[TriLUG] OT: Bill banning Google Fiber to be heard Tuesday AM!

[Steve Pinkham]

On 03/07/2011 04:54 PM, matt at noway2.thruhere.net wrote:
> FWIW, after reading the legislation, I signed this petition contacted my
> representative stating why I am opposed to this bill.
> 
> I find it telling that it starts out in big bold letters stating that it
> is a jobs creation and protection bill.  It then goes on to state that any
> public competing providers must effectively charge the same rates and
> provide the same level of service as TWC.
> 

Could you quote the section that says they "must effectively charge the
same rates and provide the same level of service as TWC"?

I read the bill here:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129

and while the accounting requirements are annoying and the taxation
parts are unreasonable, there is nothing that I can read that limits
specifically the service offerings and/or  price of a community
broadband network.

The intent is to obviously to hobble as much as possible the (otherwise
likely) conversion to Internet access as a public service much like
roads and water.  It's a short sighted, knee-jerk response to a rapidly
changing technology, which rarely ends well.  On the other hand, we need
to be careful that we don't over-deamonize the bill and have our opinion
brushed aside as blind rage by free-market hating hippies or the like. ;-)

Has anyone written up a more detailed analysis of the bill?  I'd like to
be able to write a well reasoned analysis to my rep, who is a finance
committee member and perhaps to the local media as well.

Specifically, I don't understand the implications of "160A‑340.4.
Financing". Anyone speak enough lawyer to tell me what this means?