Time Warner Cable Muni-Fiber Killing Bill Moves Forward All Progress Made On Making NC Bill More Reasonable Stripped For the fourth time in four years, Time Warner Cable is pushing for a bill in North Carolina that would bury community fiber projects in bureaucratic red tape -- the goal being to stop successful fiber to the home projects deployed in Salisbury and Wilson, both of which offer a superior product to Time Warner Cable's own. While originally the bill's supporters appeared flexible to things like excluding existing fiber builds from the law -- or excluding areas that couldn't get 4 Mbps speeds -- Time Warner Cable and friends have managed to get all of those exceptions dropped, and the bill has passed the North Carolina legislature's Finance Committee. During debate of H.129, the anti-Community Broadband bill, North Carolina consumer interests were kept out of sight and mind as lobbyists worked their magic to get rid of Rep Bill Faison’s (D-Caswell, Orange) amendment that would set the state’s minimum acceptable definition of broadband at 4Mbps with a 1Mbps upload speed. With the help of several flip-flopping representatives, they got their wish. Faison’s amendment was designed to open the door to someone — anyone – to bring broadband into rural areas of the state. While Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink dawdle, large numbers of rural residents simply go without any broadband service. Regional politicians meanwhile are breathlessly defending criticism that they've been paid to pass the bill by incumbent ISPs, despite the fact they're precisely parroting company talking points. None of them can really answer why community rights should be stripped when they move to overcome market failure -- deploying upgraded infrastructure nobody else will due to a lack of serious competition. The bill now goes to the House floor, where locals involved in the fight tell us Time Warner Cable has the votes. The NC Senate will start driving their companion bill (S87) immediately, and it appears they also have the votes.
|
 | | Voters need to Vote someone else in. Wow! way to look out for your constituents best interests, NC legislature. You would think they would vote for someone else the next election, wouldn't you? | |
|  | | | Re: Voters need to Vote someone else in. they will vote for yet another corrupted politician.
what do you think the politicians are anyways ? Human beings ????
NOT !!!! | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| Re: Voters need to Vote someone else in. Because the Local Media in NC is not even bothering to cover this bill. For some reason after voters put in a Republican majority in the General Assembly first time in 50 some odd years. One Republican wants to this bill passed. We have another republican that wants the state to print its own money.
If the story spread a little more and got people's attention then the bill would die. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad "Shall not, directly or indirectly, under the powers of a city, exercise power or authority in any area, including zoning or land‑use regulation, or exercise power to withhold or delay the provision of monopoly utility service, to require any person, including residents of a particular development, to use or subscribe to any communications service provided by the city‑owned communications service provider."
Sounds to me like TWC wants to limit competition. If a municipality wants to compete with services with a cable company, I think it's in the spirit of open market capitalism for the municipality, as an entity, to be able to compete with a corporation. If you think of the city as a corporation, shouldn't they be allowed to compete in an open market? | |
| | | | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Read the bill - not so bad said by egilbe:If a municipality wants to compete with services with a cable company, I think it's in the spirit of open market capitalism for the municipality, as an entity, to be able to compete with a corporation. If you think of the city as a corporation, shouldn't they be allowed to compete in an open market?
But a city is not just a competitor. They are also a regulator thru their ability to pass ordinances controlling cable & telco distribution systems, using zoning, fees, etc. As soon as a municipality gets in to business, they can legislate disadvantages to their private competitors. The law is designed to prevent that abuse by city officials protecting their public enterprise.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad very true! But this bill allows for the cities to create a public-private venture and do the build out. It only stops the cities from spending the $$$ on their own. But as normal- BBR does NOT read the bill. | |
| | | | | | | DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | said by Romney2012:said by egilbe:If a municipality wants to compete with services with a cable company, I think it's in the spirit of open market capitalism for the municipality, as an entity, to be able to compete with a corporation. If you think of the city as a corporation, shouldn't they be allowed to compete in an open market?
But a city is not just a competitor. They are also a regulator thru their ability to pass ordinances controlling cable & telco distribution systems, using zoning, fees, etc. As soon as a municipality gets in to business, they can legislate disadvantages to their private competitors. The law is designed to prevent that abuse by city officials protecting their public enterprise. Actually, that is false. Telecom services in North Carolina are almost entirely deregulated, and what little authority is left is controlled by the state, not municipalities. AT&T saw to that several years ago with their statewide franchising reform bill.
Also, control of zoning is a complete non-issue because existing providers use existing rights-of-way for pole attachment and line burial. There is no example of a single municipality unfairly blocking an existing provider from building its network out. In fact, the entire reason these community-owned providers have launched is to deliver the service private companies won't.
