
North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/#!/tech-policy/news/2011/05/north-carolina-governor-refuses-to-block-anti-muni-broadband-law.ars
======
jonprins
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....

~~~
js2
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>

~~~
jonprins
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.. :/

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

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

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

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

~~~
Spyro7
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.

~~~
robterrell
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.

~~~
Spyro7
"There's nothing savvy about her position."

She's a political animal. In the calculus of politics, what doesn't help you
hurts you.

Picking a fight over this would make her a hero to hacker types, but it could
possibly burn bridges elsewhere. Unfortunately, media companies punch above
their weight in this country.

From a purely self-interested perspective, she made the savvy choice. Stating
her disapproval without being too belligerent.

Call it cynicism or call it realism - this is the way these things tend to
happen.

"It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto
the damn thing."

I'm curious to know, since when, in recent times, has bravery been the
hallmark of a politician? Almost by definition, the political class tends to
be remarkably risk-averse.

------
tzs
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.

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

~~~
dylanrw
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
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.

