South Carolina Erects New Barrier to Community Broadband > Where are the details?

Where are the details?

You, the website's resident "screw the little guy" advocate, approves of bills written by phone company lawyers that erode the rights of local communities, keep regional infrastructure in the dark ages, and layer communities with unnecessary restrictions ensuring they fail should they try to improve conditions? Shocking.

You'd think some Conservatives would want local rights protected, instead of being dictated by a large company with no real interest in the community.

reply to Linklist

reply to Linklist
Accusations that you're blindly supporting anti-competitive practices by companies are supported by years of your own posts.

Dozens of these bills ban community broadband outright (which you also support). These newer bills simply layer on spending restrictions, voting requirements, and in some cases right of first refusal where a town actually has to go get AT&T's permission before they even consider improving their own town.

Their idiotic, and they're supported by people who support anti-competitive behavior and corporate control over the will of the voter (there's many words for that, none of them good).

reply to Linklist
Well.. I have just started reading the Bill.. Lets see what I came up with in the first 5 minutes...

The definition of Broadband in Section 3..
(a) a capability to transmit information at a rate that is generally not less than one hundred ninety kilobits per second in at least one direction; or

(b) a service that uses one or more of the following to provide this access:
(i) computer processing;
(ii) information storage; and
(iii) protocol conversion."

That is just slightly better then ISDN from the 90's..... that is basically 3 59k modem connections bonded.. if that..

I have not even gone any further (my head does not like legalese)

reply to Linklist
The other issue, which is not explicitly spelled out in this bill, but would apply, is that during the petition process to designate an unserviced area, any telco/provider that does provide service to the area can block petition against deployment..

While normally that would be fine, the definition of an area serviced by the likes of ATT/TW/$telco_provider, is if there is 1 location within that area that has service from the previously stated providers, then they service the entire area, even though they may only cover 10% of a particular area and have no plans to expand.

That means that a community cannot deploy a broadband solution in that area, even though 90% of the residents do not receive service of any type, or sub standard service that the provider will nto upgrade.

reply to Alex J

reply to Linklist

reply to jvanbrecht

reply to Linklist
One man's "erecting barriers to community broadband" is another man's "leveling the playing field between private and public service providers".

Last time I looked at this I provided detailed posts pointing out that the provisions which were demonized as "killing local municipality broadband" did nothing of the sort. They were things like:

-- the municipality can't subsidize their ISP from other funds or tax streams

-- the municipality must bid out the proposal to see if a private firm can do it cheaper/better

-- the municipality must get voter approval for funding

I didn't find anything anywhere near as onerous as the "OMG!! AT&T lobbyists just killed municipal broadband!!!" scare stories that keep getting posted here.

I could only conclude that a giant bias towards taking broadband away from corporations and giving it to the government was at the core of these slanted (and I'm being kind) stories.

I really don't have time to do this all again. But I am 99% sure this analysis has not changed.

Look, my whole point is... if you think we'd be better off if we did a government takeover of broadband services, SAY THAT and COME WITH AN ARGUMENT. I'm sick and tired of this non-factual sniping.

reply to Linklist
Bah, that was a typo, I meant to say that they could petition to block the deployment, not actually block it.

reply to Linklist
Private companies also use other divisions within their corporate umbrella to prop up poor performing products and services, maybe we should ban private entities from doing that as well?

Also, if a city or town has extra money from other projects/collections and wants to use it for broadband then they should be able to use it how the elected officials see fit. That is their job!

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Government should do a complete take over of the entire national infrastructure of broadband.

- All people and places fully wired with fiber, there is no red lining and people in the hills get it just as well as the people in the high rise.
- Any and all companies that want to use the service to reach a customer to deliver a service may lease the line to do so.
- Only requires 1 ultra capacity line to be ran to every location.
- Provides for competition which in turn brings innovation up and prices down.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
-- the municipality can't subsidize their ISP from other funds or tax streams
*** AT&T is able to subsidize with other revenue streams. In fact, that said revenue they collect goes out of state. Community broadband revenue STAYS in the community along with the jobs it creats

-- the municipality must bid out the proposal to see if a private firm can do it cheaper/better
*** So that said private company can string them a;long and when all is said and done tie it up in court until it costs too much for the locality to proceed.

-- the municipality must get voter approval for funding
*** do you vote when the electric company fixes your power when it goes out? Do you vote when the electric company expannds to new areas. Does AT&T require a vote to expand service, or do they deliver what they promise to do to get these bills through...NO they dont.

Look at Chattanooga and you tell me if 10s of thousands of jobs, fastest internet in the country, Volkswagen, Amazon, high tech jobs, national recognition, quality of life...tell me it those are reasons. I am sure there are more. I am sick of you free market idiots that have no clue what a real free market is...clue...broadband in this country isnt.

reply to Linklist
In NC, where I live, TWC practically wrote the legislation that failed 4 times before as Karl pointed out. It pretty much prevents any community from laying their own network. Thankfully Wilson and Salisbury, NC were grandfathered in somewhat.

You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself. If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind, look at all the anti-trust legislation and safety regulations that have come about because of abuses from corporations.

reply to MyDogHsFleas
Bull, you provide a bunch of points that makes a municipality have to charge at a rate that is equal to or greater than what a nationally subsidized internet provider charges.

Lets talk internet on the good old data phone, I can get a blazing EDGE speed for the low monthly price that someone else gets LTE from the same company. My overpaying for slow service using equipment that has hundreds of spare parts from upgraded services in other parts of the country helps to pay for someone else getting LTE. I don't have any say in level of service I get, I either have it or not so I choose not to.

If I vote my government in, and that government wants to provide me a service, GREAT! I don't care if this one little tiny splinter of market for some multi-billion dollar company cries about it. I don't care if people point out that using power utility money for broadband is unfair because if that's the case then the huge industrial buildings having power probably isn't fair either if they get electricity and not have to pay big huge sums of money up front for the full price of all the electrical equipment needed to serve their huge power load that is normally subsidized.

It's a list of stupid arguments that incites anger in people that are on the fence. "Look, they're taking money out of electricity users pockets to pay for people to watch cat videos!" It's a bunch of crap that satisfies the purpose of crippling any true competition (not business school economics competition) and comes from companies and individuals who never speak the truth about that fact.
--
Say no to JAMS!

reply to Skippy25