ToiletMint

join:2009-12-07

Pine River, MN ToiletMint Member rly? Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.



The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.



81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: rly? said by ToiletMint: Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.



The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.



81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?



»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gas ··· &RCS=155 No, but 15 Dems voted yes.



Matt3

All noise, no signal.

Premium Member

join:2003-07-20

Jamestown, NC Matt3 Premium Member Re: rly? said by FFH5: said by ToiletMint: Is this story not getting any play in N.C? Why would residents of N.C let this kind of behavior fly? I just cant wrap my head around it.



The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.



81-37 vote, I wonder if any of the 37 votes are GOP?



»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gas ··· &RCS=155

No, but 15 Dems voted yes. NC has always been a Red state, minus the educated areas. Thus, the crux of my life.



anon name

@cox.net anon name Anon Re: rly? vote or move.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD 1 recommendation pnh102 to ToiletMint

Premium Member to ToiletMint

said by ToiletMint: The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built. Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.

your moderator at work hidden :

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy to pnh102

Member to pnh102

Re: rly? said by pnh102: said by ToiletMint: The president wants broadband to every person in the nation, and if someone wants to build a network, by all means let it be built.

Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it.



Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else." We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System . Why should we do it now?Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: We didn't do that in the '50s and '60s with the Interstate Highway System. Why should we do it now?



Sounds like "I got mine, forget everyone else."



Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized. Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.

talz13

join:2006-03-15

Avon, OH 1 recommendation talz13 Member Re: rly? I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds?



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD 1 recommendation pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by talz13: I thought most of these muni-broadbands were funded by bonds? Aren't bonds purchased by private individuals / collectives? Are these cities forcing their residents to buy the bonds? Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

talz13

join:2006-03-15

Avon, OH talz13 Member Re: rly? Ok, that explains the public funding aspect. Thanks for the explanation!

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 recommendation amigo_boy to pnh102

Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.





You'll say the latter three were private business not backed by taxpayer bonds. But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.



Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)? The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone.You'll say the latter three were private business not backed by taxpayer bonds. But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates.Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: said by pnh102: Government bonds are guaranteed by the taxpayers. If the user fees collected by the network do not cover the cost of the bonds, then the taxpayer is on the hook to cover the interest paid on the bonds. Or worse, as we've seen in many places, more bonds are issued to pay off the existing bonds.

The same could have been said for water, sewer, roads, electric, gas and telephone. said by amigo_boy: But, they were private business backed by society carving out a monopoly for them. Same thing. If the decisions made by those businesses didn't pan out, the captive market (the society who created the monopolies) faced higher rates. said by amigo_boy: Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)? You're absolutely right. We've see in many situations where these services were provided by the government that the "borrow now, reborrow later" approach taken by many state and local and local governments has come back to haunt taxpayers. Many states, such as Illinois and California, have used this approach for decades to fund public works and now their residents are being screwed with higher taxes simply to pay the interest on bonds that were used to finance public works projects undertaken years ago.At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service. This cannot happen with a government-funded project.Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 recommendation amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: said by amigo_boy: Why shouldn't broadband be a long-term infrastructure investment when the alternative is private businesses using public rights of way to create a monopoly (or, at best, a duopoly)?

Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines?



But, we have to be clear. It's not a "free market" solution. We're giving a monopoly to a business. We would just go further and recognize it is a monopoly and control its capital expenditures to ensure they serve society's interests, review its operating expenses to ensure they aren't excessive, and set rates so an appropriate "profit" is made.



Similar to society funding and building the infrastructure (and having trouble repaying bonds), this heavily socialized business could have the same problem and raise rates.



We're not talking about something vastly different. With a public utility, we just give the illusion that it's a business and we kept government small. In reality, society became a controlling partner with business.



But, I think that would address most of what people are clamoring for. Yes, I think many would support that.But, we have to be clear. It's not a "free market" solution. We're giving a monopoly to a business. We would just go further and recognize it is a monopoly and control its capital expenditures to ensure they serve society's interests, review its operating expenses to ensure they aren't excessive, and set rates so an appropriate "profit" is made.Similar to society funding and building the infrastructure (and having trouble repaying bonds), this heavily socialized business could have the same problem and raise rates.We're not talking about something vastly different. With a public utility, we just give the illusion that it's a business and we kept government small. In reality, society became a controlling partner with business.But, I think that would address most of what people are clamoring for.



