[TriLUG] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!
jmarkturner at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 20:26:00 EDT 2011
We in the Triangle are blessed with multiple options for Internet
service, but not all communities are as fortunate as we are.
But what if no one wants to "spend on the infrastructure" to provide it?
What if you're like many of our Pittsboro members who can't get
high-speed Internet where they live, simply because the commercial
providers can't make the business case? How are those people's kids
going to do their homework and complete their papers if they don't have
high-speed Internet available? There are hundreds of thousands of other
kids in that same boat: living in areas too rural to turn the heads of
the cable companies.
Cable companies have worked to legally define "high-speed Internet" as
768k down. Thus, their bar for allowing a community to provide their own
Internet service means that community must not be able to get at least
Most of y'all would laugh hysterically at calling 768k "high speed."
Come on, you know you would.
Bits are getting cheaper every day. TWC reported it's bandwidth costs
have actually DECREASED at the time it also said its traffic has
increased. I'd venture to guess that good amount of their customer
traffic never even leaves their network, costing them nothing.
I appreciate your opposition to the bill, Chris, but please don't
believe the shell game that commercial providers are trying to play. One
thing about municipal providers is that they are forced to be honest and
open: something that's proved lacking with certain cable companies.
On 03/14/2011 08:08 PM, Chris Merrill wrote:
> On 3/14/2011 6:01 PM, Cristóbal Palmer wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Chris Merrill<chris at webperformance.com> wrote:
>>> I dunno, looking at the pricing, it looks very fair to me. It is not a cap,
>>> it is tiered pricing. If you use more, you pay more...just like electricity,
>>> water, food, gas. What am I missing?
More information about the TriLUG