[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading

Neil L. Little nllittle at embarqmail.com
Fri May 1 13:43:27 EDT 2009


Now wrap that up into an email/snailmail and fire it off to your rep/senator

73,
Neil, Wa4azl

Shawn Hartsock wrote:
> Aside from the other arguments made, this bill fundamentally changes
> the relationship of regulation to telecommunications. It explicitly
> defines that telecommunications are not like water, sewer,
> electricity, or garbage. This implies the attitude that high speed
> internet access is not a vital infrastructural feature to a community.
>
> My question is: Why is internet service unlike those services? Is the
> internet fundamentally different? Is the internet not a vital
> infrastructure like roads are?
>
> Passing this bill will codify the point of view of today's law makers
> on tomorrows generations. It will solidify the stance that the
> internet is a luxury that you do not need it to survive, thrive, or
> conduct business and is therefore not in the domain of Public Utility.
> It will make NC much less attractive to companies that view the
> internet and new technologies as vital to their survival.
>
> In summary: it will indeed level the playing field at the price of
> making the field worthless. The playing field is indeed unfair but,
> incidentally, guess who owns the playing field? You do. Not passing
> this bill will create an unfair environment that favors the citizens
> of North Carolina.
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Joseph Tate <dragonstrider at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> So to take devil's advocate here for a minute, besides the "80%
>> access" rule -- which I think should be made 99% or even 100% because
>> 80% is a cop out to the 80-20 rule -- and the "the cost of the capital
>> component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to
>> private communications service providers in the same locality" --
>> which I think shouldn't have to be linked to the credit ratings of
>> commercial enterprise -- what's wrong with this bill*?  And why
>> shouldn't it be extended to cover other existing utilities?  It states
>> that the local run infrastructure should have to remit the same sorts
>> of fees and taxes that a private enterprise would have to in operating
>> the infrastructure to the local coffers.  And therefore the locally
>> provided "utility" can't use it's position of government to unfairly
>> compete with private enterprise.  How is this construed as "Time
>> Warner et al are trying to block municipally owned internet".  Which
>> items in particular are the "blocking" passages?
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> * full text of the bill here:
>> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H1252v2.html
>> it only takes a few minutes to read.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:46 PM, mgmonza <mgmonza at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I hadn't seen this mentioned yet.  Time Warner et al are trying to block
>>> municipally owned internet:
>>>
>>> http://www.techjournalsouth.com/news/article.html?item_id=7334
>>>
>>>
>>> H/T to an anonymous BBS poster.
>>> --
>>> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>>
>>>       
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Tate
>> Personal e-mail: jtate AT dragonstrider DOT com
>> Web: http://www.dragonstrider.com
>> --
>> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   



More information about the TriLUG mailing list