H.129 was literally written by cable lobbyists and introduced by Ms. Avila. Anyone watching the video from the hearings will learn soon enough she does not have the first clue about this issue -- she just reads the talking points the lobbyists hand her.
The other "myth" is there is a free pass for public-private partnerships in this bill. The only companies that would be those "partners" are the same ones who have stonewalled the state for a decade. In fact, we tried to get an amendment in the bill encouraging partnerships with ISPs of all kinds (there are some small WISPs, for example). Avila said no.
The devil is in the details, and in the impact this bill would have. By exempting Time Warner, et al., H.129 would only micromanage community-owned networks on everything from how they market themselves to where they can provide service. My favorite part is where the bill allows community providers to sell out their fiber systems to big cable and phone companies for pennies on the dollar -- a nice acquisition that can come without the public vote Avila requires for EVERYTHING else.
It's a sham bill that does NOTHING to bring a single new broadband connection to a resident in the state.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad CableTV and Internet are NOT a telecom product. CableTV is just that CableTV. Internet is an Information Service. That is what they are classified as. And will NEVER be regulated anyway. So that is a moot topic.
The control of zoning is a very valid topic as the local munis are in control over those areas where the state has NOT taken control. So the cities can charge what they want and keep other companies out or from building out. The city also gets to profit from those areas by charging the providers $$$. They will NEVER charge their own departments for use of those same areas. That is a proven fact among how things get done.
And private companies WILL provide service. You and others are pissy due to the fact they will NOT provide service to you for dirt cheap like you want. If you want FTTH- Then pay for it. If you want 100/100Meg internet- then pay for it. Why should anyone else have to foot the bill for you to have it off their own money?? You don't pay for me to have access to the services I get so why Should I or anyone else pay for you?
And you are another one that has FAILED to read the actual bill. The bill does NOT stop Cities from anything that is claimed on here or even your blog. The bill only PREVENTS them from using THEIR OWN tax money and requires the cities to create a public-private partnership. | |
| | | | | | | | |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Read the bill - not so bad said by hottboiinnc: CableTV and Internet are NOT a telecom product. CableTV is just that CableTV. Internet is an Information Service. That is what they are classified as. And will NEVER be regulated anyway. So that is a moot topic. No, it's not. The point was the state has already stripped the cities of what regulatory control they had over cable TV; TWC certainly is not going to deploy a HSI-only network. They're going to run HSI over a cable TV network, so de-regulating cable TV SHOULD HAVE already given TWC what they wanted as far as the "barriers to entry" canard.
said by hottboiinnc: That is a proven fact among how things get done. By whom?
said by hottboiinnc:And private companies WILL provide service. You and others are pissy due to the fact they will NOT provide service to you for dirt cheap like you want. Why should anyone else have to foot the bill for you to have it off their own money?? You don't pay for me to have access to the services I get so why Should I or anyone else pay for you?....The bill only PREVENTS them from using THEIR OWN tax money and requires the cities to create a public-private partnership.
Private companies are not going to automatically provide service even if you are willing to pay. You know that. Why would they, if they don't want to, for whatever reason? Who is asking you in Ohio to pay for a local broadband effort in North Carolina?
Ask yourself the following:
If the local taxpayers want to use THEIR money for such an effort, why is any of your business?
If muni networks are such a bad idea, then why ban it? Shouldn't the problem take care of itself via the marketplace?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad There is no need to dereg Cable. It was NEVER really regulated before. The cities had NO control over what the company offered nor pricing. The state's didn't either. The FCC doesn't even hav much power over it. It's not a communications service at all. TV is what it is; TV that's it.
Go look at your own cities books. I can bet that the City Hall building does NOT pay the Water Department for water. That is proven that Cities DO NOT pay their departments for services it uses that the city offers.
Because when it comes down to it; its NOT the local tax payers that always pay in the end. It comes from the Federal Taxes from the RUS as well. Why should they use any money from the RUS to deploy a network? Also why should any 90yo person have to pay to deploy a network that'll never use? It's just not my money its the fact that these cities STEAL the money from any senior citizen that pays their taxes that will NEVER use any of the network. Is it far for them? No its not. The city should be more worried about providing advanced emergency services than worrying about deploying an FTTH network so they can filter out and report illegal activies.
