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

[Joseph Tate]

I appreciate the response.  Gives me a few real talking points with
regard to the bill's wording.  When people who know don't share, it
keeps people who don't ignorant.  :)

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Charles Fischer <fischer at 4pi.com> wrote:
> I think the 80% access rule is enough that the bill should be killed.
>
> The cost of capital should not have to be local.  The private communications
> service providers will shop for the best rates including investors, so the
> city should also shop for the best rate.
>
> The private communications service providers will piggyback their service
> onto existing cable or phone systems.  To make the city charge what it would
> cost to build a service from scratch would be wrong.
>
> As a tax payer, if a city can provide a utility cheaper, I want the city to
> do so.  That is true for water, sewer, trash and Internet.  Some things
> private companies do better, some things the government does better and a
> few like the Internet may depend on location.
>
> I really should have treated this like BBQ posts.
>
> -Charles Fischer
>
>
> At 11:13 AM 5/1/2009, you 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
>
> --
> 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