REAL PATRIOT

@charter.com REAL PATRIOT to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

said by pnh102: At the very least a person who feels that rates are too high can tell a provider they've had enough and are no longer willing to pay for the service. said by pnh102: Since it can be impractical to run multiple wires to a single house perhaps the best approach would be to have one regulated utility provide that service, and then have multiple vendors provide service over those lines? Really... If it is the ONLY GAME ALLOWED IN TOWN? I think not...This is why there has to be more taps allowed to come into the home... THE cable and Phone Companies wish to control the traffic that flows through their pipelines.... NOT JUST PROVIDE THE PIPELINE....



NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan Premium Member Re: rly? That's the only practical solution to our broadband problems, if we rebuilt all networks to FTTH and allowed providers to provide service we would probably have 20+ choices for every service over that fiber. Companies decry the investments they have to make, fine we make a company that handles that subsidized by the government to build it, but once it's build they have to maintain it through access fees (access only not tax on what goes across it) that covers the maintenance.



Dougbdl

@comcast.net Dougbdl to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

So you are now against municipal bonds? It may be easier for you to mention the things you like.



toby

Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13

Seattle, WA toby Member Re: rly? said by Dougbdl : So you are now against municipal bonds? It may be easier for you to mention the things you like.

Bonds usually equal 'lack of planning' for the long run.

twonosetom

join:2011-03-30

Bellevue, NE twonosetom to pnh102

Member to pnh102

That's really generous of Time-Warner, to go to all the trouble and expense of lobbying legislators at the state level in order to prevent the local citizens from foolishly spending money on their own infrastructure.



Any other fairy tales you have for us today?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 recommendation amigo_boy to pnh102

Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything? said by pnh102: Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. primary purpose. Given how auto manufacturers lobbied for passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and how the interstate highways are used for private purposes, it has a much larger private purpose.



Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. For example, moving telecom out of the analog era, freeing up resources to be used for new technologies, redeploying taxes and fees (as well as finite radio spectrum).



It's still not clear why broadband shouldn't be viewed as a long-term infrastructure investment like highways, sewer, water, telephone and electric.



Those latter two items you'll say are private business. But, even those are public utilities. Subject to far more social oversight and planning than a typical investor-motivated business. In this case, it's not an extreme. It's a long-term infrastructure investment which, if left to the private market, tends to become a monopoly. Which is what would have happened if interstate highways had been held to the same standard.Obviously that's not itspurpose. Given how auto manufacturers lobbied for passage of the Interstate Highway Act, and how the interstate highways are used forpurposes, it has a much largerpurpose.Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. For example, moving telecom out of the analog era, freeing up resources to be used for new technologies, redeploying taxes and fees (as well as finite radio spectrum).It's still not clear why broadband shouldn't be viewed as a long-term infrastructure investment like highways, sewer, water, telephone and electric.Those latter two items you'll say are private business. But, even those are public utilities. Subject to far more social oversight and planning than a typical investor-motivated business.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: said by pnh102: Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. primary purpose.



... Obviously that's not itspurpose.... said by amigo_boy: Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle. So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function.The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 1 recommendation amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: So what? The Interstate Highway System still has a legitimate national defense function. said by pnh102: said by amigo_boy: Broadband could have the same tangential defense angle.

The original Internet was designed because of the same purpose. But are you seriously suggesting that a local broadband network has the same purpose?



You're not seeing the same tangential relationship as the Interstate Highway Act ('50s and '60s) because you've accepted the IHA as "the new baseline." But, everything else... "no, no! it's socialism!" Broadband would continue to have a similar tangential defense function.Yes. Moving people away from legacy telecom redeploys taxes/fees to other areas which compete with defense spending. Delivering broadcast entertainment over broadband frees up airwaves which could be used by defense and early responders.You're not seeing the same tangential relationship as the Interstate Highway Act ('50s and '60s) because you've accepted the IHA as "the new baseline." But, everything else... "no, no! it's socialism!"



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: Shrug. So to sum up, in your view, everything should be done by the government.





As you enjoy just about everything done by government to various degrees? Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?As you enjoy just about everything done by government to various degrees?



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government?



The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.



Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea? Yes, we should they do in Somalia.The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services.Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 2 recommendations amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: said by amigo_boy: Shrug. So, to sum up, in your view, nothing should be done by government? Yes, we should they do in Somalia. said by pnh102: The fact is this. Our local governments are barely capable now of running the public services they are currently tasked with running. They routinely complain about there being no money to pay for things likes police, firefighters, schools, libraries and other "vital" services. said by pnh102: Is adding broadband to that to-do list, especially when there is supposedly no money to pay for, a good idea? Is borrowing the money a good idea?





Similar to how the Interstate Highway Act facilitated more economic activities -- than people traveling on two-lane highways.