Ban them because they steal from senior citizns and others that will NEVER use the network; and they'll NEVER make a profit. The IRS makes sure they will always be dependant on taxes from the start to the end of them going bankrupt. And when a network does go bankrupt- who do you think will pay for that mess? The CITY! and if the city goes bankrupt- who will pay for it? TAX payers! Everything a city does on their own dime comes back to their taxes. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Very true. And since I don't drive very much then why should my tax money pay for road repairs and paving projects? And I don't use parks very often so why should I be fleeced for the taxes to pay for you to run in a park? You don't need that. It should all be privatized and get rid of all the public perks at the taxpayer's expense. The schools aren't very good. I think those would do better in private hands really. And why should I have to pay to put out my neighbor's fire because he was too dumb to fix the electrical system in his house? I am tired of paying taxes for everyone else's benefits. I hardly if ever need any of the city or state or federal services. I can't understand why I have to pay taxes. It is just not right and not fair. Taxes are for dodos and sheep who will open their wallets for anyone who wants to steal from their pocket. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17
2 edits | I don't know how they do in Ohio, but it certainly is NOT "proven" that cities do not pay other internal departments for services rendered. If anything, I've found that that cities OVERCHARGE their internal utilities as a way to make up for decreased general taxes, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "they don't charge" thought.
Who said anything about a federal bailout if a municipal fiber project goes south? How many can you cite, as opposed to just saying? Your argument about the senior citizen is total garbage. That senior doesn't use the school system, probably doesn't call the police all that much, maybe doesn't use the parks, and probably doesn't drive all that much. So should this senior not pay for any taxes that go to those services? Conversely, I don't use my local senior center, nor am I on Medicare or Social Security, and my taxes pay for those things. Should I not have to pay those? It's not the taxpayers that are on the hook if a project goes south; it's the bondholders. Please show me an example of a senior taxpayer on the hook for a bad muni project.
"The IRS makes sure they will always be dependant[sp]" The fact that you're bringing the IRS into your post proves, with all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about. How is the IRS involved?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
| | | | | | | | DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
1 edit | You can toot your horn as much as you like, but making things up doesn't help your case.
The FCC classification of broadband as an "information service" was a joke when Son of Colin suggested it, is a federal issue not germane here, and was rendered effectively void in the DC Appeals case with Comcast.
We're also not talking about cable TV here -- you are, but nobody else. The rest:
Unincorporated areas of North Carolina not subject to local zoning is a state matter.
Every provider can charge whatever they want -- all but broadcast basic is deregulated.
No city can keep a provider in North Carolina in or out. It's a state issue.
Show me an example of any city pillaging telecom providers' money.
Once again, your attitude is all about you, you, you. You have service, so the problem is solved as far as you're concerned. Nobody is asking anyone for free 100Mbps broadband. The networks delivering it charge a fee for it. Those networks are publicly-owned and the only ones in the state providing that service to residential homes.
If private companies will provide service, where is it? There are large sections of western NC with NO broadband.
You are also completely wrong about these networks using tax money. They are established as separate entities and financed using bond money obtained from the private bond market with a hold taxpayers harmless clause built right in.
I have read H.129 at least a dozen times and analyzed it section by section on Stop the Cap! Your claims just don't hold water.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad I'm not making anything up. You're failing to see how these things work and only care about getting your internet from a dirt cheap source and helping other cities and their tax payers out by spending their money promoting something that shouldn't be promoted. Just like you tried to kill the TWC Cap and now the ATT cap- but in fact You phrase TWC for having a soft cap that they do NOT disclose; but is in writing on ALL of their websites including the help.rr.com and their own TWC help website for ALL areas.
CableTV was talked about before. And we? you weren't part of that until just now.
It can't be deregulated as the product was NEVER regulated in the first place nor ever seen any regulation. It's not even a utility as some on here want to try and claim.
Want one? They force the private providers to PAY ROW fees but the Cities do NOT pay for them. That is robbing them. They all want this level playing field- including you- then the Cities should pay for what ever they use as well. That creates a level playing field. And the only way to do that is to take the ROW out of the cities control and BILL them for it just like they would any private provider.
No the issue isn't about me. And i don't have that service. The Fact is these cities and communities DO HAVE access to the services already. There is no need to go and try to compete when a city is UNABLE to do that. They don't have the money nor will EVER have the money. They don't even charge enough to break even. Which they are allowed to do as long as they do NOT profit according to IRS code. You tell me how a City's FTTH network is going to break even when they're trying to under cut a private company offering the same products? they're paying MORE than they're charging for ANYTHING. Including their TV content.
Oh Private companies? HMMM! Let's see. Their is ATT Mobility, Cellco Partnership, LLP, T-Mobile USA, Sprint-Nextel Corp., HughesNet, WildBlue, and other WISPs that provide service. You fail to leave out the WISPs and the other wireless/cellular based services. Everything is about FTTH. When in fact as long as you can get EVDO you're still covered.
