North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law

http://arstechnica.com/#!/tech-policy/news/2011/05/north-carolina-governor-refuses-to-block-anti-muni-broadband-law.ars

by evo_9 • 15 years ago

47 27 15 years ago

jonprins2• 15 years ago

Welp, this kinda screws over a couple family members. I know someone living in Cary (not even 20 minutes drive from Research Triangle Park) that pays something like $60/mo for a measly 6mbps home connection.

For another business they were working with, they used to get DSL through a local computer shop (Intrex). Intrex stopped their DSL service. AT&T refused to service that location at the speeds Intrex would. And the local cable monopoly refuses to run lines to the business.

The only saving grace would have been a municipal ISP, but this just screwed that over.

Good luck being relevant to technology in ten years, North Carolina....

ChrisLTD3• 15 years ago

I'm sure Time Warner Cable and Verizon will start using their profits to start upgrading our local network infrastructure any day now...

mgkimsal• 15 years ago

Well, they did upgrade Youngsville, NC to wideband DOCSIS 3.0. I'm not terribly happy about supporting a monopoly, but I do have 30/5 service now.

js2• 15 years ago

Yep, I'm in Cary (not that Cary would ever install its own broadband, but I wonder how this will impact Wilson).

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328544

jonprins2• 15 years ago

Very true - I've been following the Wilson situation fairly closely. I've urged the people I know down there to contact their elected officials about it, but got mainly apathy in response.

And yeah, I can't see Cary ever installing its own broadband. Though, the layout of the main roads (cary pkway, maynard) could make for a fairly easy rollout.

Except, well, all those twisty windy mcmansion subdivisions with their eighty page home owners agreements.. :/

sunburnt• 15 years ago

From the "Save NC Broadband" blog [1]:

"Greenlight has been largely exempted from the bill’s effects. If you’re one of our 5,700+ members or you live in Wilson County, you don’t have to worry about service. Greenlight is here to stay."

[1] http://savencbb.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/wilson-largely-exem...

robterrell2• 15 years ago

Have you friend in Cary look into Speakeasy DSL. They'll check the line and provision it for as fast as it will go. Before I moved to my current house, Speakeasy was the best among the bad options. (My current house can't get high speed DSL despite being a thousand feet from the CO due to someone wiring 13,000 extra feet of copper in the middle somewhere.)

yock• 15 years ago

So, her answer is to boldly...do nothing? Does she view her inaction as heroic in some way?

Spyro73• 15 years ago

There isn't really much that she could do here. The bill has already passed with the 2/3rds necessary to make her veto useless.

She took the most politically savvy position possible. It wouldn't have made any sense to lose political capital on a battle that was already lost.

ChrisLTD3• 15 years ago

There is a remote possibility that vetoing the bill would bring enough attention to the issue to force some state representatives to switch sides.

robterrell2• 15 years ago

There's nothing savvy about her position. She's not going to be the broadband provider's favorite in 2012 against any generic republican (let alone Pat McRory). And I doubt the legislature gives her any concession at all for the convenience of avoiding another vote.

It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing. Sure, the legislature would override a veto, but let them. Let them own this bill instead of being complicit in it.

Personally, I'd frame this as an anti-internet-startup bill. Internet startups need the internet, much of the state doesn't have any, and the rest of the state has terrible monopolistic providers.

bradendouglass• 15 years ago

She doesn't probably understand what its intended results may or may not be. Or for that fact what "broadband" is.

eli• 15 years ago

Personally I would have vetoed it. But since the bill has a veto-proof majority, that wouldn't really change much in the end.

dylanrw2• 15 years ago

Our lawmakers love keeping us technologically irrelevant. Now if this bill had something to do with College Basketball it would have turned out different. -_-

ataggart• 15 years ago

It's not clear to me what problem taxpayer-subsidized broadband is intended to solve.

dylanrw2• 15 years ago

In eastern North Carolina especially, there are often times only one ISP in an area. Also, since it is often times rural in nature, said ISPs may not get you service because there aren't enough subscribers on your street. So there is that problem. The other is this: pricing. In my city there is only 2 broadband ISPs, both have settled on pretty high prices for pretty slow speeds but since they have absolutely no incentive to add value for their customers, it has stayed that way for the past 4 years. Those two issues essentially lead down the road to where if you are a business and you want decent broadband, you must pay out the nose, and even then you may not be able to get it due to the company not wanting to run the lines.

If there was a municipal provider broadband could be more affordable, and more easily accessible. Ultimately helping to create an environment suitable to the education/tech industry.

robflynn• 15 years ago

My parents live in western NC and have the same problem.

They're in a very rural area. Time Warner provides service down their road but stops about a half mile or mile from their home. Why? Because my parents are in a different county and their county has some sort of exclusivity thing with Northland Cable.

Northland Cable has no desire to run service to my parents' street as I believe my parents are the only ones on their street that would use it.

BellSouth/AT&T Does not provide DSL access to their area, either.

Their only option is a private company providing wireless internet. They pay about $50/mo for 1mbit down/1mbit up. Quite often with 20-30% packet loss. More if it's raining.

tzs2• 15 years ago

> Also, since it is often times rural in nature, said ISPs may not get you service because there aren't enough subscribers on your street. So there is that problem

If only 10% or less are served in an area, than that is an "unserved area", and the bill does not apply there.

ryanhuff• 15 years ago

Just as the municipality has a role in basic infrastructure for delivering water and electricity, it should also be a participant in the delivery of data to citizens. To ban a city from taking ownership of an increasingly important utility is troubling.

chopsueyar2• 15 years ago

Why was this downvoted?

ajays• 15 years ago

Notice how Republicans are all for "individual rights", until these rights start to cut into Corporations' profits?

chopsueyar2• 15 years ago

Notice how politicians, regardless of political party, are liars?

anamax• 15 years ago

>Notice how Republicans are all for "individual rights", until these rights start to cut into Corporations' profits?

Are you suggesting that Dems, the RIAA party, would have done things differently?

tzs2• 15 years ago

The bill doesn't actually seem to be all that anti-muni broadband. Here are the major requirements it imposes on municipal broadband:

* Must comply with the same state, local, and federal laws that a private provider would have to comply with.

* Cannot use zoning or land use regulations to force people to force people to subscribe, or make use of monopoly city services (like electricity or gas) conditional on subscribing to municipal broadband.

* Must provide non-discriminatory access to poles, conduits, right-of-ways and such unless there is not enough capacity and it cannot reasonably be added.

* Cannot use funds from other services, such as electricity, gas, or garbage collection, to subsidize their broadband offering.

* Cannot provide the service at below cost.

* Must pay to the city general fund the equivalent of the fees and taxes that a private provider would have to pay in that city. There are similar provisions covering county and state taxes.

* These requirements do NOT apply to municipal broadband in "unserved areas". An unserved area is an area where only 10% or less have broadband (and satellite does not count as broadband).

* Two public hearings, at least 30 days apart, have to be held before setting up municipal broadband. Any feasibility studies, plans, and such associated with the proposal have to be made available to the public before the meeting.

* The city can't give itself certain tax breaks on equipment and service purchases unless those tax breaks apply to private providers too. E.g., it could not exempt the purchase of routers from city sales tax if private providers have to pay city sales tax on routers.

This doesn't seem all that bad. If the phone company and cable company are being unreasonable this should leave plenty of room for a city to offer a competitive service and undercut them. Conversely, if the city can only compete by subsidizing from other services, forcing people to subscribe, and so on, then that indicates that the incumbent providers are doing fine.

North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law

Related Stories