You'll argue that playing WoW isn't an economic activity. I'll point out how family vacations aren't either. But, they are part of a larger shift in consumption habits that are enabled by more economic infrastructure.



The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure. Pointing to budget problems may be looking at the symptom and ignoring the cause. Like walking into the home of a diabetic, seeing insulin, and concluding insulin causes diabetes.



There are boxes. And there are those who think inside, and outside. Don't blame me for your logic. You were the one who introduced the reasoning that government should do everything because all services must be the same. (An attempt to evade the topic, which involves how not all services are the same.).The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.I think it is. As I said, it could redeploy taxes and fees to new technologies that advance productivity and economic output. Redeploy labor to more economic jobs (and consumption habits). Release airwaves for more economically valuable use.Similar to how the Interstate Highway Act facilitated more economic activities -- than people traveling on two-lane highways.You'll argue that playing WoW isn't an economic activity. I'll point out how family vacations aren't either. But, they are part of a larger shift in consumption habits that are enabled by more economic infrastructure.The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure. Pointing to budget problems may be looking at the symptom and ignoring the cause. Like walking into the home of a diabetic, seeing insulin, and concluding insulin causes diabetes.There are boxes. And there are those who think inside, and outside.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate.



If you want to continue arguing against reality, by all means, go for it. It won't make your arguments any less invalid. said by amigo_boy: The inability of the economy to rebound could have something to do with how we haven't invested in infrastructure. And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact. Adding more responsibilities to government will only exacerbate this fiscal mess.If you want to continue arguing against reality, by all means, go for it. It won't make your arguments any less invalid.What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: said by amigo_boy: The same was said when sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone were added to the plate. And as we're seeing with the current fiscal mess in which most governments find themselves, this is absolutely a true statement of fact.



Do you have any idea what the economy would have been like if we lived in your perfect world?



Welcome to the irrelevant fringe (again). said by pnh102: What are you talking about? We just borrowed and spent nearly $1 trillion in federal funds to supposedly build out new roads, highways, bridges and other things. If this argument was sound, our economy would be in a very strong recovery now.

Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?Do you have any idea what the economy would have been like if we lived in your perfect world?Welcome to the irrelevant fringe (again).(Chuckle). Bonds are normally 30 years for a reason. Long-term capital expenditures have long-term pay back. They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results.



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? said by amigo_boy: Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone?



I love how you always change the subject when you lose an argument. It is cute.



Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations? said by amigo_boy: They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results. Did I?I love how you always change the subject when you lose an argument.It is cute.Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?Shrug. I guess we need to borrow and spend $2 trillion then. Maybe even $10 trillion. That will get the economy going again.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?





Obviously, it is my opinion that it would have been much better to do this in 2007 when there was more tax revenue to fund it. We'd also be that much closer to obtaining the benefits.



Your position is that we shouldn't have done it then either. Can you prove that the same reasoning didn't apply when societies faced the perplexing question of whether to build water, sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc?Obviously, it is my opinion that it would have been



pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Re: rly? Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by pnh102: Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.





Your response is "well, you must want government to do everything."



When I turn that around on you, to show how you enjoy a lot of things which the government does, and obviously don't want the government to do nothing you claim that I've changed the subject.



I guess we'll have to let viewers form their own opinions about the merit of each of our arguments. I appreciate having the opportunity to show yours for what I believe they are. Ditto. I've explained how broadband is ubiquitous and a necessary component to life, the economy, etc. Like water, sewer, roads, etc., it is not well served by leaving it to so-called "free-market" forces.Your response is "well, you must want government to do."When I turn that around on you, to show how you enjoy a lot of things which the government does, and obviously don't want the government to doyou claim that I've changed the subject.I guess we'll have to let viewers form their own opinions about the merit of each of our arguments. I appreciate having the opportunity to show yours for what I believe they are.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to pnh102

Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.

Your assertion is laughable. You've provided no facts whatsoever. All of it is opinion based on a "I have mine, screw you!" belief system. Your hypocrisy is unbelievably transparent when you whine about AT&T's rising prices and how government should step in to prevent them from gouging customers- because you're an AT&T customer.

Papageno

join:2011-01-26

Portland, OR Papageno to amigo_boy

Member to amigo_boy

The main problem all U.S. governments are facing (federal, state and local) for the last 20-30 years is that the religion of "tax cuts as panacea" has taken hold. If government services and subsidies that most people want (and believe government should provide) need to be slashed, that's too bad, it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by Papageno: it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use.





One of the wealthy will be kidnapped, and the police are in on it to some extent. They general population will know something about who did it, where the wealthy guy is stashed away. But, they don't say anything. The system doesn't exist for their benefit, why should they put their neck on the line?



It's gotten so bad that the wealthy are moving to the US. (You can obtain an immigration visa if you have enough assets.). They'll work the same magic here. There's already a substantial "I've got mine, screw everyone else" sentiment here (as evidenced by America's wealth/income disparity growing over the past 30 years to the point we're close to Mexico's.).



What's remarkable to me is that the people who protest the loudest about "socialism," and "tax increases" have little chance of earning more than $100k. It's like they're defending the top 1/10th percent of society who have quadrupled their incomes over the past 30 years of deregulatory politics -- as the lower 50% of American's income lost ground.



It's like the 5% of Black Louisianans who voted for David Duke (former KKK grand wizard). I don't get it. It's starting to remind me of Mexico. The so-called "haves" didn't feel collective allegiance to their fellow citizens. "I got mine, screw everyone else." They controlled government to preserve huge disparity in wealth and income. The result is apathy among the general population.One of the wealthy will be kidnapped, and the police are in on it to some extent. They general population will know something about who did it, where the wealthy guy is stashed away. But, they don't say anything. The system doesn't exist for their benefit, why should they put their neck on the line?It's gotten so bad that the wealthy are moving to the US. (You can obtain an immigration visa if you have enough assets.). They'll work the same magic here. There's already a substantial "I've got mine, screw everyone else" sentiment here (as evidenced by America's wealth/income disparity growing over the past 30 years to the point we're close to Mexico's.).What's remarkable to me is that the people who protest the loudest about "socialism," and "tax increases" have little chance of earning more than $100k. It's like they're defending the top 1/10th percent of society who havetheir incomes over the past 30 years of deregulatory politics -- as the lower 50% of American's income lost ground.It's like the 5% of Black Louisianans who voted for David Duke (former KKK grand wizard). I don't get it.



firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto to pnh102

Premium Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?



It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason. This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.



JakCrow

join:2001-12-06

Palo Alto, CA 1 recommendation JakCrow Member Re: rly? said by firephoto: said by pnh102: Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?



It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason.

This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"???It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason. And why is a state government shilling for and passing a law for the benefit of less than a handful of private corporations? Why aren't these corporations competing on their own merits? Talk about no "free market".



srsly

@sdsc.edu srsly to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

So, just for the sake of clarity, you feel it is the roll of each state to dictate how municipalities spend their local tax revenues as well as limiting the scope of bond initiatives? Does this idea scale and does it match your ideology, at scale?



FireJack

@bellsouth.net FireJack to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

you have tried to lead this discussion in a useless direction



the argument here should not be about whether local communities can decide to run infrastructure. that is up to them, not you.

worry about your own community, not someone else's.



the constructive argument here is why corporations are suing to maintain their control and whether they should be able to dictate how a community wants to run itself.



it doesnt matter if the local govt will run it poorly. it is completely beside the point.



what matters is that the people can choose for themselves and corporations not being able to tell an entire community what they can and cant do by using the corrupt political and justice system.



your argumentative red herring has no bearing on anything at all except to distract from the real issue.



Real Patriot

@charter.com Real Patriot to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

With your reasoning, ANY RURAL AREA WHERE IT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY TO RUN AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE, THE POPULATION CAN JUST GET BENT.....Man I will be so glad when you and your kind are relegated to the scrap heap of history...

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: rly? The town fiber projects end at the city limits in most cases which means someone on the other side of the line will not get service until they are taken in to the city. This means the farther out you are the less likely you will get Fiber.

The reason the Phone and Power worked is the government required you to serve everybody in return for a monopoly. When that was removed from the phone system service got worse because other companies came in and took the best business customers and communities and left the low return areas to the old phone company. Just look at New England when Verizon dumped them the new company went down the tubes. Verizon's service may not have been great service but but when you remove the big cities where they make a bundle it pays for the areas like the states they dropped.

I give you two cases. My family lived in a town that was served by an independent telco own 4 party line cost more then a Southern Bell single party line one mile away. The service was awful.

Case 2 after the monopoly was dropped another phone company next to the same BellSouth city started paying developers to allow them to provide service to the new sub development. The residents that bought the homes were not happy campers when they found out they could not get a BellSouth account. Anybody they called outside those serviced by the other company was long distance.

The reason the old Bell System was so good was Long Distance paid a lot of bills. When they lost LD with the breakup a lot of the advances stopped and they have just treaded water. Just like today Wireless pays a lot of the bills for the landlines that many customers are dropping but they are still required to support that one last customer.



