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

[David Hostetler]

Well clearly the anti-bill folks here are really just socialist in nature
and nothing said to the contrary will be convincing enough.  OK comrade
Flyer, you must be right, all socialist theories are well and good and even
though capitalism has been shown through history to be more stable your idea
is definitely better....   Or you're being quite foolish.

----
Dave Hostetler
M: 919.333.0591
hostetler.david at gmail.com


On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Matt Flyer <matt at noway2.thruhere.net>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> --
> This message was sent to: Dave Hostetler <hostetler.david at gmail.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/hostetler.david%40gmail.com
> TriLUG FAQ          :
> http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>