nor any power at all to define ANYTHING for the Internet. So the states can set what they want. But then they also have NO power to define speed or anything else.

Cities are spending money on THEIR city not the entire county. So that is far. If they want to spend Grandma's money from in the city to build that network- it should be spent ON the CITY NOT the areas outside in other cities/towns, etc.

Why should be it be on General elections? The spending of the money is a SPECIAL case there for it should be SPECIAL when voting.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
said by davoice:

Here's the bill as enacted if anyone wants to reads it:
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/20···9v7.html

I live here and I opposed the bill vociferously. But the only 3 real problems I had w/ the law: (... snip...)

Thanks for being a voice of reason. I think your analysis is excellent. You don't rail against the bill with inflammatory adjectives, you spell out exactly what you would have changed.
And, you give a link to the actual bill so people can actually read it! What a concept, huh?

BTW I agree with your three points, I think they could have fixed these three points and still had a "level playing field" bill passed.

I think those like Karl think that the government should be able to use its special abilities to compete with private providers -- e.g. doesn't have to pay taxes, can spend money without concern for losing money or making a profit, doesn't have to account for their services separately, doesn't have to entertain bids for providing the services, etc. etc. etc -- all of which are spelled out in the bill.

Because I think Karl's real motive is to turn over all broadband services to the government, come hell or high water, and have us all pay for them with taxes. Giving governments unfair advantages vs. private providers, and regulating broadband providers, are just steps in that direction.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

That is the motive of some you speak of (regarding turning all networks over to the Gov't and Google (as they can do no wrong). The link has been posted before about reading the bill and some (including myself) have called and talked to the Senator that was behind the bill. The thing though is; most on this site don't care. They rally behind one person and that person's word goes. I'm just glad they're not the President or we'd all be screwed with that.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
While I don't know what Karl's motives are, I agree that it's unfair for the government to create non-profit competition. However, there's also truth to the other side in that these companies cherry-pick locations that require the least amount of investment with the greatest potential for return. That's certainly good business but it doesn't do anything for those that are left without or with only a single provider.

Somewhere there should be a middle ground. I know we all like things to have maximum contrast between right and wrong but it seldom works that way.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

I agree and I view this bill as a good start towards seeking a middle ground.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
You do not know Karl's intentions saying so makes you look ignorant.

I would agree that a city should not be able to just put up any service at any time to compete with private companies. However, when those private companies have failed the city in providing the services (regardless of what the service is) then the city should have every right to bring services to their citizens in any way they see fit and their community votes for. Whether it is building a competing service or bringing in another company with X incentives to do so. The companies that currently provide service have had their chance and have failed so too bad for them.

In this case, it is quite clear that private companies have failed the community when they have to redefine what broadband is. So not only are they preventing anything from lighting a fire under their collective failed asses, but they are also attempting to deceive the community they are suppose to be serving.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

While Karl seldom complements incumbents, does that mean Karl believes a government solution is superior? I believe he feels compelled to cry foul when either the government or corporations are failing the consumer.

In my opinion, the government has a duty to regulate in the absence of competition. The problem is we have a tough time defining what competition is. In the case of high speed Internet access, it's impossible to define competition until we have a universally accepted definition of the product.

For instance there are those that believe competition exists if you can get cable HSI or a telco T1 line even though one costs ~$50/month and the other ~$200/month.

BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:151
said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by davoice:

Here's the bill as enacted if anyone wants to reads it:
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/20···9v7.html

I live here and I opposed the bill vociferously. But the only 3 real problems I had w/ the law: (... snip...)

Because I think Karl's real motive is to turn over all broadband services to the government, come hell or high water, and have us all pay for them with taxes. Giving governments unfair advantages vs. private providers, and regulating broadband providers, are just steps in that direction.

Ding ding ding ding....we have a winner!! Somebody who finally gets Karl's (and Dampier's aka "Stop the Cap) motives. It's so refreshing when people finally see the light. Gives me hope for the future.
--
"I can’t give you a surefire formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody all the time."
~ Herbert Bayard Swope
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

I am not saying it could not work but I am very skeptical. My motto is, corporations suck but government sucks worse.

I always think about my consistently bad customer experiences and they are the post office, and the DMV, and the tax offices. Luckily I've had very few examples of working with the justice system but I think it's equally bad.

And I see what medical and nursing facilities have to go through with medicare and Medicaid and it's also just consistently awful.

Sure there are individual horror stories about bad customer service with corporations. But government services are ROUTINELY awful. And routinely ridiculously expensive on a per customer basis compared to what private industry does, which shows up in my tax bills.