Analyzed section by section? Since when does a blog do that? Blogs only give opinions and no facts. Which most of your website is. It's not a news source, it's nothing but a name calling blog and should be should down by the DOJ. In fact- since you use Logos that are truly and legally trade marked- you should be sued and shut down for that. Something also that you forget. Your promote being for the people; in fact you were a NOBODY until this site give you the main stream and was picked up by ACTUAL news sites and you decided to be come "editor" of a one man operation on a blog. Smart eh? Not really. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Your correct. This guy is a criminal, eh? I agree. Most blogs should be censored and shutdown right away. The vast majority are useless and don't have any kind of useful information on them. Why do we let these people say whatever they want anyway? Who cares about their supposed rights when they can't even say anything intelligent or even be right about what they say? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad I like caps in messages. I don't use them myself much. But they are so nice because they are only used when someone is absolutely right. Kind of like when patriotic heroes like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh talk loudly on the radio. When they do this it is emphasize something that is true and correct without a doubt. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Whew... up until this point I wasn't sure of your sarcasm. Luckily you pushed it just far enough. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by hottboiinnc:I The Fact is these cities and communities DO HAVE access to the services already. There is no need to go and try to compete when a city is UNABLE to do that.
If that is the case then why are the communities complaining about a lack of service and wanting (actually being forced by the lacking incumbents) to do it themselves?
said by hottboiinnc:Oh Private companies? HMMM! Let's see. Their is ATT Mobility, Cellco Partnership, LLP, T-Mobile USA, Sprint-Nextel Corp., HughesNet, WildBlue, and other WISPs that provide service. You fail to leave out the WISPs and the other wireless/cellular based services. Everything is about FTTH. When in fact as long as you can get EVDO you're still covered. LOL, I see. So now if you can get wireless you are covered. Sorry but wireless is the dialup of broadband. It will never replace wired, especially in the future as consumption grows. Wait, isnt there a bandwidth crisis for all this wireless stuff already? | |
| | | | | | | | | | DampierPhillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY | Apparently I touched a nerve.
Rights of way fees is all you came up with? Let's discuss the difference for a moment.
There has been a longstanding principle that private users of city streets must pay fair compensation for the privilege of using public property. Private telecom companies are actually gaining right of access, in many cases in easements on public property, to install, run and maintain their services, even when that property belongs to someone that is not a customer. The ROW fee compensates cities who occasionally have to clean up private provider messes, provide traffic management services during major projects, and maintain the safety of that right of way.
Community owned networks are PUBLIC property. They are owned, operated and maintained by the community government, which answers to the people. Profits from them are returned to city coffers. The charade you propose would be for cities to bill themselves and pay themselves. That is why they do not pay these fees -- maintenance of rights of way are already a part of the city's responsibility to its residents.
Regardless, we are talking about a miniscule amount here in the context of the revenue stream of private providers. Time Warner Cable is not going to shutter its doors because it pays ROW fees. It more than makes up the difference with volume savings on programming and equipment.
Your views on whether communities have the money to pay for these networks are your opinions, not fact. You are entitled to them, of course, but I don't see a need to debate your opinion, so let's move on.
HughesNet and WildBlue represent satellite fraudband -- even NC regulators and lawmakers do not consider them representative of broadband because of their incredibly slow speeds and extremely low caps. Wireless cell phone service is hit or miss in the mountains of NC -- mostly miss. Besides, even if it was available, a usage cap of 2-5GB per month again does not represent the kind of broadband service legislators are talking about. They are not home broadband replacements. Even Rep. Avila doesn't argue that.
WISPs do not provide service to the vast majority of the state either.
We do not oppose AUPs that allow provisions to suspend accounts that create service problems for other customers. They are boilerplate in every AUP we've seen. Most providers enforce these responsibly -- which is to say rarely and with demonstrably good reasons. We do not consider the language a backdoor for caps unless a provider demonstrates they are using it that way.
We define broadband far beyond FTTH. Cable companies do not serve rural areas in general, and CenturyLink DSL is hit or miss, and does not meet the National Broadband Plan's minimum definition of broadband - 4/1Mbps service.
As to your characterizations of myself and the group of people that work to fight usage caps on STC, we greatly appreciate the strong emotional feelings you have about us. Agree or disagree, we've certainly made an impact on you to have such strong views!
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com | |
|
| | | | | | | | geod
join:2009-12-20
Brantford, ON Reviews:
·Primus Telecommu..
| said by hottboiinnc:And private companies WILL provide service. You and others are pissy due to the fact they will NOT provide service to you for dirt cheap like you want.