If a city sets up the Fiber network like it was a private business with no favoritism on building sharing and the network had to pay the same taxes. The Wilson Network uses government office space, and the city power company service trucks plus no taxes. If you tried to build a private network you would not get that kind of help.





amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by WhatNow: The reason the Phone and Power worked is the government required you to serve everybody in return for a monopoly. When that was removed from the phone system service got worse because other companies came in and took the best business customers and communities and left the low return areas to the old phone company.





That's why treating this topic like it's a "free-market" is absurd. There are many things that we do which impact some negatively for the good of all. Healthcare is a good example. We criminalize lessor healthcare solutions, impacting lower-income people (even endangering their lives) for the sake of uniformity and more predictability. Seriously, how would a doctor with only 7 years and 8 months of education endanger someone compared to that person going without treatment because they can't afford it?



Consider zoning laws. Your neighbor can't enjoy her own private property any way she wishes because the mere *possibility* that she might convert her home into a late-night biker bar would require you to purchase enough property to provide for your own enjoyment of your own property without limiting your neighbor's enjoyment of hers.



We're not just individuals. We're a group with shared interests. The internet has reached a level of ubiquity that creates shared interests. It's so ubiquitous that, to save money, "we" stopped mailing IRS forms to everyone. "We" require people to file unemployment online. "We" require people to apply for jobs online.



We've reached the point that you can't function without the internet unless you're willing to spend time traveling to the library, waiting in line, and perhaps subjecting your confidential information to a keyboard logger.



If it were 10 years ago, I could understand concerns with cities owning internet infrastructure. I believe in another 10 years it's going to look retarded that they don't. Better for some, worse for others. It's like the argument to deregulate first-class mail. If a private company doesn't have to provide service to a small rural community (or high-risk urban ghetto), that's a savings they can pass on to the cherry-picked service areas.That's why treating this topic like it's a "free-market" is absurd. There arethings that we do which impact some negatively for the good of all. Healthcare is a good example. We criminalize lessor healthcare solutions, impacting lower-income people (even endangering their lives) for the sake of uniformity and more predictability. Seriously, how would a doctor with only 7 years and 8 months of education endanger someone compared to that person going without treatment because they can't afford it?Consider zoning laws. Your neighbor can't enjoy her own private property any way she wishes because the mere *possibility* that she might convert her home into a late-night biker bar would require you to purchase enough property to provide for your own enjoyment of your own property without limiting your neighbor's enjoyment of hers.We're not just individuals. We're a group with shared interests. The internet has reached a level of ubiquity that creates shared interests. It's so ubiquitous that, to save money, "we" stopped mailing IRS forms to everyone. "We" require people to file unemployment online. "We" require people to apply for jobs online.We've reached the point that you can't function without the internet unless you're willing to spend time traveling to the library, waiting in line, and perhaps subjecting your confidential information to a keyboard logger.If it were 10 years ago, I could understand concerns with cities owning internet infrastructure. I believe in another 10 years it's going to look retarded that they don't.



Wowsers

@208.22.12.x Wowsers to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

Serves a legitimate national defense purpose?



Really?



When was the last time you saw massive convoys of military vehicles roaming the Interstates to move equipment?



Damn, the longest convoy I've ever seen on the Interstate was maybe 10 vehicles long.



That's some purpose of national defense!



There are service providers in these smaller towns who aren't really providing because they just don't make money. If the cities are willing to spend tax dollars to provide a quality service that the residents gain from, why should you care?



Simoom

@rr.com Simoom to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

said by pnh102: Well heck, why don't we take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run everything?



Besides, if you want to take objective reality to "logical extremes," everything already is run by the government: the government sets the legal framework and definitions under which everything operates and assigns property rights. As a democratic society we are wise to allow many things to be individually owned and operated, but it'd be a horrible choice to let other things, like police, healthcare, and regulation. If it doesn't freaking work as a free market (and many things don't), making it public isn't going to make baby Jesus cry - only the corrupt shills like you who won't get to make money at society's expense are crying. said by pnh102: Besides, the Interstate Highway System did (and continues to) serve a legitimate national defense purpose. The highways themselves are currently paid for by their users through the form of gas taxes and other driver-specific fees. This cannot be said about these locally-run networks, which always have to siphon fees from another service that more people use, or are taxpayer-subsidized.

