NC Repug Big Govt squashes community initiative

[boutons_deux]

... so corps can maintain their rip-off cartel

Open Letter to North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue: Support Community Broadband


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-05-20-broadbandgraph.png

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/an-open-letter-to-north-c_b_864562.html?view=print

Purdue's/Repug bullshit reasoning? Can't let little rural communities, (democratically operating, self-reliant, independent, seizing the initiative) bully the autocratic, hyper-rich mega-corps:

"There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector"

http://stopthecap.com/2011/05/20/breaking-news-analysis-gov-purdue-will-not-veto-h-129-even-though-she-hints-she-wanted-to/

This NC situation exposes a fundamental, hidden VRWC/Repug strategy: limit/trash govt, any govt, even local self-government, and make people dependent on for-profit corps. That strategy is the entire thrust of Ryan's sick-care reform.

[boutons_deux]

U.S. lagging in broadband adoption, speed: FCC report

the United States ranked ninth out of 29 countries for mobile broadband adoption on a per capita basis, and 12th out of 33 countries for percentage of households with fixed broadband

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-usa-broadband-adoption-idUSTRE74J7D920110521

United Kingdom, South Korea and Iceland were among countries to top the United States' 63 percent broadband adoption rate.

[Wild Cobra]

How many times now are you wishing for legislators to either subsidize providers, or push the out?

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you so supportive of government supported monopolies and oligopolies, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Why are you so supportive of government supported monopolies and oligopolies, WC?
I don't. Any time I have seen similar legislation, the law makers are either subsidizing with other peoples money, or pushing regulations counterproductive to profit. No profit, no motivation to innovate.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't.It's clear you don't realize you do.
No competition, no motivation to innovate.Fixed.

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't this the same bill we debated earlier?

Anyone see the vote (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/billlookup/billlookup.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129)?

84:32 in the house and 39:10 in the senate.

Remember, it does allow government subsidies to areas that broadband companies have no good coverage in. Don't you get it, it's an anti-subsidy bill. Those of you who disapprove of this bill, I bet don't approve of subsidies to the energy industry.

Read the text, here's the ratified version (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/sessions/2011/bills/house/pdf/h129v6.pdf):

[boutons_deux]

"anti-subsidy bill"

It stops communities from providing their own Internet access.

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:

"anti-subsidy bill"

It stops communities from providing their own Internet access with tax payer dollars at prices that would put for profit business out of business.

[boutons_deux]

where does the forbidden, nasty tax money come from?

[ChumpDumper]

Government created oligopolies must be preserved at all costs.

[Wild Cobra]

where does the forbidden, nasty tax money come from?
From those of us who already pay too much in taxes and want to pay less.

[Wild Cobra]

Government created oligopolies must be preserved at all costs.
If you say so.

I would like to see more competition, but not by the government.

[ChumpDumper]

If you say so.

I would like to see more competition, but not by the government.What innovations are cable and phone companies working on for internet in rural NC?

[boutons_deux]

From those of us who already pay too much in taxes and want to pay less.

typical WC mealy-mouthed, weasal-ly non-answer.

If the communities pay increased local taxes to finance their own Internet, that's wonderful socialism at work.

If they use USF money to build Internet, that's nothing new. Red-state, rural bubbas have been benefitting for decades from having their telephone, and now Internet, service paid for by everybody else. That's wonderful socialism at work

Since these communities don't have bb Internet already, or have a really shitty bb Internet, it's because, as with rural telephony, uneconomical for private, capitalistic companies to provide it.

[ElNono]

Hard to claim that the PO utility is 'competing' with the private sector ones when the private sector doesn't even offer comparable products. The only overlapping tier is the highest TWC cable speed (10 MBps) which matches the lowest tier of the PO utility.

Furthermore, I don't hear residents in the affected NC areas complaining about their taxes being used inappropriately in this venture. I only hear bitching from some dude in Portland, OR.

[ChumpDumper]

WC is an authoritarian who doesn't believe in local government.

[Wild Cobra]

Hard to claim that the PO utility is 'competing' with the private sector ones when the private sector doesn't even offer comparable products. The only overlapping tier is the highest TWC cable speed (10 MBps) which matches the lowest tier of the PO utility.

Furthermore, I don't hear residents in the affected NC areas complaining about their taxes being used inappropriately in this venture. I only hear bitching from some dude in Portland, OR.
Experience.

Downtown Portland had free wireless internet for a while before they couldn't subsidize it any longer, hurting us in the process building the infrastructure.

