South Carolina has effectively passed H. 3508, a bill backed by regional incumbent AT&T (see our previous report), intended to make it more difficult for towns and cities to wire themselves for broadband -- even when nobody else will. The move comes on the heels of a similar effort in North Carolina last year, where regional incumbents Time Warner Cable and CenturyLink passed a similar bill after four previous failed attempts. The bills are being pushed by companies who, in many of these markets, have failed to adequately meet broadband demand -- and in AT&T's case have frozen next-gen expansion plans. In both instances the bills layer municipalities with numerous additional burdens for the simple reason to help increase failure rate, in some instances requiring towns and cities to get permission from regional incumbents before improving their own local infrastructure. The South Carolina bill now heads to the desk of Governor Nikki R. Haley, who is currently facing an ethics hearing for being a little too cozy with the State's business interests.
I see lots of talk about AT&T & TWC and others preventing local government from providing broadband. But what I haven't seen is how exactly they are supposed to be doing that. Lots of talk about bureaucracy and barriers to slow down government rollouts, but what provisions of the law are onerous?
The one provision I have seen most often is that local voters have to specifically approve it in a vote and not just let it go forward with approval from local pols. That seems like a good idea to me.
Another popular provision is against cross-subsidization. That is a public utility(like electric or water) can't use income from those regulated utilities to keep broadband utility in the black to cover loses incurred in providing broadband. Another good idea in my opinion.
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.
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.
I'm not seeing any of the onerous provisions in your reply. Just more accusations.
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).
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.
If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind
When did I ever say that? They have the shareholders best interests in mind. But that is what actually creates jobs - investors create jobs. The government doesn't create jobs - except mostly do-nothing jobs created from taxing those who actually create things.
If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind
When did I ever say that? They have the shareholders best interests in mind. But that is what actually creates jobs - investors create jobs. The government doesn't create jobs - except mostly do-nothing jobs created from taxing those who actually create things.
The investors you are talking about do create jobs in China in India in the Philippines in Mexico in Taiwan. Those countries are producing something. We only produce consumers that buy the things they make.
The Government DO create jobs, only jobs your party line doesn't like. Who do you think made the road that you used to drive to your job this morning? Who do you think made that Airport that you use? Who do you think inspected that produce from Mexico to make sure you don't get ecoli? Who protects you and your family?
In this case private industry (AT&T) is blocking job creation. At&t doesn't want to provide a better service to the people of SC but they also don't want others to do it.
We already gave 300 billion dollars (in tax money) to the 'job creators' (at&t) to deploy fiber to the home and look what happened, they pocketed the money and we got phone line uverse.
You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself.
Pot meet kettle? I haven't read all of the legislation that's been pushed around in various states, but the pieces that I have read aren't onerous to municipalities. In fact, the legislation tends to be more fiscally conscious to ensure money is spent and accounted for appropriately. Something that all taxpayers should applaud.
You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself.
Pot meet kettle? I haven't read all of the legislation that's been pushed around in various states, but the pieces that I have read aren't onerous to municipalities. In fact, the legislation tends to be more fiscally conscious to ensure money is spent and accounted for appropriately. Something that all taxpayers should applaud.
Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue.
In Washington State the connection itself was outlawed and can only be provided by a private isp. Now you see all the public utilities here catering to the profits of these private companies instead of their utility customers.
Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue.
Wow. Silly me for being thankful for fiscal scrutiny.
Bull, it's a bunch of crap so the incumbents don't have to LOWER their price to compete. They pass these laws and they maintain their over the top profit margins.
Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue.
Wow. Silly me for being thankful for fiscal scrutiny.
Bull, it's a bunch of crap so the incumbents don't have to LOWER their price to compete. They pass these laws and they maintain their over the top profit margins.
Pass a law where AT&T's competitors decide what artificial deadlines AT&T must meet on upgrades and rollouts and profit margins--- or else must exit the market/forfeit.
Hey, it's all about the financial responsibility, after all.
I'm failing to understand what is so awful about ensuring municipalities cover their expenses in an equitable manner.
Because they never do, they subsidize the deployment of large expensive over many years or decades. Dams, power plants, sewer systems, water systems are never paid for up front but instead pay for themselves over a very long time.
If the incumbents NEED money NOW then that's their problem, not the municipality they don't want to compete with.
Because they never do, they subsidize the deployment of large expensive over many years or decades. Dams, power plants, sewer systems, water systems are never paid for up front but instead pay for themselves over a very long time.
I have yet to read proposed legislation that requires municipalities to front 100% of the capital for an infrastructure build.
....But what I haven't seen is how exactly they are supposed to be doing that. ...
how about outright bans? Note: this is in North Carolina
"This years push for anti-consumer legislation comes courtesy of Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg County). He reportedly wants a moratorium on all municipal broadband deployments on the alleged basis that these are bad for the private sector and will harm state tax revenue."
I know you're not stupid - don't pretend this is only about letting voters have a say on whether their city/town/county should develop their own broadband. Even if it's not an outright ban, the bills that get passed usually require so many hoops to be jumped thru to get approval that it is nearly impossible to proceed.
Even if a municipality manages to get thru the roadblocks put in their way, they will likely end up getting sued by the incumbent ISPs, making the process even more costly.
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)
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.
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..
That isn't entirely accurate. They can petition against deployment. They can't block it. That would be up to the state PUC.
Another popular provision is against cross-subsidization. That is a public utility(like electric or water) can't use income from those regulated utilities to keep broadband utility in the black to cover loses incurred in providing broadband. Another good idea in my opinion.
While I do agree, that may be a good idea, at the same time, the commercial entities have been using the hundreds of millions of dollars that the USF generates as a corporate slush fund to line their own pockets and add to their profit.
How is that any different from a Gov entity using profits from an alternate utility from an ethical standpoint.
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.
It's been my experience that when my local community set up it's own broadband service at a reasonable rate for high speed internet, the take up by users paid for itself in short order with no additional charges added to local taxes. Of course, that was ten years ago under a democrat controlled government . AT&T has been bitching ever since.
I don't see what the argument is. If AT&T or another isn't going to provide the service, then they should shut up and keep out of local politics.
Course, I had to move didn't I, like going back in time when a piece of string and two cans were more successful
My question is why don't these local governments go the private route. It should be easy enough to set up a private corporation, get loans or issue non-government bonds.
The only way a municipality can do this is to issue government bonds (NOT tax payer money btw), and actually sell the service themselves. The unsuccessful areas that tried to do this going the private route had no way of paying the debts off because all the money goes to the private operator. This kind of build out is not cheap and in order to make payments you have to have the revenue from the service. Its broadband as a utility, which is far overdue in this country
This bill is written, bought, and paid for by ALEC. Its almost exactly the same as the bill they tried to sneak through GA this year...even with the same broadband definition.
because corporations are people too. If they don't support community broadband, then we should just fall in line because they are people too. Go up to a corporation and give them a hug and thank them for all that they do for us!!
is definitely the way to get laws passed. Never ceases to amaze me that companies openly bribe lawmakers by contributing to "campaign funds". One wonders if there are any honest lawmakers in Congress or the state legislatures. There are probably a few, but basically Businesses have taken over the government at both federal and state level.