Let's take your argument to its logical extreme and have the government run nothing: like Somalia, but with nicer cars and nukes! Actually, those are both ridiculous straw men and we don't have to carry (distort) everything to "logical" extremes. We're talking about a community, many communities, which are not being served by the status quo, a status quo quite obviously dominated by corruption which you seem to be blindly (or not) content defending. And as other people pointed out, the status quo doesn't even resemble a free market, so why the hell not have it be run by the government, at least then people will have some semblance of democratic oversight to make up for the lack of competitive forces.Besides, if you want to take objective reality to "logical extremes," everything already is run by the government: the government sets the legal framework and definitions under which everything operates and assigns property rights. As a democratic society we are wise to allow many things to be individually owned and operated, but it'd be a horrible choice to let other things, like police, healthcare, and regulation. If it doesn't freaking work as a free market (and many things don't), making it public isn't going to make baby Jesus cry - only the corrupt shills like you who won't get to make money at society's expense are crying.An informed and connected citizenry doesn't serve a legitimate national defense purpose? Or are you just referring to the legitimate national defense of the governing and wealth-holding class from the rest of the nation?



Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue to pnh102

Premium Member to pnh102

You don't think high speed internet can "serve a legit national defense purpose"?



Like tapping into internet connections faster for wire-tap purposes?

LostMile

Premium Member

join:2002-06-07

Coloma, MI LostMile to pnh102

Premium Member to pnh102

said by pnh102: Then by all means let these people who want it put their own money into it and build it. No one is stopping anyone from investing their own private funds into a private venture to provide broadband to an unserved area.

Or maybe we could use some of Joe Sixpack's tax dollars that were used to bail out the private capitalists that were too big to fail?



vzw emp

@144.191.148.x vzw emp to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

Why do opponents of muni-broadband always make it sound like taxpayer money funded this project (either by omission or outright lies)? It did not.



This is simple, people. The incumbent ISP's failed to deliver a service that consumers wanted. A new entity stepped forward and did what the incumbents would not, and didn't use a dime of taxpayer money to do it. What is the issue here?



Myk00l

@clearwire-wmx.net Myk00l to pnh102

Anon to pnh102

Try reading it again, because that is exactly what this does. It stops a city (someone) from building their own network.

jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22

Greensboro, NC jkeelsnc to ToiletMint

Member to ToiletMint

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.



Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote bothh my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.



I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.



Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.



They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).

jkeelsnc jkeelsnc to ToiletMint

Member to ToiletMint

Well, first and foremost the local media have not given it any coverage at all. Also, not even the local PBS network (UNC TV) has given it any real coverage in their weekly legislative coverage of the general assembly. The whole thing has been swept under the rug and purposefully avoided.



Actually, it aggravates me. I wrote both my local state house representative and local state senator and have not had a peep from either one on this issue. Not even an acknowledgment that I wrote them.



I think its time to topple the government and institute rules that make it illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians campaigns and also to make it illegal for corporations (alone) to lobby politicians. One small piece of the puzzle is the fact that corporations are now given the legal status of an individual. This is all BS.



Government only works for itself and for those who give the politicians the big money. I try to make a difference by voting, by reading legislative news, by occasionally writing representatives, etc. Nothing makes a difference or matters to them anymore.



They all need to be kicked out and replaced with people that care and then limited by law to not being able to receive any kind of private campaign donations (only receive a public fund for the campaign and anything else should be illegal and punishable by a jail sentence).

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC Westell 6100

Cisco PIX 501

cramer to ToiletMint

Premium Member to ToiletMint

Simple answer... we don't write the damned laws. It doesn't help that 90% of the voters in the state (and country) are complete political morons. Plus 100% of the elected people are corruptible -- and very likely corrupt in one fashion or other.



Matt3

All noise, no signal.

Premium Member

join:2003-07-20

Jamestown, NC Matt3 to ToiletMint

Premium Member to ToiletMint

said by Rep. Faircloth : Mr. Evans,



Thank you for your interest and concern about broadband service. I am glad to know that an option you have from North State Communications can be had at a reasonable price and in an acceptable package. That is exactly how the system should work. Where a market exists, private enterprise will generally choose to do business in that area with the service that competition demands.



The bill we adopted provides every opportunity for local governments to either provide service, to enter into public-private projects with companies who are experts in the field, or to leave the broadband business to the private market. The only way that public entities can offer comparable service at the same rates, higher grade service or lower priced comparable service is with public subsidies from taxpayers. They can, however, do it without subsidies by following the same financial models that private companies must adhere to. That is what the bill requires.