This was also a city counsel decision. Not a decision of the tax payers by vote.

[ChumpDumper]

Because Portland is rural North Carolina, and the city council is not democratically elected.

[ElNono]

Experience.

Downtown Portland had free wireless internet for a while before they couldn't subsidize it any longer, hurting us in the process building the infrastructure.

How did it hurt you building the infrastructure? I'm sure the infrastructure is still in use today. Did the private sector had an interest building the infrastructure in the first place?


This was also a city counsel decision. Not a decision of the tax payers by vote.

Again, I don't see the NC voters in the affected areas up in arms about this. Do you?

[Wild Cobra]

A brief history of a failed subsidized service:

Citywide WiFi comes to Portland (http://www.mobiletechnews.com/info/2006/04/13/000944.html)

Portland's "Free-Internet" Provider, MetroFi, Bites The Dust (http://www.pdxpipeline.com/2008/05/22/portlands-free-internet-provider-metrofi-bites-the-dust/)

At least a private network is being established:

As free Wi-Fi blinks out in Portland, Ore., paid wireless expands (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071408-stephouse.html)

[ChumpDumper]

You haven't answered this, WC.
What innovations are cable and phone companies working on for internet in rural NC?

[Wild Cobra]

Again, I don't see the NC voters in the affected areas up in arms about this. Do you?
They can move to a different state if they don't like the protection of jobs in that state.

Can you say States Rights?

Like it or not, the legislators saw a clear interference with a for profit business. You can disagree with them if you want, but the vote was almost 80%.

[ChumpDumper]

They can move to a different state if they don't like the protection of jobs in that state.:lol you really swallow all the talking points eagerly, don't you. And you try to call other people lemmings.


Can you say States Rights?You already proved you don't believe in local government.


Like it or not, the legislators saw a clear interference with a for profit business. You can disagree with them if you want, but the vote was almost 80%.They were bought off by cable and phone lobbyists. For profit business is already interfered with by the oligopolies and the governments that put them in place. And you are their useful idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

They were bought off by cable and phone lobbyists. For profit business is already interfered with by the oligopolies and the governments that put them in place. And you are their useful idiot.
Wow...

If you have evidence of that corruption, we need to see that!

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

If you have evidence of that corruption, we need to see that!I didn't say it was illegal. That's the worst part.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, did you ever think the lack of internet infrastructure in rural NC could be hindering economic growth and job creation in that area?

[ChumpDumper]

lol I just asked WC if he ever thinks.

[ElNono]

A brief history of a failed subsidized service:

Citywide WiFi comes to Portland (http://www.mobiletechnews.com/info/2006/04/13/000944.html)

Portland's "Free-Internet" Provider, MetroFi, Bites The Dust (http://www.pdxpipeline.com/2008/05/22/portlands-free-internet-provider-metrofi-bites-the-dust/)

At least a private network is being established:

As free Wi-Fi blinks out in Portland, Ore., paid wireless expands (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071408-stephouse.html)

Which is a terrible example, seeing that these NC utilities are not a free service, and private network operators are available.

But thanks for pointing out your 'experience' is a non-sequitur.


They can move to a different state if they don't like the protection of jobs in that state.

What job protection? The PO utility is simply providing a service that the private sector is unwilling to provide.


Can you say States Rights?

What?


Like it or not, the legislators saw a clear interference with a for profit business. You can disagree with them if you want, but the vote was almost 80%.

So you don't have a problem with the Patriot Act either seeing that it was overwhelmingly renewed multiple times with ample majority...

On that note, I don't want to EVER hear you complain about Obamacare, government spending or anything else that the majority of legislators thought it was a good idea in detriment to citizens.

[Wild Cobra]

What job protection? The PO utility is simply providing a service that the private sector is unwilling to provide.

If that's the case, it's not prohibited by the bill.

Did you read the bill?

[ElNono]

If that's the case, it's not prohibited by the bill.

Did you read the bill?

I did back then when we discussed it. So, what does States rights has to do with this?

I should add, the solution to unavailability of services to rural America being just 'to move' is a fairly naive concept. Par for the course, I guess.

[Wild Cobra]

I did back then when we discussed it. So, what does States rights has to do with this?
The states are recognized as being able to control lower levels of government. The deeper issue would be if there is a state constitution argument.

I should add, the solution to unavailability of services to rural America being just 'to move' is a fairly naive concept. Par for the course, I guess.
If the service isn't available, then they can have the subsidy. Am wrong?