Yes, just like this...
»/r0/download/1···ized.jpg
Government of the People, by the Corporations and for the Corporations. | |
|
| | | | | | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Dampier:Actually, that is false. Telecom services in North Carolina are almost entirely deregulated, and what little authority is left is controlled by the state, not municipalities. AT&T saw to that several years ago with their statewide franchising reform bill.
Actually that is true. I looked it up for you if you want to read all about North Carolina's regulations. This bill will make ALL who provide service play by the same rules.
Welcome to the North Carolina Utilities Commission
quote:
Today, the Commission regulates electric, telephone (including payphone service and shared tenant service), natural gas, water, wastewater, water resale, household goods transportation, busses, brokers, and ferryboats.
»www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/
Broadband and CATV are not "Telecom"? Towns never franchised POTS. Where is your crying about Netflux not having to build the mayor an indoor pool?
If a town wants to compete with private enterprise this bill lets them; they just have to do it like any other business. Can at&t slop at the public trough if they run out of money? No but they MUST provide POTS to every outhouse as a fixed cost. | |
|
| | | | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Yes, very unfair.
Because the bill would mandate time warner to stop offering their services... right?
Whats unfair is having no competition, and TWC wants to keep that to a minimum, if any.
This Bill prevents competition, who cares if it's fair or not?
Not the consumer, just time warner. Does the consumer care about Time warner?
Why would they?
That is of course unless they did what they're supposed to, and offered a competitive service, then they'd care.
Why should we care as consumers about a company that offers 15 mbps, well into 2011?
I sure as hell don't care for obsolete service, the technology is there, they don't want to use it? too bad.
My money would go to someone who wants to use newer/better technology. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad did you read the bill? I'm sure you haven't the bill is NOT unfair and does NOT limit competition. It only requires a public/private venture to do the build out. the Cities are NOT allowed to spend the $$$ on their own. That's the only thing this bill limits. I suggest you go read it and actually maybe talk to the Rep. that is sponsoring the bill and moving it along instead of just posting messages on how its unfair and only going by what other blogs and sites are claiming when they in true are only out to get the hits from their advertisers.
And as far as obsolete technology? HFC is far from being obsolete. | |
| | | | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Right. It stops people from building out if no one else will. On top of it all, the bill makes it a NIGHTMARE for others to come in and actually start any new buildout in internet technology. Why? Because of those already in the area
It is a joke | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad not true. The city can hire a private company to do the build out. it doesn't even block from any other companies to building out. You're not doing anything but spreading fud like most others about this bill except going on what others on here claim. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Why would the city hire a private company to build a network they would be legally restricted from having anything to do with?
So you are saying a city should pay another company to build a network when the local incumbent wont do it but you don't want to see the city issues bonds (not guaranteed by the city) to build it themselves for even less then it would cost to pay someone to do it?
So you are for this, as long as it cost the city more money to do it?
And the final question: If these community built networks are so bad and so destined to fail, why are the local incumbents wasting so much of their current subscribers money (subscribers in other city and states as well) preventing that? They would be the big benefactors after it fails and they get to buy the networks for pennies. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad The city would NOT be able to issue bonds. That's the part you're failing to see. The city would either have to give them some break to come in- taxes- or talk them into coming in some other way. If they can't get a private company to come in with offering them tax breaks then there is a reason why they won't build; It is NOT worth spending the $$$$. Why do you think all the overbuilders stopped building out several years ago; it was not cost effective to even build out over top of someone else. Why do you think VZ stopped? Not enough up take. ATT? They did the same reason- NOT enough up take on the customer side for TV.
And it would NEVER cost the city more to do it. It would stop the CITY from spending THEIR money and the tax payer's money.