It's clear when you deal with individual customer reps from the government that they really don't care. The few that do are motivated by something other than their job description and evaluation criteria.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

And, what really gets me is the hidden motives that the "give it to the government" advocates have. To me it's so transparent.

I know an activist teacher who proudly showed off a T-shirt that said "Those who can, teach. Those who can't, pass laws about teaching."

To me this is the height of arrogance. They've really forgotten who their customer is. They think it's all about them. Typical government monopoly attitude.

BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:151

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you...there are still some of us out there who refuse to drink the koolaid.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1
said by MyDogHsFleas:

Because I think Karl's real motive is to turn over all broadband services to the government, come hell or high water, and have us all pay for them with taxes. Giving governments unfair advantages vs. private providers, and regulating broadband providers, are just steps in that direction.

No.
--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." --L. van Pelt
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

No?

Leaves little room for discussion.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

said by MyDogHsFleas:

No?

Leaves little room for discussion.

As does your ill-formed summary opinion.
--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." --L. van Pelt
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

said by tapeloop:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

No?

Leaves little room for discussion.

As does your ill-formed summary opinion.

Value added to discussion: zero.

Either just stop posting, or say something other than content-free snarkiness.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by tapeloop:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

No?

Leaves little room for discussion.

As does your ill-formed summary opinion.

Value added to discussion: zero.

Either just stop posting, or say something other than content-free snarkiness.

You first mate.
--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." --L. van Pelt
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

Something: i.e. actual words that form sentences and express an opinion.

quote:
Thanks for being a voice of reason. I think your analysis is excellent. You don't rail against the bill with inflammatory adjectives, you spell out exactly what you would have changed.
And, you give a link to the actual bill so people can actually read it! What a concept, huh?

BTW I agree with your three points, I think they could have fixed these three points and still had a "level playing field" bill passed.

I think those like Karl think that the government should be able to use its special abilities to compete with private providers -- e.g. doesn't have to pay taxes, can spend money without concern for losing money or making a profit, doesn't have to account for their services separately, doesn't have to entertain bids for providing the services, etc. etc. etc -- all of which are spelled out in the bill.

Because I think Karl's real motive is to turn over all broadband services to the government, come hell or high water, and have us all pay for them with taxes. Giving governments unfair advantages vs. private providers, and regulating broadband providers, are just steps in that direction.

Nothing:

quote:
No.

As does your ill-formed summary opinion.

You first mate.


tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

When you express something other than ridiculous hyperbole, you'll warrant a longer "something" response.

To wit:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

quote:
Because I think Karl's real motive is to turn over all broadband services to the government, come hell or high water, and have us all pay for them with taxes. Giving governments unfair advantages vs. private providers, and regulating broadband providers, are just steps in that direction.


--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." --L. van Pelt
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

OK I give up. All attempts to elecit a response other than scornful dismissal with no content have failed.

Hey, I'm here to learn, and maybe help and educate others a bit. Without discussion there can be no learning.

MyDogHsFleas out.
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
hell i live in the middle of no where but we got are own isp. that is dam fast.
mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM
The people of NC in poorly served areas just got screwed.

The law should have simply stated that all ISP's will be notified of any muni efforts and such efforts will be immediately halted if any ISP is interested in providing the same service in the same time period. That's your even playing field. If they're not interested in providing the stated service -- they should forfeit any say in the matter. It should be really embarrassing for the ISP's not being able to provide a cheaper/better service than the government. The government generally can't do anything right.

Why shouldn't poorly served areas be able to help themselves?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5

Re: thank god I dont live in NC

said by mlcarson:

The people of NC in poorly served areas just got screwed.

Yeah, I would agree that the definition of "underserved" is too strict.

The law should have simply stated that all ISP's will be notified of any muni efforts and such efforts will be immediately halted if any ISP is interested in providing the same service in the same time period. That's your even playing field. If they're not interested in providing the stated service -- they should forfeit any say in the matter.

Well, it kind of does say that. It says that munis must put out an RFP and actively seek private company bids on their service proposal and transparently evaluate and accept proposals that meet their needs, before starting a MuSP (Municipal Service Provider). The MuSP must also pay the equivalent of the taxes and fees that an ISP would pay when comparing proposals. If they don't get an acceptable private bid, they can start the MuSP process.

Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1

Thank god I moved to NC

Moved to NC several months ago and stuff like this bothers me but what can you do obviously nobody really gave a crap and money talks so oh well I guess. I love my 50mbps from TWC. I either have that or UVerse gotta have something.
--
That was the wild boar.... Moo!
My podcast: The Banzai Beat »www.banzaibeat.com
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

customer density and geography

in the northeast, most of the geography is dense enough customer wise that there is justification for builds by incumbents. there are geographies in the southwest which are just not going to be built without heavy subsidies which are NOT forthcoming. i'll spare you the corporations control the economic agenda boiler plate rhetoric this time.

simply put.. if you can MOVE.. that will make the politcians wake up and take notice that towns and municipalities will live or die on the quality of life in the community and one of those ammenities is broadband at least as well delivered in the Northeast USA (aka 15 megabits DOWN and 5 megabits UP).

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

New law only guarantees voters get an OK BEFORE $ spent

The new law doesn't stop municipal broadband systems. All it does is make sure that local voters get to vote on the expenditures before their local pols decide to commit to a duplicate system build-out. Some don't want voters deciding on spending that money. They want it left to some local political boss looking to put relatives in to some political payoff jobs at the new broadband utility.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

2 recommendations

Re: New law only guarantees voters get an OK BEFORE $ spent

Don't forget that the law stipulates that the telecommunications projects need to be funded and self-sufficient. Two things that governments at all levels should be required to do for all efforts.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: New law only guarantees voters get an OK BEFORE $ spent

very true. Especially as a Gov't entity they do NOT pay taxes on anything and are NOT allowed to turn a profit. Also in most areas the cities OWN the poles that they CHARGE others to use but do NOT charge their own departments to use. NOT fair at all.

firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

1 recommendation

Re: New law only guarantees voters get an OK BEFORE $ spent

said by hottboiinnc:

very true. Especially as a Gov't entity they do NOT pay taxes on anything and are NOT allowed to turn a profit. Also in most areas the cities OWN the poles that they CHARGE others to use but do NOT charge their own departments to use. NOT fair at all.

They're also the ones who paid for the existing poles and pay for the replacement of poles and pay for the overall maintenance of the poles...

... but yes, I guess they sure do get a very unfair of not having to pay for those poles (that they have actually paid for).
--
Say no to JAMS!
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

Re: New law only guarantees voters get an OK BEFORE $ spent

They do NOT pay for the poles now. The companies that have lines and other equipment on them PAY for those poles. So that's another expense that does give the cities something that they don't have to charge their customers for in the base price. They wanted to build out; they create a level playing field. It's time now the states start coming in and taking the ROW from more and more cities and leaving them at the State Level and charge EVERYONE a fair amount to use the poles.

Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

2 recommendations

said by hottboiinnc:

very true. Especially as a Gov't entity they do NOT pay taxes on anything and are NOT allowed to turn a profit. Also in most areas the cities OWN the poles that they CHARGE others to use but do NOT charge their own departments to use. NOT fair at all.

That almost makes sense, when you omit the bulk of the equation.

Taxes are paid - by citizens.
The benefits of a Muni service are reaped - by citizens.

I wonder why the core factor in the debate wasn't included in your rendition of it?

NV
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit.

••••••••
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

What's So Bad?

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

I believe Centurylink is out of line asking its employees to to take political action.

•••••••••••••••••••••••

powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK

Will the Feds challenge?

I wonder if the FCC or some other agency will challenge that portion of the state law which redefines "broadband"?
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Will the Feds challenge?

FCC can't- no rights to define broadband or anything Internet related.

BankerMama

join:2009-03-10
united state

1 recommendation

Bad?

Your article is strictly against CenturyLink an TWC, but you do not say why the bill is bad, just you don't like it.
I don't like that "phone" companies have to spend money to serve everyone, but "cable" companies can pick and choose where they go. There's good and bad with all companies and politics are in everything, good and bad. That's life.
--
This posting is of my own opinion and in no way connected to any employer.

•••
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

1 edit

NC ISP's will thank lawmakers with campaign contributions!

I am sure that lawmakers that voted for the bill will receive generous campaign contributions. In the past such payoffs were called graft and corruption. I guess supporters of the bill believe that all roads, water and sewer systems should be privately owned.

Edit:
Centuryink is right: Applauds Heavily Lobbied Politicians 'Courage and Conviction' Yes Heavily Lobbied Politicians should convicted like DJ's during the payola scandals in the 50's and 60's.
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: NC ISP's will thank lawmakers with campaign contributions!

Corporations are above the law.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

Score one for the people!

Thank god at least one state legislature gets it, saving the taxpayers of NC from the grubby paws of local politicians and their lazy neighbors.

••••••
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Somebody else should do it.