Question is, will the government subsidize an area the providers skip due to cost analysis?

Should they?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should a government formed monopoly be allowed to dictate the availability and speed of internet service for rural North Carolinians?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe we should focus on this.

What projects has this prevented, or what planned projects has it stopped?

Any examples out there?

If so, let's look at the details rather than just a law that might not do anything.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe we should focus on this.

What projects has this prevented, or what planned projects has it stopped?

Any examples out there?

If so, let's look at the details rather than just a law that might not do anything.It's a safe bet that many businesses have requirements for internet infrastructure and speed, the lack thereof would preclude the location of such businesses in areas the did not meet those requirements. By forbidding municipalities from meeting those requirements on their own, the state government has left them at the mercy of the monopoly/oligopoly internet providers in those areas -- who are no longer pushed by the threat of competition to improve service in those areas.

I don't know why you hate competition and completely dismiss the economic plight of rural populations, but whatever.

[ElNono]

The states are recognized as being able to control lower levels of government. The deeper issue would be if there is a state constitution argument.

I still don't follow where that's going with regards to a Publicly Owned utility, which is what these ISPs are. How are they any different from Municipal or Cooperative utilities?


If the service isn't available, then they can have the subsidy. Am wrong?

Yes, because these utilities (at this time) are not subsidized. They're simply being barred from providing a better service, even for profit.


Question is, will the government subsidize an area the providers skip due to cost analysis?

Should they?

Sure they do, considering providers and the government have different goals. Providers care about their bottom line. Government should care about providing better conditions to expand those areas. Why does the government build and maintain roads to those areas, if the cost analysis from the private sector doesn't support it?

Why did the government create the Universal Communication Access Fund?

Private companies receive that subsidy from the government. Why is it different/bad for a PO utility to receive something similar?

Where does State rights or the US constitution says that only private for-profit ventures need to be protected?

[Wild Cobra]

U.S. lagging in broadband adoption, speed: FCC report

the United States ranked ninth out of 29 countries for mobile broadband adoption on a per capita basis, and 12th out of 33 countries for percentage of households with fixed broadband

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-usa-broadband-adoption-idUSTRE74J7D920110521

United Kingdom, South Korea and Iceland were among countries to top the United States' 63 percent broadband adoption rate.
Have you by chance noticed how the price/mbs decreases as population density increases?

Hint...

Less fiber and cable to run.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, because these utilities (at this time) are not subsidized. They're simply being barred from providing a better service, even for profit.

Show me please. Where are those provision in the new law.

[ElNono]

Maybe we should focus on this.

What projects has this prevented, or what planned projects has it stopped?

Any examples out there?

If so, let's look at the details rather than just a law that might not do anything.

Maybe we should focus on why monopolies were granted to the private companies to begin with, and why they all get subsidized by the government to provide high speed service to these rural areas but failed to do so.

Or maybe we need to focus on why these PO utilities provide a much better service for a fraction of the cost and still turn in a profit.

[ElNono]

Show me please. Where are those provision in the new law.

I understand that the new law prohibits subsidies to these companies. Why it doesn't also prohibit the subsidies to private for-profit companies?

Show me please.

[ElNono]

Have you by chance noticed how the price/mbs decreases as population density increases?

Hint...

Less fiber and cable to run.

Everybody that wants internet should just move to the city... and we should just stop trying to make our rural areas competitive. That's a great plan.

[Wild Cobra]

I understand that the new law prohibits subsidies to these companies. Why it doesn't also prohibit the subsidies to private for-profit companies?

Show me please.
Show me how they are subsidized. I'm not aware of any.

It specifically baselines it with the current players:

"§ 160A-340.1. City-owned communications service provider requirements.
(a) A city-owned communications service provider shall meet all of the following requirements:
(1) Comply in its provision of communications service with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements applicable to the provision of the communications service if provided by a private communications service provider.

etc. etc.

[ChumpDumper]

We, the undersigned private-sector companies and trade associations, urge you to oppose H129/S87 (Level Playing Field/Local Competition bill) because it will harm both the public and private sectors, stifle economic growth, prevent the creation or retention of thousands of jobs, hamper work force development and diminish the quality of life in North Carolina. In particular, this bill will hurt the private sector in several ways: by curtailing public-private partnerships, stifling private companies that sell equipment and services to public broadband providers, and impairing educational and occupational opportunities that contribute to a skilled workforce from which businesses across the state will benefit.