I have broadband service at up to 20.0 Mbps available at very good rates from my telephone cooperative in the rather remote Carolina mountains, and my neighbors are not required to pay any extra tax to subsidize my service. I cannot rationalize asking my fellow citizens in the Triad, who do not need or choose to use a publicly funded system, to help pay for my service. Where there is a private provider of services, my feeling is that government has no business competing.



I am sorry that you and I may not agree on this issue. I have seen far too many examples of government entrepreneurs who like to reach into taxpayers pockets to fund everything from bus services to competitive recreational facilities. In the long run, if there is a demand for a service that can be delivered at a competitive rate, the market will deliver.



Thanks again for you interest and your opinions. I sincerely honor both.



Rep. John Faircloth

NC House of Representatives, District 61  Guilford County

300 N. Salisbury St., Room 306 A3, Raleigh NC, 27603-5925

Phone: 919-733-5877 John.Faircloth@ncleg.net My Representative finally responded after I noted in a follow-up email on how he voted:

Papageno

join:2011-01-26

Portland, OR Papageno Member Re: rly? Just repeating the "free market cures all ills" mantra while ignoring the actual facts on the ground that make true free market competition impossible. But that's par for the course for the American Right.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22 amigo_boy Member Re: rly? said by Papageno: Just repeating the "free market cures all ills" mantra ...





That fits the same criteria of "forcing some people to subsdize benefits which accrue to others (employees, suppliers) who aren't willing to settle for what a 'free market' of willing buyers and sellers would negotiate."



So-called "free market" libertarians are always selective in their use of high-sounding principled rhetoric. One social program is "socialism" -- while they hope nobody asks about things like zoning laws (which protect them from a "free-market" responsibility to buy sufficient property to protect their property interests from their neighbors', choosing instead to use the law to limit how their neighbor enjoys their property because it's cheaper for the libertarian.).



I saw something interesting on the news last night. I wonder when they'll pass a state law preventing municipalities from using tax breaks to lure business to locate within a city.That fits the same criteria of "forcing some people to subsdize benefits which accrue to others (employees, suppliers) who aren't willing to settle for what a 'free market' of willing buyers and sellers would negotiate."So-called "free market" libertarians are always selective in their use of high-sounding principled rhetoric. One social program is "socialism" -- while they hope nobody asks about things like zoning laws (which protect them from a "free-market" responsibility to buy sufficient property to protect their property interests from their neighbors', choosing instead to use the law to limit how their neighbor enjoys their property because it's cheaper for the libertarian.).I saw something interesting on the news last night. Tea Party favorability ratings have fallen significantly. It's attributed to people who resonated with the simplistic rhetoric, but who now realize spending cuts have real consequences. That, perhaps standing up for the top 1/10th of 1% of society who quadrupled their share of every available dollar of income over the past 30 years (as the bottom 50% lost share) isn't the smartest thing to do.

scooper

join:2000-07-11

Kansas City, KS scooper Member Welcome to the corporate states of America. Government by and for the corporation. Best Government money can buy.



When will some fool judge rule that they can vote ? - oh wait - they can lobby and give political money....



SLD

Premium Member

join:2002-04-17

San Francisco, CA SLD Premium Member Re: Welcome to the corporate states of America. Yeah, ever wonder why only the entities that cannot vote get the representation???

Kommie2 (banned)

join:2003-05-13

united state Kommie2 (banned) to scooper

Member to scooper

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit 1 recommendation FFH5 Premium Member The key features of the bill sound reasonable www.boston.com/news/loca ··· use_ok/? quote: Future municipal enterprises couldn't borrow money for capital costs without voter approval. They also would be barred from offering Internet services at below cost or use funds from other city-sponsored utilities.



At least five communities already have offered the service, including Wilson and Salisbury. They would be exempt from new requirements.

Entirely reasonable positions to take to level the playing field.



The bill includes exemptions for existing community systems and were in the passed bill:

»www.ncga.state.nc.us/gas ··· utton=Go

»www.ncga.state.nc.us/ses ··· 9v2.html quote: (c) The provisions of G.S. 160A340.1, 160A340.3, 160A340.4, 160A340.5, and 160A340.6 do not apply to a city or joint agency providing communications service as of January 1, 2011, provided the city or joint agency limits the provision of communications service to the following service area boundaries:

(1) For the joint agency operated by the cities of Davidson and Mooresville, the service area is the service area designated in the initial notice of franchise filed with the Secretary of State, and the contiguous area where the agency is offering service as of the effective date of this act connecting the cities of Davidson and Mooresville with areas set forth in the initial areas of franchise.