I could for county, region or state wide builds but muni builds just cut those outside the boundaries off. Much of the state except along the Interstates are little mill towns where the textile mill has closed and the only thing supporting the area is farms. The homes supported POTS because distance was not problem and the phone revenues from the cities pays for the phone lines but not for dsl and cable which require electronic cabinets or FTTH. In many cases the evenly spread homes would not generate enough revenue to pay for cell phone coverage. The farms are much smaller then in the midwest but it spreads out the homes making it hard to build expensive internet systems. The phone systems were build as monopolies over years. The internet is at least simi competitive and obsolete the day you run a new system on.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Somebody else should do it.

that's the whole point of money. People can get $$$ from RUS to build out a network to support these areas. The fact is many choose NOT to do anything. there is a MASSIVE national WiMax provider (not Clear) that does this. They target areas that basically don't have anything and build. Much of their network is built on RUS money.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Political corruption

Those same lawmakers probably got kickbacks from Time Warner and CenturyLink. They are probably now at the malls spending their bribes.

I live in Massachusetts so I know how political corruption works because the state of Massachusetts is probably the most corrupt state in the union. I grew up in Iowa which was not as corrupt at the time.

The communities with their municipal broadband are rural communities that TWC and CenturyLink would not touch because of a long return on investment period. They want to serve 8 customers off of one pole and not one customer every few miles.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: Political corruption

It's not enough for CenturyLink to get the stupid law, they now want to redefine "courage and conviction" as code words for bought and paid for politicians.
kerya666

join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL

City/county profit?

What is this talk about cities not being able to turn "profits"? Absolutely incorrect. City can absolutely have a surplus, it just gets allocated into other infrastructure or put into a "reserve funds".

City usually does not pay for ROW because they own it. And depending on municipality sometimes those that place poles or lay cables in the ROW pay nothing to the city/county except for a permit review($25-35 around here). If no "private" (that are a lot of times subsidized by the government, but its fair this time?) companies are willing to provide service then who are these companies to tell a municipality they cannot provide if to their customers? Total B.S. Either stop the whining and provide the service, or shut up and let people vote and get the service everywhere in that municipalities borders if it passes.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: City/county profit?

a surplus budget is DIFFERENT than owning a company. You do NOT know how gov'ts work right? That's NON PROFIT! Non-Profits are NOT allowed to make any $$$$ off ANYTHING they do. The IRS prohibit that and if any city decided to turn a profit on a service they offered the IRS would have their ass in court so fast the city would spin. You should read up on the IRS tax codes. That is why the USPS is NO Longer part of the US Gov't and why Amtrak has such as hard time making any money. They're part of the US Gov't and are NOT allowed to turn a profit. They are only able to charge what they pay for the service and that's it.
kerya666

join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL

Re: City/county profit?

Kind of late to reply but what the hell...

Actually if you must know I worked for local municipalities' administration for 13 years and dealt directly with budget allocation every year.
Like I said and will say again. Let me use water/wastewater fee as an example: city would make up most of their money from those services, and after collection they would be allocated to a "general fund" where every other department that does not make a "profit" would then use that money. Same would apply here.
Just because the service is profitable (like water service or sewer collection in this case) does not mean you cannot use that money to pay for something else.
With strategic reserves it does get complicated but overall you are still able to save some money if needed. But I would imagine that at present time you will be hard pressed to find any budget being able to bring in funds for keeping. Overall cities have to maintain an even or positive budget, otherwise in worst-case scenario city will fail and state or county will take over all of the assets.
Just because something is listed as "non-profit" does not mean they cannot make money anywhere. I think you get things confused.

Tweakbl

join:2008-09-25
Rosedale, WV
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..

This absolutely makes me effing sick.

This absolutely makes me effing sick.
What right do these Big DSL ISP's have if Towns step up to bat for people when the Big ISP's are not wanting to get up off the piles of cash to upgrade these towns???

You snooze you lose.

People WANT connected,Big DSL ISP's need to quit cry babying and run service or shut the hell up.

smudged

@spcsdns.net

Re: This absolutely makes me effing sick.

Funny thing, as an employee, I never received said email. So it must have been sent to certain people or not at all. But I wouldn't be thanking them anyway.

meneither

@centurytel.net

Re: This absolutely makes me effing sick.

Neither did I...weird...
JMccovery

join:2011-01-08
Mobile, AL

"Level Playing Field"?

Wouldn't a 'level playing field' constitute the elimination of tax breaks and public bonds/grants for telco's/cableco's?

When a state/local muni gives a telco/cableco bond/grant money to upgrade their network, is it not unfair that the people are being made, without their input, to pay for a service twice?

I think if a municipality has the available funds and the people agree to it, they should be able to build their own fiber network.

