Reply With Quote
WC, did you ever think the lack of internet infrastructure in rural NC could be hindering economic growth and job creation in that area?
I didn't say it was illegal. That's the worst part.
WC, did you ever think the lack of internet infrastructure in rural NC could be hindering economic growth and job creation in that area?
lol I just asked WC if he ever thinks.
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.
What job protection? The PO utility is simply providing a service that the private sector is unwilling to provide.
What?
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.
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.
The states are recognized as being able to control lower levels of government. The deeper issue would be if there is a state cons ution argument.
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?
Why should a government formed monopoly be allowed to dictate the availability and speed of internet service for rural North Carolinians?
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 compe ion to improve service in those areas.
I don't know why you hate compe ion and completely dismiss the economic plight of rural populations, but whatever.
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?
Yes, because these utilities (at this time) are not subsidized. They're simply being barred from providing a better service, even for profit.
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 cons ution says that only private for-profit ventures need to be protected?
Have you by chance noticed how the price/mbs decreases as population density increases?
Hint...
Less fiber and cable to run.
Show me please. Where are those provision in the new law.
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.
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.
Everybody that wants internet should just move to the city... and we should just stop trying to make our rural areas compe ive. That's a great plan.
Show me how they are subsidized. I'm not aware of any.
It specifically baselines it with the current players:
etc. etc."§ 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.
It doesn't matter. Someone else and even a government sponsored en y can come in and provide a better service. They just cannot do it at a loss, or with subsidies.
What do you mean by rural? The bill covers city areas.
When do they have to show a profit?
Are private companies forbidden from working in an area at a loss?
They provide a better service because they are subsidized.
That's what the bill is about. To force compliance with the 1929 Umstead Act. 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.
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.
Telcos are subsidized too. That's not an excuse.
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.
People can't decide for themselves if they want to have these type of businesses. No, money has to go to holes like ATT and TW. Stupid ing logic on display here but considering its WC I'm sure no one is surprised.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions