openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to sonicmerlin
Re: What's So Bad? said by sonicmerlin:I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical. So how am I incredibly hypocritical? And you're correct, this law doesn't ban municipal communications projects at all. That's why I don't understand the great consternation over this legislation.
Since you're response was to regurgitate an article from three months ago that was written prior to several adopted changes by both the House and Senate, I'll assume you haven't read the law either. So, I'll respond to Phillip Dampier's main points in his oped and ask again, "what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?"
said by Phillip Dampier :First, Avila's demand for an open accounting of community broadband projects provides a treasure trove of business intelligence for any competitor. I don't see this explicitly in the legislation. At least any more than any other government accounting should be open to the public.
said by Phillip Dampier :Second, if banning mandatory service for renters and condo owners is such a great idea, why does Avila only limit it to community-owned networks? I didn't read any such stipulation in the legislation.
said by Phillip Dampier :Third, Avila bends over backwards for her cable and phone friends by tying the hands of municipal providers who want their networks to be commercially successful. Time Warner has no problem injecting endless promotions for its own services not just on a handful of channels, but on virtually every channel on the lineup, often during nearly every commercial break. Can municipal networks ban advertising from AT&T and Time Warner? Of course not. The only stipulation regarding advertising in this legislation is that cities may not advertise on public, educational, or government access channels if the channels are required to be carried by other communications service providers.
said by Phillip Dampier :Avila's ban on setting pricing below cost is another giveaway to Time Warner and AT&T, who routinely deliver retention and new customer promotions that could be temporarily priced below cost to secure or maintain a customer relationship for a limited period of time. Temporary pricing. The legislation does not prevent a municipality from offering similar incentives. Do you honestly believe that private providers' temporary and limited incentives or retention offers are priced below cost in the end?
said by Phillip Dampier :Rep. Avila can certainly no longer claim to be for low taxes, because her bill would effectively raise them for community-owned networks. The legislation requires city provided telecommunications services to remit to the city general fund "an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city-owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city-owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider."
said by Phillip Dampier :Avila’s support for smaller, less regulatory-minded government must also be called into question with this bill’s ridiculously complicated regulations for serving unserved areas of the state (which also grants a special window to private providers to protest, which they will certainly do in just about any area of the state even partially suitable for a future project). Ridiculously complicated? More like mostly irrelevant. The "unserved" issue only matters if/when a city wishes to have the provisions of G.S. 160A-340.1, 160A-340.4, and 160A-340.5 be non-applicable. The legislation doesn't prevent a city-owned telecommunications project just because an area is "served" or not.
said by Phillip Dampier :Avila destroys her own “level playing field” argument in language within her own bill:
“The city or joint agency making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion.” That paragraph is in respect to for other paragraphs in that section of the legislation. It's not as big of a deal as what Dampier implies. Read the legislation  |