It's not like the telco/cableco will use their profits to upgrade their network when there is lack of competition. Even when another company tries to come in and lay a new network, they get stopped by the incumbent's lobbying.
severach

join:2002-09-12
Jackson, MI

Who are they?

The ones that get good Internet will thank them. A few that don't will too.
DaveO

join:2001-09-05
Easley, SC

FTTH Broadband Plan

Here's what I think we should do in this country. Municipalities should build fiber to every home, business, and organization. Government would partner with multiple ISPs to provide the actual service to end customers. That would create a real free market for broadband with customers having their choice of many service companies and service plans. Part of what customers would pay in monthly service fees would go to paying for the fiber build.

If we keep waiting for the "free market" to work with broadband we're going to fall further and further behind other nations.
mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM

Re: FTTH Broadband Plan

said by DaveO:

Government would partner with multiple ISPs to provide the actual service to end customers.

What would the ISP actually provide? Sounds like a great deal for them - just collect the money.

45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

Re: FTTH Broadband Plan

They would provide the same thing the health insurance companies provide. Unnecessary added bureaucracy and higher costs. So basically, the American way!

RC

@sprintsvc.net

Well...

As someone who lives in an area that CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable refuse to serve in rural North Carolina, I strongly opposed this bill.

It's easy to get bogged down in the arguments: government vs. private business, fairness, what constitutes broadband, the concept of cities and towns building networks - and more.

But the end result of this legislation for me is simply this: CenturyLink and Time Warner Cable now even less of a reason to make an investment and expand service to my home.

Why? Because now there's even less of a threat of competition.

joebleed

join:2002-05-28
Tarboro, NC

Green Light service

I'm not sure if it was mentioned, i only read half way down and didn't see it, but there is a lot of griping about taxes paying for these networks. I don't know about others, but When i looked into greenlight, they said there was no tax money used in building or maintaining the network. It is sustained solely by its customers and is turning a profit. It is just managed by the city.

I wonder if they could get around this bill by building the fiber network for towns as city property and leasing it out to other companies to resell service on. Granted it would still be giving the crappy ISPs a larger profit than the network builder. But at least the residents would have better internet. If they did it this way, perhaps the network owner could stipulate a cap on pricing. within reason. If done this way, seems like they could extend it outside city limits too and just allow others to resell to the ones outside of city limits if they decided to sell later, or got approval to sell services themselves (city).

really2011

@centurytel.net

I wonder...

How this story was validated? Because if this is the case, this would violate the CenturyLink Code of Conduct. I think this story was made up somehow or someone falsely reported it. I understand the concern regarding what happened, but to go off and slam a company like this? I would want some sort of validation before I were to believe that this email was sent out...there are even employees on here that said they didn't get the email...

Obtained from »www.centurylink.com/static/PDF/A···duct.pdf

Political Activities and Contributions
We encourage employees to participate in the political affairs of their communities
by voting, volunteering their personal time and supporting the candidates of their
choice. CenturyLink will not attempt to influence your personal contributions or
political activities.
Similarly, when you speak on public issues, make sure you do so
as an individual and that you are not representing or giving the impression that you
are speaking on behalf of CenturyLink – unless authorized to do so by your Region
President, the General Counsel or Chief Executive Officer.
CenturyLink has established various Political Action Committees (“PACs”). PACs
are voluntary, non-profit, independent organizations that may accept contributions
and make expenditures to support candidates understanding the issues that are
important to the Company, consistent with applicable laws. You may, where eligible,
make contributions to a CenturyLink-sponsored PAC. You will not be pressured to
participate in any PAC or PAC-related activity. Moreover, CenturyLink will not attempt
to influence your personal contributions or political activities.
You may make personal contributions to candidates or events on your own behalf,
but you should not make personal contributions represented to be on behalf of
CenturyLink. You will not be reimbursed for any such contributions.
CenturyLink may on occasion elect to spend authorized funds to publicize a specific
event or viewpoint. Nonetheless, you must not use corporate funds to support any
political candidate, party, organization or event without prior approval of the Chief
Executive Officer or General Counsel. Failure to abide by this policy may result in
the violation of various federal and/or state election laws and may subject you to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

employee

@embarqhsd.net

Re: I wonder...

It was only sent to those whose reps voted for the bill, and it was sent by an exec in network services. So if you are under another group, you wouldn't have received it.

kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

Another shitty state, with totally crooked, corrupt bums...

..posing as lawmakers.

God, this country soon will be over, I think - full of these crooks who keep driving these bums off the cliff, along with a lazy, stupid constituency.