dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
40
share rss forum feed

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to treichhart

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

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

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to davoice

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

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
reply to MyDogHsFleas

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

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


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to rradina

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

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:147
reply to MyDogHsFleas

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

reply to BHNtechXpert

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:147

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
reply to MyDogHsFleas

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

No?

Leaves little room for discussion.



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

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom

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

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom

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

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
Reviews:
·Mediacom

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.