woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmmm....
What this shows, is that there is something to competition. If the telcos/cablecos aren't offering, just get the f#$k out of the way. As I have stated in earlier threads, this isn't just about money, it makes them also look bad to the people for doing what they won't or say they can't do. Affordable broadband. 
Can't wait for the fanboyz to start posting
--
BlooMe |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Federal DNC violation?
I think you could make a very good case that, since the intent of the calls is commercial in nature, that each call to a DNC number is a violation, with a typical fine of $11,000 per call.
They certainly do not fit the "survey" exemption to the DNC legislation.
If you are on the DNC list and have received a call from this survey, please post. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
| Has anyone bothered to read the bill?
It isn't that long and seems fair.
§ 160A‑329. City owned or operated communications service.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Communications network. – A wired or wireless network for the provision of communications service.
(2) Communications service. – The provision of cable, telephone, broadband, or Internet access service to the public or any sector of the public, regardless of the technology used to deliver the service.
(3) High‑speed Internet. – Internet access with transmission speeds that are consistent with requirements for high‑speed broadband Internet access as defined by the Federal Communications Commission from time to time.
(b) Requirements. – A city that operates a public enterprise under G.S. 160A‑311 that provides communications service to the public for a fee over a communications network that is directly or indirectly owned or operated by or provides a financial benefit to the city or another city shall meet the following conditions with respect to the provision of communications service:
(1) Comply with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements that would apply to the communications service if provided by a private communications service provider.
(2) Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and source of investment dollars associated with the provision of communications service.
(3) Shall not subsidize the cost of providing communications service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water, sewer, or garbage services, but excluding funds from State or federal grants and other governmental stimulus programs. In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service.
(4) Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications service, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality; and (ii) an amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and other assessments that would apply to a private communications service provider including federal, State, and local taxes; rights‑of‑way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.
(5) Shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider.
(6) Shall prepare and publish an independent annual audit in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that reflect the fully allocated cost of providing the communications service, including all direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs shall include amounts for rights‑of‑way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees, regulatory fees, occupation taxes, pole attachment fees, and ad valorem taxes. The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service. The North Carolina Utilities Commission may adopt rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, and all records demonstrating compliance shall be filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and made available for public inspection and copying. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
1 edit | This bill isn't looking to make local gov't not offer service, however make it an even playing field. Don't use gov't funds to prop up your system if it fails and send any tax revenues to the general fund, and we want independent audits of such.
If gov't wants to compete with private business, it should follow the same rules!
BTW Karl - please show in the blog where Embarq is behind this or any other poll? That is sloppy reporting! |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to woody7
Re: hmmmmm....
said by woody7  : If the telcos/cablecos aren't offering, just get the f#$k out of the way. Why should they when they can just as easily:
(1) Buy a politician
(2) Sponsor astroturf groups to generate FUD
(3) Convince clueless consumers that the apocalypse is nigh if
ISPs (a) don't get to do whatever they want whenever they want and/or (b) get to crush municipal broadband.
These billion dollar corps didn't get that way by playing by the rules. First rule of thumb in any government regulated monopoly/duopoly is to buy yourself an opportunistic politico masquerading as a man of and for the people.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to Tarheels Fan
Re: Has anyone bothered to read the bill?
I can agree with 3. I live in a city that attempted to run its own cable network. Had to move funds from other sources to keep paying for it. Billing was coming out of General Tax fund. Was supposed to be reimbursed but never happened.
In the end millions of dollars got moved around never repaid. City run electric department seemed to fund the brunt of it. They ended up selling it off for a major loss. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| reply to Tarheels Fan
I agree with most of the bill, but there are a couple of points that are arguable. The bill draws parallels with other city provided 'enterprise' type services, i.e. water, sewer, garbage collection, etc. So far so good. Most governments run those as enterprise operations meaning they need to be self funding but also meaning they are not profit generating.
I might even be persuaded that the cost of capital should be included, although I suspect that many governments do not build the cost of garbage trucks or water line improvements into their rates for those services. Capital investment is typically paid as a part of a bond issue and recovered by general taxes.
Forcing an enterprise service to pay tax equivalences to the government is just dumb. No water or garbage department has to do that, why should a broadband department? |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
| On the tax issue, the easy answer is to stop collecting taxes from Embarq and TW. The problem with your argument about trash and water, is that there is no one who competes with them in the City limits. You will have 2 direct competitors, not to mention several small independent ISP's that have to compete with gov't backed service. Making it an even playing field is all this does. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers
Even if the majority of taxpayers are fine paying for municipal broadband, what about those who aren't? Say I don't even want broadband, or I'm fine with my current service provided by a private company. I shouldn't have to subsidize my neighbor's fiber connection.
Municipal broadband is fine only if general tax revenues aren't used to fund it. Any bill to that effect is a good idea. There's a reason government only provides goods and services that multiple firms can't provide--and broadband clearly doesn't qualify. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA
| Interesting. I only walk and never use roads so I'd like to not pay for the building or maintenance of new roads. I shouldn't have to subsidize the roads my neighbors use. That could easily be and is, in some ares, run by private companies.