Because that is THEIR money they earned to do it with. And they can lobby legally. Cities CAN NOT lobby under IRS rules and regulations as being a non-profit. And they also ban these because the Cities do NOT have any right to be in a private business. Private companies take care of us now and will keep going. They've always done it. ATT is still around and they've been around for YEARS AND YEARS and decades; TWC is too and will always be. a Muni project; not always the case. And no they don't always get to buy the networks as they go to some other company trying to be the biggest and best over builder and fails. Look at the company that purchased iPROVO and went belly up- only to have to sell it again. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad Yeah ATT is one of the great american companies. I don't know why people criticize them. They have great ideas about how to deal with bandwidth hogs. These new caps are great because the stockholders will be happy with a little higher stock price in the coming months. Which is good because really the only responsibility ATT has is to their stockholders. The customers are important but only in so far as revenue is concerned. The merger with Tmobile is great. Profits will be higher and they can charge the customers more for their service. The customers are generally not very smart anyway. If ATT stock goes up and dividend payback is better for the stockholders then it reinforces their outstanding image as a responsible corporate citizen in America which they have always been. I don't know why people complain about them so much. | |
| | | | | | | | | | jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | said by hottboiinnc: Why do you think VZ stopped? Not enough up take. ATT? They did the same reason- NOT enough up take on the customer side for TV. Hmmmm, well, to listen to TWC, Verizon, and AT&T, it was all those regulatory "barriers to entry" that were the ONLY thing preventing them from deploying; thus they got a number of states (including North Carolina) to essentially de-regulate. How has that turned out? Where are the PROMISED price decreases? Where is all the competition? Why should anyone believe anything these companies say when they've been proven wrong?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | In your keyboard rage you failed to realize I was speaking of the community building it themselves with bonds, not tax payer money. Just as many do as it is the investors risk as they are not government backed and gauranteed as you keep talking about. | |
| | | | | | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by hottboiinnc:Cities CAN NOT lobby under IRS rules and regulations as being a non-profit.
Do tell.
quote:
Fibrant hires lobbyist...Salisbury City Council members voted unanimously Tuesday night to hire the city’s first lobbyist, Tom Fetzer of Fetzer Strategic Partners in Raleigh, at $5,000 per month.
»www.salisburypost.com/News/03161···rant-qcd
I can't spend all of my time keeping it true and real; I don't get any pay to click money. | |
|
| | | | | | Correct me if I am wrong but if I am a tax payer of that state then I can vote to do whatever it is I want with that money. Even if that means I can vote to use it to compete against a company that is unwilling to serve the community on its own for whatever made up reason it wants to use this time around.
Which by the way, is the entire reason why a community would even begin to look into doing this to begin with. Or have you conveniently overlooked that aspect to parade your continued BS? | |
| | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | Uncle Sam, by your reasoning, then, governments should also be prohibited from laying down roads, because that competes with private companies that might want to build toll roads?
The internet is a way of accessing information, which was originally invented as part of a government (defense) program. The fact that some companies today sell the service does not magically transform it into something that only private companies should ever be allowed to do. | |
| | | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Read the bill - not so bad said by Project2501 : The internet is a way of accessing information, which was originally invented as part of a government (defense) program. The fact that some companies today sell the service does not magically transform it into something that only private companies should ever be allowed to do.
So this is what you want? "That Congress declare a Government monopoly over all telegraph, telephone, and radio communication and such other means for the transmission of intelligence as may hereafter develop."
On July 22, 1918, the U.S. government declared that it was taking possession and control of all U.S. telegraph and telephone systems:
quote:
I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, ... do hereby take possession and assume control and supervision of each and every telegraph and telephone system, and every part thereof, within the jurisdiction of the United States, including all equipment thereof and appurtenances thereto whatsoever and all materials and supplies.
This from the "Postmaster General".
quote:
The founders of this nation were keenly alive to the importance of keeping exclusively under Government control all means of communication, and therefore provided in the Constitution that "the Congress shall have the power * * * to establish post office and post roads."
The framers of the Constitution probably never dreamed of postage stamps, railway postal cars, canceling machines, pneumatic tubes [used for delivering mail in Manhattan], telegraphs, telephones, aeroplanes, and radio equipment. They specified nothing concerning means of transportation or methods of distribution, but wisely left to future generations a broad provision under which they would have the right to avail themselves of such improved means of communication as might be discovered and developed. It was clearly their intention that the Government should control all means for the transmission of intelligence.
[We recommend] That Congress declare a Government monopoly over all telegraph, telephone, and radio communication and such other means for the transmission of intelligence as may hereafter develop.
| |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Read the bill - not so bad said by batterup:So this is what you want? "That Congress declare a Government monopoly over all telegraph, telephone, and radio communication and such other means for the transmission of intelligence as may hereafter develop." You offer a false choice between one extreme or the other. The government need not legislate which approach is better, in either direction. If certain things can provide services to more people at less cost when the government does them (especially things that can rightly be called "infrastructure" like roads, the internet and, yes, the postal service) then there is a legitimate case for government providing them. Just like private toll roads and FedEx, though, that does not have to eliminate private competition. The problem with the bill in question is that it is based solely on an extreme ideology (all services must only be provided by private companies) and not based on facts and observation about what actually works better. In Alexandria, VA, near where I live, the city has deployed public wireless all over town, yet that doesn't discourage people from having hard-wired internet in their homes, provided by private for-profit companies.
The only end results of this bill are that Time Warner doesn't have to compete, and that areas TW deems unprofitable simply get no service.
