[TriLUG] OT: Bill banning Google Fiber to be heard Tuesday AM!
steve.pinkham at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 20:38:00 EST 2011
On 03/07/2011 04:54 PM, matt at noway2.thruhere.net wrote:
> FWIW, after reading the legislation, I signed this petition contacted my
> representative stating why I am opposed to this bill.
> I find it telling that it starts out in big bold letters stating that it
> is a jobs creation and protection bill. It then goes on to state that any
> public competing providers must effectively charge the same rates and
> provide the same level of service as TWC.
Could you quote the section that says they "must effectively charge the
same rates and provide the same level of service as TWC"?
I read the bill here:
and while the accounting requirements are annoying and the taxation
parts are unreasonable, there is nothing that I can read that limits
specifically the service offerings and/or price of a community
The intent is to obviously to hobble as much as possible the (otherwise
likely) conversion to Internet access as a public service much like
roads and water. It's a short sighted, knee-jerk response to a rapidly
changing technology, which rarely ends well. On the other hand, we need
to be careful that we don't over-deamonize the bill and have our opinion
brushed aside as blind rage by free-market hating hippies or the like. ;-)
Has anyone written up a more detailed analysis of the bill? I'd like to
be able to write a well reasoned analysis to my rep, who is a finance
committee member and perhaps to the local media as well.
Specifically, I don't understand the implications of "160A‑340.4.
Financing". Anyone speak enough lawyer to tell me what this means?
More information about the TriLUG