The United States continues to suffer through one of the most serious economic crises in decades. The private sector alone cannot lift the United States out of this crisis. As a result, federal and state efforts are taking place across the Nation to deploy both private and public broadband infrastructure to stimulate and support economic development and jobs, especially in economically distressed areas. North Carolina has been the beneficiary of these efforts, as MCNC, with its $148 million award, is now building a state-of-the-art fiber optic network that will cross 106 counties and make available low-cost, internet connections to numerous high-cost, low-density, communities that the state’s private providers have chosen not to serve. H129/S87, with its burdensome financial and regulatory requirements, will prevent public broadband providers from building the sorely needed advanced broadband infrastructure that will stimulate local businesses development, work force retraining and employment in these economically depressed areas.

Consistent with these expressions of national unity, public entities across America, including North Carolina, are doing their share to bring affordable high-capacity broadband connectivity to all Americans. Enactment of direct or effective barriers to municipal broadband such as H129/S87 would be counterproductive to the achievement of these goals. It would also be inconsistent with our country’s National Broadband Plan, which recommends that no new barriers be enacted and that existing barriers be removed.

We support strong, fair and open competition to ensure that users can enjoy the widest range of choices and opportunities. H129/S87 is a step in the wrong direction. North Carolina should be removing barriers to public broadband initiatives rather than establishing new ones, so that high technology companies can spread and prosper into all the communities in this beautiful state. Please oppose H129 and S87, and any other measures that may emerge that would significantly impair municipal broadband deployments or public-private partnerships in North Carolina.

Sincerely,

Alcatel-Lucent, American Public Power Association, Atlantic-Engineering, the Fiber to the Home Council, Google, Intel, OnTrac, Telecommunications Industry Association, and Utilities Telecom Council. http://www.muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/Joint%20Industry%20Letter%20To%20North%20Carolina% 20leadership%20opposing%20H129-S87-Feb%202011.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

What innovations are cable and phone companies working on for internet in rural NC?
It doesn't matter. Someone else and even a government sponsored entity can come in and provide a better service. They just cannot do it at a loss, or with subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, did you ever think the lack of internet infrastructure in rural NC could be hindering economic growth and job creation in that area?
What do you mean by rural? The bill covers city areas.

[ChumpDumper]

It doesn't matter. Someone else and even a government sponsored entity can come in and provide a better service. They just cannot do it at a loss, or with subsidies.When do they have to show a profit?

Are private companies forbidden from working in an area at a loss?

[Wild Cobra]

Or maybe we need to focus on why these PO utilities provide a much better service for a fraction of the cost and still turn in a profit.
They provide a better service because they are subsidized.

That's what the bill is about. To force compliance with the 1929 Umstead Act (http://www.main.nc.us/~johansen/Umstead/Umstead1.html). This act recognized that government can kill jobs when it competes against the private sector.

Maybe you should focus on changing that if you don't like it.

[ElNono]

Show me how they are subsidized. I'm not aware of any.

The Communications Act of 1934 first established the concept of making affordable basic telephone service available to everyone everywhere within a nation, state, or other governmental jurisdiction. This concept led to the formation of a fund known as the Universal Service Fund (USF), which was finally codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In some cases, the concept has been widened to include other telecommunications-information services, mainly Internet access.

Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas in order to ensure that all the people in the United States have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with sufficient facilities at realistic charges.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service – to include other services, such as rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries.

[ElNono]

They provide a better service because they are subsidized.

Telcos are subsidized too. That's not an excuse.


That's what the bill is about. To force compliance with the 1929 Umstead Act (http://www.main.nc.us/~johansen/Umstead/Umstead1.html). This act recognized that government can kill jobs when it competes against the private sector.

Maybe you should focus on changing that if you don't like it.

Do you read what you post?


(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:

Counties and municipalities.


There's no such thing as a 'law to force compliance' with another law. It should be fairly obvious why. Furthermore, there's not a single mention of jobs in the Umstead Act, which renders your interpretation of the reasons under the act completely worthless, much like the rest of your post.

[MannyIsGod]

People can't decide for themselves if they want to have these type of businesses. No, money has to go to shitholes like ATT and TW. Stupid fucking logic on display here but considering its WC I'm sure no one is surprised.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you read what you post?


(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:

Counties and municipalities.


OK, I missed that one.

I will revise that in saying they used the ideals behind the act to apply to this topic.