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

[Matt Flyer]

I have read this bill.  Multiple times in fact and I draw very different
conclusions regarding the fairness of its requirements.  Lets also
define the context of fair: fair to the citizens or fair to the
corporations.  Clearly "fairness" means advantageous to the
corporations.   Apparently fair means unregulated monopoly status.  You
claim that the "big bad gubmint" must not do anything that resembles a
monopoly, but it sure as is ok for a corporation to do so.  This bill
isn't about fairness any more than the patriot act was about patriots. 
It is about preventing the only real source of competition that is
likely to arise.

Lets take a look at the ones you have quoted. 

On 03/15/2011 10:27 PM, David Hostetler wrote:
> *(7)*        *Shall not subsidize the provision of communications service
> with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other
> revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas,
> water, sewer, or garbage services.*
Why shouldn't they be able to subsidize.  A municipality does not have
access to the same forms of capital that corporations do.  Furthermore,
while working for companies and being involved in financial negotiations
I am always hearing about this coming from this pot of money and this
coming from another pot and so forth.  Corporations can and do
"subsidize" one operation or facility with funds for another when it is
to their benefit.

> *(8)*        *Shall not price any communications service below the cost of
> providing the service, including any direct or indirect subsidies received
> by the city-owned communications service provider and allocation of costs
> associated with any shared use of buildings, equipment, vehicles, and
> personnel with other city departments. The city shall, in calculating the
> costs of providing the communications service, impute (i) the cost of the
> capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to
> private communications service providers in the same locality and (ii) an
> amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and
> other assessments that would apply to a private communications service
> provider including federal, State, and local taxes; rights-of-way,
> franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.*
This piece is a real winner.  Again why shouldn't they.  As was
previously stated, corporations do this all of the time.  Furthermore,
statements that they must account for the costs of capital as a
corporation would pay all the govt fees back to itself. or cost account
these in to the price of service is just plain ludicrous.  I will state
this again: this legislation is designed to give a municipality all of
the disadvantages of a private company and none of the advantages.
> *(9)*        *The city shall annually remit to the general fund of the city
> an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service
> provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is
> located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city-owned
> communications service provider because of its government status and a sum
> equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the
> city-owned communications service provider were a private communications
> service provider.*
This is more of the above.  As I have stated in prior posts.  They will
be expected to pay equivalent corporate tax rates.  This is just plain
bullshit.
> *
> Are not used for any service started before Jan 1, 2011.  It also states
> that the whole bill does not apply to areas without coverage and that
> private business has only 30 days to challenge the city if they intend to
> service non-covered areas ( non-covered means 90% or more without high speed
> access or satellite only access ).  As far as the definition of high speed,
> it says in the bill that it is defined by the FCC which according to this:
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0720/FCC-10-129A1.pdf
>
> <http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0720/FCC-10-129A1.pdf>Is
> 4Mbits down and 1Mbit up.  Really guys, you should read this stuff first.
>
This one is my favorite.  By this very definition: 4Mb down and 1Mb up,
most of the area serviced by TWC does NOT have high speed internet. 
According to this link on TWC's web pages
http://www.timewarnercable.com/East/learn/hso/cablevsdsl.html the
maximum upload speed available is 512Kb.  Note, the triangle area may be
different: this is for the Triad.