(2) For the city of Salisbury, the service area is the corporate limits of the cities of Salisbury, Spencer, East Spencer, Rockwell, Granite Quarry, and the corridors between Salisbury and those cities only to the extent necessary to provide service to those cities.

(3) For all other cities or joint agency offering communications service, the service area is the area designated in the map filed as part of the initial notice of franchise with the Secretary of State as of January 1, 2011. Entirely reasonable positions to take to level the playing field.The bill includes exemptions for existing community systems and were in the passed bill:



elefante

@verizon.net elefante Anon Another sad day in America That is all well and fine, but in normal circumstances when a new competitor enters into an area w/ high barriers to entry they sometimes have to come in as a loss leader to gain market share, and telcos are notorious for that. So essentially they are asking munis to play fair, where by the same token they are not.



Also wording is a little vague on redirection capital budgets, because in many cases these budgets also include grants that may go into the general fund, and these telcos know that so they are trying to cut that off also.



So this is essentially the telcos raising the barrier to entry even HIGHER than the "normal" market which of course is already distorted by decades of favorable treatment.



This is the downfall of America where areas of public good (and internet is one of them) should have public support or at least competition of thus to satisfy the public good. It is sad that the legislature is choosing the private corporation over the public good.



The end result is that the common people suffer and the rich (set up by laws and barriers to entry) continue their march. For those who think this is capitalism it is not, its private mercantilism. Look it up.



batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ 1 recommendation batterup Premium Member Don't confuse me with the facts. Every one of these tax payer funded projects are an overbuild in areas where broadband is now offered so this bringing 100/100 to the outhouses is B.S.



OldschoolDSL

Premium Member

join:2006-02-23

Indian Orchard, MA 1 recommendation OldschoolDSL Premium Member Government for rent Slightly used Government for Rent. Must be willing to sell out the people and keep topics within secret meetings private, until it's to late for the public to react.



Requirements are simple... Must present lump sum of cash or open ended, blank check. Lump sum of cash willingly accepted, but open ended, blank check preferred.



Applications can be located at any and all government offices, but preferably directed by members of congress.



Only the rich need apply.

jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22

Greensboro, NC jkeelsnc Member Useless government Politicans only serve two things, money and corporate lobbying. I vote, I watch the local legislative news. I write my representatives from time to time and increasingly they care less.



I think its time we forceably remove all of them. Institute new elections but make it illegal for corporations or any other special interests to lobby politicians and esp to make it illegal for politicians to receive ANY kind of private donations. Then if caught it should be punishable by a jail sentence.



These Idiots are not going to change for our benefit. Only the people of this country can fix it.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Hooray! Finally, government acts in the best interests of the community.



Labelling the bill "anti-community" is so Newspeakian. Karl should be ashamed. At best, it is an "Anti-Muni" bill.



Competition and the market have not failed - the locals simply aren't willing to pay the local market rate, instead they're seeking to tax their neighbors, in order that the local government will sell them subsidized broadband.



King P

Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul

Premium Member

join:2004-11-17

Murfreesboro, TN King P Premium Member Ugh... My home state disgusts me sometimes. Idiotic morons.

handlebar

join:2011-02-25

Grover, NC handlebar Member How about LightRadio Cubes? Besides making cellphone towers obsolete, they're supposed to make it feasible to bring internet service to rural areas and undeveloped countries. You run your fiber and an electrical source along utility poles and put a Rubik's-cube-sized box or array of boxes on a pole to provide wireless service to the area.



I think a cube can handle 330 Mb/s. Whether it's a private company or a local government, wouldn't this technology reduce the startup and operating costs of bringing service to people?

gunther_01

Premium Member

join:2004-03-29

Saybrook, IL gunther_01 Premium Member Every time Government has no business in business period. They can't do anything without over inflated red tape, hand holding, over paying and over buying with every last single thing they do.



I would NEVER want the government to get involved in Internet. Case in point "Net Neutrality".. Once again the government telling me how "I" am supposed to do something, but yet they won't pay me to do it.



If you don't understand that each time the government gets it's hands on something, they SCREW it up, you have larger issues. Please don't spend any more of my money! Directly or indirectly by bail outs that happen later.



Leave the gov alone to actually fix the problems they already have. They can't "fix" this issue, without crippling every one else and raising the prices on our services (indirectly by new mandates) It's such a foolish thought that the government can make things better for you because you "want" something. Most of this country has Internet, sorry you can't watch TV on it. Get an antenna. You can do anything you "need" to do on the internet with 256kbps or less. Anything else (read; higher speed) is entertainment.