My suggestion to the people in towns that wanted to deploy their own broadband--form a large non-profit corporation that is not connected to the city government, try to sign up enough people throughout the town to finance it, and then when it is -done-, provide service for free to everyone who invested, and charge a fee to anyone who didn't. | |
| | | | | | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by batterup:So this is what you want? "That Congress declare a Government monopoly over all telegraph, telephone, and radio communication and such other means for the transmission of intelligence as may hereafter develop."
The fact that you offer such an extreme as the only choice shows how weak your argument is | |
|
| | | | | Re: Voters need to Vote someone else in. Actually, this is the first time republicons have been in power in NC in 115 years. And back then the republicans were the progressive party. Hmmm, if this bill passes I expect to see metered billing next in which case I will cancel my service with TWC. I don't care. They don't need me or my money.  | |
| | | | | | This can be fixed. Call all the local news stations. Pester them until they do a story. WXII, WFMY, Fox 8. Get on their case if is important. | |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| Get on the phones If you are in North Carolina, don't just e-mail your State legislators in the House and Senate, call them and express your outrage in no uncertain terms!
The last attempt got derailed by too much exposure. Lets make sure the lights are bright...
JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium
join:2000-09-20
Phone Room
kudos:2 | At what point... does the DoJ step in and take a look at what might be going on? | |
| |
See 17 replies to this post | |
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
| It's the same way here in Ohio At&t and Time Warner Hit the bulk of residents in the central parts of cities and leave outlying areas with no service. WISP's are trying to pick up some of the slack here. It's just like where I live, FAR from being rural yet apparently not good enough for them to run service out this way. Stops a half mile from my house. I've contacted Time Warner about it, they supposedly came out and did a site survey. Three days later I receive a generic bullshit response in the mail saying it's too expensive, stamped with the signature of some CEO jackass based up in Columbus that probably didn't even read it.
--
Core i7 920 @ 3.2ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | 2X EVGA 1GB GTX460 Video Cards | Antec 750w PSU | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Hypocrites " set the state’s minimum acceptable definition of broadband at 4Mbps with a 1Mbps upload speed"
Time Warner pushed for this, and by the definition obtained, Time Warner wouldn't even meet the critera for broadband in my area. Upload speeds on my connection are 384K. Way to go Time Warner. . .
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
| | | | Re: Hypocrites states can NOT define that. The Internet is an information source and there for not able to be regulated by anyone. Sorry. | |
| | | | | Re: Hypocrites Your right. Information and access to it is not a right. If you want information then expect to pay a lot to get it. Even utilities like gas, water, and electricity are not a right. Plenty of people survived without "utilities" before local companies and governments ever thought about providing them. People are such lemmings. | |
| | | | | | Re: Hypocrites You're right. Now to prove it you should make the first move and cancel your internet services today. That'll show 'em!
You'll be sorely missed. Really  | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| No Move Looks like I will not be moving to NC any time soon, not that it was ever on my list of states I would be moving to. Things are bad enough in NY but at least we have competition and no telcom industry laws that I am aware of.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | | Re: No Move go read the bill.... | |
|
| | | | Re: There is always the referendum read the bill. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: There is always the referendum Wow. Would you shutup already? It's obvious you yourself haven't read the bill. | |
| | | | | | Re: There is always the referendum yes I have read the bill. The only thing it stops is the cities from creating the network on their own $$. Instead requires them to create a public-private partnership. | |
|
| | and next... Just wait, those pesky people's referendum bills will be outlawed next. The people can not be allowed to have a say in how their lives are run. Politicians and corporations (wait...aren't they one in the same?!) know what is best. | |
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: and next... When it protects the Cities from unnecessary spending- they do not require a say so. These networks are not required to stay alive or anything. They're a privilege and that's it. If it was needed- they'd be regulated and would be available just like Water, Gas and Electric. | |
| | | Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: and next... Your argument is flawed on so many levels.
Gas and electric are not actually needed to stay alive either. Many humans currently live without gas or electricity just fine. Our ancestors did it for centuries. They are both a "privilege" as well.
I will agree with you though that water is necessary to life so that we can keep spending on.
It is not unnecessary spending if the citizens of the municipality choose to implement a community fiber project by majority vote. It is no ones business how their money is spent but those taxpayers. Those in the minority who do not agree with the vote are free to move to another town where the taxpayers chose not to implement something like this. Huh, I guess they are right...there are choices. | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Letter I Sent to My Rep I sent this a week or more ago and of course, have not received a response.
quote:
Mr. Faircloth,
I am a young technology professional who has lived in Guilford County since age 3. I am concerned about the impact of House Bill 129[1] on the citizens, businesses, and educational institutions in our area.
