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

[Michael Peters]

On 03/15/2011 11:24 AM, David Burton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Michael Peters<mpeters at plusthree.com>wrote:
>
> That's complete nonsense.
> If there's no competition to kill, it doesn't apply.  *Read the bill*!  It
> says:
>
>   *(b) The provisions of G.S. 160A-340.1, 160A-340.4, and 160A-340.5 do not
> apply to the provision of communications service in an unserved area. *

Being served by a single provider is not competition. Thus, no 
competition to kill. And does this "unserved area" definition mean only 
areas without broadband? And does it define broadband at 768k?

So a community that has a single provider giving them an average of 768k 
download would have no recourse to try to improve their situation (to 
attract more business) except to beg to TWC, AT&T, etc?

> It just prevents them from offering fee-for-service internet in competition
> with private providers, and engaging in anticompetitive, monopolistic
> practices, like requring people to buy it,

I can get behind that, but tell me, what communities have tried to 
require their citizens to buy broadband from the city? Are any planning 
on it? Or is this just a scratch looking for an itch?

> or denying competitors access to
> the light poles

Can any private company use government resources without compensation?

>, or subsidizing the service with tax money until all the
> private competition has been driven out of business.

I don't hear anyone complaining about having less private toll roads 
anymore. Private and Government services each have their pros and cons. 
As someone else in this thread earlier mentioned, this bill is all about 
making municipal broadband have all of the cons of a government service 
and none of the pros.

If a local government can provide basic infrastructure at lower cost and 
better service than a private entity, then honestly, I'm all for that. 
And I believe it will stimulate the businesses and economies in the 
areas that do this.

> Yes, that is the question. Some people don't see anything wrong with a city
> taking over telecom services, so that citizens won't have a choice of
> service providers.

First off, I'd like to see you tell a resident of Wilson that they no 
longer have a broadband choice. That somehow their municipal service has 
killed off the private competition. I think they'd find that funny.

If I want to send a package or a letter I can choose the slower, cheaper 
government Postal Service. Or I can pay more and use the private and 
faster services of FedEx.

If I want to read a book I can use the government services of the public 
library and read a more beat up, possibly sticky (and only for a limited 
time) book. Or I can pay more and buy a new book (or a used book) from 
Amazon.

If these broadband companies face competition from local governments it 
doesn't mean you won't have a choice. It means they will have to 
innovate above being just a commodity. And if private companies can't 
compete with a local government with providing an infrastructure 
service, will we really be sad if they are gone?

-- 
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP