[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading
hartsock at acm.org
Fri May 1 13:25:31 EDT 2009
Aside from the other arguments made, this bill fundamentally changes
the relationship of regulation to telecommunications. It explicitly
defines that telecommunications are not like water, sewer,
electricity, or garbage. This implies the attitude that high speed
internet access is not a vital infrastructural feature to a community.
My question is: Why is internet service unlike those services? Is the
internet fundamentally different? Is the internet not a vital
infrastructure like roads are?
Passing this bill will codify the point of view of today's law makers
on tomorrows generations. It will solidify the stance that the
internet is a luxury that you do not need it to survive, thrive, or
conduct business and is therefore not in the domain of Public Utility.
It will make NC much less attractive to companies that view the
internet and new technologies as vital to their survival.
In summary: it will indeed level the playing field at the price of
making the field worthless. The playing field is indeed unfair but,
incidentally, guess who owns the playing field? You do. Not passing
this bill will create an unfair environment that favors the citizens
of North Carolina.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Joseph Tate <dragonstrider at gmail.com> 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:
>> 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
> Joseph Tate
> Personal e-mail: jtate AT dragonstrider DOT com
> Web: http://www.dragonstrider.com
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
/** Shawn.Hartsock http://hartsock.blogspot.com/ //*/
More information about the TriLUG