In vast swaths of the state, we have access to very slow, yet very expensive, internet broadband service. If you look at where our state ranks based upon the actual "speed" delivered to citizens, we're ranked 34th in the nation.[2] If you choose a much better metric, "value" (price per Mbps of speed delivered), we are ranked 29th -- with the average citizen paying $6.63 per Mbps of speed delivered.[3] In Guilford County the situation is even worse, as we pay on average $7.58 per Mbps delivered. That shifts the citizens of Guilford County to 40th place in the nation based upon price per Mbps.
Banning local municipalities from delivering service in areas that are underserved, as we are in Guilford County, is a disservice to the citizens of our state and goes against the spirit that our country was founded upon; that is the right of local government to step in and provide a needed service that its citizens want.
If you look at other cable operators around the country or in non-AT&T areas served by Verizon, they have been rolling out next generation high speed internet connectivity for years now. Even comparatively tiny North State Communications offers next generation broadband, as I have access to fiber optic service, at symmetrical speeds, for an extremely reasonable $2.74 per Mbps of speed delivered. From North State Communications, I can purchase a 20Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload internet connection for what I would pay for a 7Mbps download and 384Kbps (that's .384 Mbps) upload connection from Time Warner.
I am vehemently against government regulation of private business in all but the most egregious situations, but banning citizens of a municipality from exercising their Constitutional right to vote to improve their lives is appalling.
I hope the serious nature of this matter is impressed upon you and you take action to prevent North Carolina's future from becoming beholden to AT&T and Time Warner.
Thank for for your time.
Respectfully,
(Address Removed)
1. »www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/20···29v1.pdf
2. »www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/
3. »www.netindex.com/value/2,1/United-States/
| |
| decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| Anythings possible Where I live (Dickson, TN) our local government realized that yet another tax increase with nothing to show on the property owners would result in possibly a burnt down city hall. So, instead they did a special meeting and pushed a bill through that added 10 dollars to EVERYONES light bill to pay for their horrible landfill mistake over 40 years ago that contaminated water supplies and killed many with cancer...
Either way, the community is gonna have to pay for stupid things.. We might as well benefit from it from time to time (meaning Muni-Fiber).
As long as the entire county area was serviced, i'd pay it. At least I can "see" the benefit from what i'm paying on.. Not some imaginary fluff like the estimated cost of our one day of no fly zone and air raid in libya of 100 million..
Seriously, did we loose ten planes or something? Thats a freak load of cash for one venture! | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
1 edit | Shills People like hotboiinnc are obvious shills. While it's fun to watch them get burned from time to time by interested and informed parties, wouldn't it be better to just ban them outright? | |
| | | |  chazpawPremium
join:2007-03-28
Terrell, TX
1 edit | Re: Shills I wholeheartedly agree, sonicmerlin. I often wonder who pays him, hottboiinnc, to write his posts. | |
| | | | | Re: Shills You have to assume that anyone who goes to the trouble to portray an online persona called "hot boy" is likely neither hot nor young. | |
|
| | | B124 Well, as suggested by one of the less intelligent posters in this forum, I read the bill. Actually, it didn't change my opinion much. First and foremost why would a city have to pay taxes on their own property. This is BS. They already own the property and governments do not pay taxes. More whiney, crying BS from TWC and ATT.
Furthermore, the other problem are with the provisions of the bill that limit the area in which a public broadband network may be built. So why can't they go outside the city limits if they want? A provider won't provide service in such areas in many cases. They lose out so the local community government provides a service that the private sector refuses to provide.
One thing from the bill I DO agree with is the provisions for getting proposals from the private sector. However, this should be done in parallel with the city creating its own proposal for a network. And then making a choice by comparing the proposals. If the private company has a better or similar proposal for unserved or underserved areas then their proposal should be considered.
I should add that the bill blatantly mentions MONOPOLY utilities. It is so directly written to flaunt in the face of the citizens of this state that is just downright gross. To simply say "We are the ISP's and we don't care about the customers, only our own revenues".
The rest of the bill is just pandering for the slow, sluggish, lazy, fat cat internet providers who refuse to expand and upgrade their service in NC. Also, by forcing local governments to pay property tax on their own facilities it is BIG GOVERNMENT stepping in to take away local power from people on the local level. Republicons always talk about decentralizing government and reducing the role of big government in local affairs and yet this bill would increase power of the state government to interfere in the local affairs of citizens and the local affairs of local governments where they should have their own autonomy. | |
|
| |
|
|
Read the bill - not so bad
