At least six cities in North Carolina have passed resolutions against cable-backed state legislation that would hamstring new municipal broadband projects. The dissenters include Chapel Hill, Greensboro, Raleigh, Momeyer, Asheville, Rockingham, and Bladenville.

All oppose House of Representatives Bill H129 and its equivalent in the Senate, Bill 87. The proposed laws, both titled "Level Playing Field/Local Gov't Competition" bills, would bar new municipal ISPs from selling broadband to consumers in neighboring cities or pricing their services too low. The legislation has passed in the House.

Negatively affected

"WHEREAS, these bills do not provide a level playing field to cities, to cities, towns and counties," the Chapel Hill resolution declares, "but greatly hinder local governments from providing needed communications services, including public safety networks, and especially advanced high-speed broadband services, in unserved and underserved areas."

And:

WHEREAS, there are telecommunications designers, equipment manufacturers and suppliers, in North Carolina who will be negatively affected if local governments are not allowed to provided needed communications services, meaning North Carolina will lose more jobs as a result of prohibiting public investment in high-quality, advanced broadband infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council opposes Senate Bill 87 and House Bill 129 and urges all members of the North Carolina General Assembly to vote "no" in committee and, if necessary, on the floor of the General Assembly.

The other resolutions are similarly worded. Interestingly, the city of Raleigh, which has also passed a statement against the bill, is partially represented by the proposed law's sponsor in the House, Marilyn Avila (R-Wake). Avila's legislative mailing address is in Raleigh.

Avila told local press that the legislation would protect businesses from "predatory" local governments that want to build their own ISPs. Some of her constituents clearly see the predator problem differently. Resolved, Raleigh declares, that

The General Assembly promote competition by curtailing predatory pricing practices that are used to push new providers and public broadband services out of the market.

The General Assembly reject any legislation similar to the Level Playing Field bills that would have a chilling effect on local economies and would impede or remove local governments' ability to provide broadband services, including WiFi, to enhance economic development and improve the quality of life for their citizens, and would negatively impact cities such as Salisbury and Wilson which have made large capital investments in broadband systems.

The legislation has even drawn the ire of a Federal Communications Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn, who recently called the legislation a "significant barrier to broadband deployment" which "may impede local efforts to promote economic development."

In committee

House Bill 129 passed its respective side of North Carolina's General Assembly late last month. Its equivalent is now sitting in the Senate's Judiciary Committee 1. According to that committee's page, the body is headed by Peter S. Brunstetter (R-Winston-Salem), who also works as an attorney for the Womble Carlyle investment group.

Womble Carlyle's page for Brunstetter says he handles corporate law cases and "advises boards of directors of publicly held, non-publicly held, and large non-profit corporations on all aspects of corporate governance, shareholder/member relations, government regulation and public policy."

The Vice Chair for the Committee is Senator Thom Goolsby (R-New Hanover), a criminal defense and injury attorney who also teaches law.