[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading
fischer at 4pi.com
Fri May 1 11:54:34 EDT 2009
I think the 80% access rule is enough that the bill should be killed.
The cost of capital should not have to be local. The private
communications service providers will shop for the best rates
including investors, so the city should also shop for the best rate.
The private communications service providers will piggyback their
service onto existing cable or phone systems. To make the city
charge what it would cost to build a service from scratch would be wrong.
As a tax payer, if a city can provide a utility cheaper, I want the
city to do so. That is true for water, sewer, trash and
Internet. Some things private companies do better, some things the
government does better and a few like the Internet may depend on location.
I really should have treated this like BBQ posts.
At 11:13 AM 5/1/2009, you wrote:
>So to take devil's advocate here for a minute, besides the "80%
>access" rule -- which I think should be made 99% or even 100% because
>80% is a cop out to the 80-20 rule -- and the "the cost of the capital
>component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to
>private communications service providers in the same locality" --
>which I think shouldn't have to be linked to the credit ratings of
>commercial enterprise -- what's wrong with this bill*? And why
>shouldn't it be extended to cover other existing utilities? It states
>that the local run infrastructure should have to remit the same sorts
>of fees and taxes that a private enterprise would have to in operating
>the infrastructure to the local coffers. And therefore the locally
>provided "utility" can't use it's position of government to unfairly
>compete with private enterprise. How is this construed as "Time
>Warner et al are trying to block municipally owned internet". Which
>items in particular are the "blocking" passages?
>* full text of the bill here:
>it only takes a few minutes to read.
>On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:46 PM, mgmonza <mgmonza at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hadn't seen this mentioned yet. Time Warner et al are trying to block
> > municipally owned internet:
> > http://www.techjournalsouth.com/news/article.html?item_id=7334
> > H/T to an anonymous BBS poster.
> > --
> > TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> > TriLUG FAQ : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>Personal e-mail: jtate AT dragonstrider DOT com
>TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>TriLUG FAQ : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
More information about the TriLUG