[TriLUG] TW and Embarq work to keep Wilson style internet from spreading

Michael Kimsal mgkimsal at gmail.com
Fri May 1 13:31:51 EDT 2009


Well said.  Have you ever considered writing for a magazine?  :)

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Shawn Hartsock <hartsock at acm.org> wrote:

> 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?
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> > * full text of the bill here:
> > http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H1252v2.html
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/  //*/
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>



-- 
Michael Kimsal
http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
919.827.4724



More information about the TriLUG mailing list