[TriLUG] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!

[David Both]

So it will basically prevent cities from doing what Wilson, NC did when Time 
Warner refused to provide decent service by starting their own service. Wilson, 
by the way provides _symmetric_ 10GB and 20GB (yes Gigabit) service via fibre to 
the home for about $49. More if you want to pay more. It is considered an 
infrastructure service like water and electricity.

This sounds like a bad deal to me, and that it is aimed directly at Wilson.

Don't get me wrong. I have TWC here at home and am getting good service from 
them. But probably better service than most because I pay for Business Class and 
have residential triple play to boot. But the asymmetric part sucks especially 
as upload speeds are limited to 750Mb.

I would love to have Wilson's service here in Raleigh because no way I want to 
move to Wilson.

On 03/15/2011 10:12 AM, David Burton wrote:
> Mark has some misconceptions about HB-129.
>
>
> 1. He says that if HB-129 passes, it'll cause usage caps on broadband
> service.
>
> That's nonsense. HB-129 has nothing at all to do with broadband usage caps.
>
>
> 2. He says that passage of HB-129 will mean "broadband competition is
> eliminated."
>
> That's the opposite of what HB-129 will do. It will promote competition, not
> eliminate it. That's the purpose of the bill!
>
> Here's the bill, read it for yourself:
>   http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H129v1.pdf
>
> HB-129 is designed to prevent cities from creating monopoly telecom services
> by stomping out private competitors through unfair practices, like abuse of
> zoning and land use regulations, or by offering subsidies for customers of
> the city telecom service that aren't offered to customers of competing
> private telecom services, or by using the city's newsletters to advertise
> the city's telecom service.
>
> Here's an excerpt that gives a good feel for the bill:
>
>
> (a) A city-owned communications service provider...
>
> (4) 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.
>
> (5) Shall provide nondiscriminatory access to private communications service
> providers on a first-come, first-served basis to rights-of-way, poles,
> conduits, or other permanent distribution facilities owned, leased, or
> operated by the city unless the facilities have insufficient capacity for
> the access and additional capacity cannot reasonably be added to the
> facilities. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "nondiscriminatory
> access" means that, at a minimum, access shall be granted on the same terms
> and conditions as that given to a city-owned communications service
> provider.
>
>
> If you want to let cities abuse their authority to stomp out private
> competition, then go ahead and oppose this bill. I don't. That's why I
> support HB-129.
>
>
> 3. Mark also accused Rep. Avila of "outrageous behavior."
>
> That's nonsense. I know Rep. Avila personally, and I know her to be one of
> the very best legislators in Raleigh. She is smart, level-headed,
> big-hearted, and completely honest. She is a careful listener, and a careful
> thinker.
>
> If, after carefully reading this bill, anyone still has concerns, then I
> encourage you to talk with her about them. But don't complain about things
> that actually aren't in the bill, just because someone else told you
> something that you haven't verified for yourself. Read the bill, and see for
> yourself what it says.
>
> Rep. Avila can be swayed by reason, but she won't be swayed by baseless
> emotion. You need to know what you're talking about when you talk to her
> about the bill!
>
>
> That said, let me add that I have no love for Time-Warner and AT&T. Both
> companies are deeply invested in the pornography business, and neither
> treats their customers fairly.
>
> For example, AT&T is currently in the process of ruthlessly squeezing
> independent broadband resellers like PortBridge out of existence. AT&T is
> required by law to allow resale of DSL, but the federal regulators aren't
> requiring them to allow resale of U-Verse, so they refuse to do so. So
> companies like PortBridge are stuck selling a product that is quickly
> becoming obsolete.
>
> Time-Warner is at least as bad. Their longstanding policy is to extract
> every possible nickel from their customers, by any means possible, fair or
> foul.
>
> Here's a minor example.
>
> Back when I signed up for Time-Warner cablemodem service, they had two
> prices. Cable TV customers got a lower price for Internet, and people like
> me who didn't get cable TV paid about $20/mo more. Later, they did away with
> that price differential, and set the price of internet to midway between the
> two previous prices. So they raised the price of internet for their cable TV
> subscribers, and lowered it for cablemodem-only subscribers.
>
> All their internet + TV customers got price increases. I should have gotten
> a price cut. But I didn't. They just kept billing me at the old, higher
> price.
>
> After 6 or 8 months, I learned of the pricing change, and called them up.
> The conversation went something like this:
>
> "Why are you billing me for more than the listed price of my service?" I
> asked.
> "You're on a different plan," I was told.
> "What's the difference between the plans?" I asked.
> "$10/month," was the answer.
> "No, I mean what *other* difference?" I asked.
> But there was no other difference.
>
> They agreed to switch me to the cheaper "plan." But they refused to refund
> the overcharges.
>
> They don't exactly follow the Golden Rule at Time-Warner.
>
>
> So, my point is that I certainly don't trust Time-Warner and AT&T. But I do
> trust Rep. Avila, and I trust my own eyes when I read the bill for myself.
> HB-129 is a good bill.
>
>
> Dave "the geek" Burton
> www.GeeksAlive.com
> M: 919-244-3316

-- 


*********************************************************
David P. Both, RHCE
Millennium Technology Consulting LLC
919-389-8678

dboth at millennium-technology.com

www.millennium-technology.com
www.databook.bz - Home of the DataBook for Linux
DataBook is a Registered Trademark of David Both