That argument doesn't hold up. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to K Patterson
Re: Federal DNC violation?
Are they calling existing customers? If so, they would be exempt as they have an existing business relationship. |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH | Good point. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| reply to Tarheels Fan
Re: Has anyone bothered to read the bill?
Nope - you haven't convinced me. This isn't an Olympic competition or a horse race. All the players do not have to be equal. There are some things a government has the advantage in and one is that they don't pay taxes.
I would really like to see an economic analysis of why Utopia isn't working in Provo as that seems to be the ideal model. Let the government build the 'tubes' and let any ISP/Telco/Cable Company/Content Aggregator that wants to serve those residences. That's an equal playing field.
What I suspect is happening is that the cablecos and telcos realize that they can't compete on content, price and service; that they need the artificial scarcity of being the only supplier in order to run through those annual price increases they've become addicted to. |
|
Tarheels Fan
Premium
join:2006-01-05
·Embarq
| Even if I were to agree with your point, the tax provision is not the biggie. It is item 3. They want local gov't funds to backup any loss they take in on income. The reason is b/c they would have to end up selling at a loss and paying off creditors with tax money anyhow.
Just like the trash pickup guys, this will eventually run private business (TW and Embarq) out of town if successful as it did with Bob's Trash pickup when they started collecting trash. If that is what the people of Wilson want, then thats that. However with the electrical debacle that Wilson got themselves into (google electricities), I would think most folks would not trust their local gov't to handle another utility. |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to jaminus
Re: Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers
Before I had children should my tax dollars be used to fund public schools they serve no purpose for me. But then they don't really serve a purpose for children in them except to regurgitate some answers to a test so the school can get Federal funding. God forbid should that teach them properly so the can think for themselves and figure out the answers. But that's another story.
My children are going to go to private schools does this mean I don't have to pay taxes to fund public schools do I even get a break on taxes no. How is that fair.
If TW and Embarq provided reliable and adequate service the citizens wouldn't be asking for help from the Goverment. Either provide service people want or get out of the way.
|
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| reply to travelguy
Re: Has anyone bothered to read the bill?
And just as an aside, I'll share the following. It's not germane to the subject at hand as it pertains to a private enterprise, but interesting just the same.
The Phoenix Cardinals NFL team does not allow cell companies to install equipment on their property. Instead of having hundreds of antennas hanging around the stadium with varying levels of coverage, they installed a single common antenna system that provides great coverage everywhere (inside and out) of the stadium.
Anyone who wants to serve that property must contract with the Cardinals, and interface at a common location about a mile away. The Cardinals take things from there.
That kind of model can work... |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | reply to dcurrey
Re: Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers
ya if the city wants to then let them
just because the big ISP's feel like being lazy doesn't mean a city should be bared from rolling their own ISP
and if tax money is needed well they wanted it so live with it |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Tarheels Fan
Re: Has anyone bothered to read the bill?
3, 4, and 5 are not designed to level the playing field. It is designed to look that way while putting additional burden on the municipality that is not there for the private organization.
Bottom line is as it is my understanding.... the incumbents were asked to provide service and have refused. So this city is free to do what it wants. Again, you have these greedy bastards that don't want to serve the very people they should be serving because it isn't profitable enough for them, yet they don't want to allow them to serve themselves. They were given a chance and have declined so screw em, they can leave if they don't like the playing field.
If this city wants to create another tax just for the incumbents and have them pay for this 100% through that tax, then so be it. If they want to build a city owned broadband company and fund it any way they want that the people have approved, so be it. The city serves the people and if the people have spoken then the city does what the people have asked. If the private companies don't like and and don't want to compete then they can close up shop and move on. They aren't doing anyone any good being there, so they might as well leave. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to djeremy
Re: Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers
Roads are non-excludable and land is too scarce to lay multiple competing roads next to each other. We all pay for roads because 1) there can't be market entry feasibly and 2) charging people for how often they use roads would be quite complicated and expensive.
Not so with broadband. Charging those who use it, and knowing who is connected and who isn't, is easy. Also, everybody uses roads (or, at least, everybody needs roads to exist to survive) whereas lots of people (more than a third of all Americans) not only don't have broadband, but don't even want it, according to a 2008 Pew Research report. |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| reply to DarkLogix
General tax revenues should not be put toward municipal broadband since lots of taxpayers almost certainly don't care for broadband, even if 60 or 70 percent of them do. Broadband is simply not the same as roads, water, or police, which virtually everybody uses at some point or another. Muni broadband should only be funded by those who actually use it. Keep in mind that ISPs can't force people to subscribe at gunpoint, but your municipality can jail you if you don't pay property taxes.
If you think big ISPs are evil (and some of them certainly can be) then don't subscribe to their services. Go without broadband, or switch to a better ISP, or move somewhere where you can get an ISP that suits you. Hell, draft a business plan and start your own ISP. If your town has high broadband rates, then somebody must be making a heck of a profit--you should be able to draft a business plan and borrow money (either with a loan or venture capital) and start a WISP. People do it all the time especially in rural areas. |
|
