
Time Warner Cable trying to make municipal fiber illegal in North Carolina - IgorPartola
http://www.innovationpolicy.org/fat-pipe-dreams-in-north-carolina
======
robflynn
I am originally from rural North Carolina and happen to be visiting my parents
at the moment. I'll give a quick run-down of their internet options over the
years:

From 1995-2000, their only option was dialup. 56k dialup was offered but the
quality of the phone lines in the area only allowed for 26k - 28k at best.

Sometime around 2000 or 2001, "broadband" finally moved to the area. However,
they can not get DSL or Cable. They have a wireless ISP (radio installed on
the house, receives signal from a tower.)

They get about 1mpbs down and about 10% packet loss. Last night I was battling
35% packet loss while trying to do some work.

Parts of the county do have DSL and Cable. A guy who lives about 10 houses up
from my dad has Time Warner broadband. He's had it for 10 years and loves it.
My parent's can't get it, however, because they're just over the county line
and apparently this county has some sort of exclusivity agreement with another
small/local cable company.

That small cable company does have broadband, but only to small/select area of
the county, and they don't seem to have any interest in heading out this way.

I really don't even know what to do to help them anymore as far as
connectivity goes. I just know that it annoys them.

Anyway, the point of my little tirade is: It angers me to see possible
additional imposed limitations to an area which already struggles to have
anything to begin with.

~~~
noonespecial
All we had to do was have a few meetings about community WIFI and put up a few
radios and suddenly the local cable company decided that what they said would
take a decade could be done in a couple of months. I've never seen them move
so fast. It was like leprechaun magic.

Have a few meetings, invite your local cable representative to talk about
"options". (They always send a guy to tell you how committed they are, how
many new places they hooked up last year, and how your neighborhood is just
too rural to serve at this time.) Once you get a T1 somewhere with a big
antenna, they'll freak.

~~~
robflynn
I'm not entirely certain that they (the cable company) cares. There's the
wireless ISP in the area (what the parents currently have) and they didn't
seem to fret when that came into the area.

This is mostly an old, poor, mill town -- except all of the mills have long
since gone away.

You pretty much described exactly the kinds of things they say. When I first
called on my parent's behalf in 2008, I was told it would be 2010. In 2010 I
was told "maybe 2011." Here we are in 2011 and they still have no answer for
me.

Bell South apparently doesn't have a DSLAM near by... though my sister has DSL
and lives about 6 miles from my parents.

They're pretty much at the county line, so I think this has caused them to end
up in a "no man's land".

Time Warner can't come that last 1/4 mi and the other cable company doesn't
care to come out this far.

900mhz seems to be the way to go.

 _edit_ Just stumbled across this article online, written about someone in the
same county: <http://www.internetforeveryone.org/americaoffline/nc/day5>

------
js2
I live in the triangle area. My broadband options are limited. An excerpt I
wrote nominating my municipality for Google Fiber for Communities:

 _Though there are many technology workers here, the area has limited Internet
access providers, primarily BellSouth DSL and Time Warner cable, both of which
have higher prices, yet offer less bandwidth compated to providers in other
regions.

For example, Comcast advertises (in Santa Clara, CA) 15 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up
(w/PowerBoost) for $42.95 per month, after a six-month intro of $19.99.

By comparison, Time Warner Cable offers only 10 Mbps down, 512 Kbps up for
$64.90 per month, after a six-month intro of $39.90/month. Two-thirds the
bandwidth for 1.5x the cost, nevermind that I can't even get higher speed if I
wanted to.

DSL is even worse. I can't get BellSouth's website to tell me what DSL options
are available at my address, but att.com advertises 6 Mbps DSL for $42.95 per
month after a 12-month intro of $24.95. AT&T U-verse is not yet available to
me either._

Now look what Wilson, NC, 60 miles to the east, offers to its residents:

<http://www.greenlightnc.com/about/internet/>

10 Mbps symmetric service for $35/month up to 100 Mbps symmetric for
$150/month.

More about what's going on at <http://savencbb.wordpress.com/>

~~~
robflynn
(sigh) I guess I need to move to Wilmington (or back to CA.)

A fellow HNer/friend mentioned this: <https://epbfi.com/internet/>

Chattanooga TN offering 1gbps service for $350/mo.

------
runjake
I can't be bothered to read this article, I'll get too angry.

I have no clue about this particular case, but I've been involved in other
municipal fiber projects, and big telcos (plural, not just one) routinely
tried to stop or sabotage these projects, often surreptitiously. As far as
they're concerned, you're encroaching on their territory. It's complete crap.
It happens all over the country.

A commenter below mentions that they thought the headline was editorialized
heavily or plain wrong. Again, I have no clue about this particular case, but
these corporations work in underhanded ways.

~~~
tomsaffell
It's a shame you can't be bothered to read it. It's an even greater shame that
the comment at the top of the page was written by a person who didn't read the
article.

~~~
runjake
If it pleases you, I did end up reading it, and getting angry, as predicted.

~~~
Holmes
That's funny!

------
retroafroman
Be sure to read to the end and see the update at the bottom where he mentions
that he has received grants from Time Warner Cable (the ISP here in NC).

I agree with some of the statements, we shouldn't have municipal fiber
networks where it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I've had stellar
experience with locally owned and operated broadband networks in other states,
and I don't think we need a bill to make that illegal. A few bad examples
doesn't mean we need a law to prohibit it in the future.

~~~
jerf
"I don't think we need a bill to make that illegal."

It doesn't sound like this makes it illegal. It sounds like it makes it
illegal for municipalities to engage in anticompetitive practices, or what
we'd call anticompetitive practices if they weren't a government. That's not
the same thing.

I have no opinion on the bill itself. I found the article thought-provoking,
but being libertarian I'm still inclined to say that a municipality shouldn't
be running a business like that. Not even because it'll give bad service to
the customers necessarily, but also because a municipality just shouldn't have
to deal with a case where it builds out millions of dollars of infrastructure
and then can't recoup the costs because its business analysis was crappy.
Society has solid, tested mechanisms for dealing with that when companies go
wrong and have to go under, it's a lot harder for a municipality. They
shouldn't be engaging in that sort of risky behavior, even as I'm not sure I
want to _ban_ it.

~~~
_delirium
Given that this sort of infrastructure tends to be a natural monopoly or close
to one, it seems like a perfect case for either the government to build it, or
some sort of quasi-governmental regulated utility, the same way power lines
are operated. If you consider it an actual utility, the government is
implicitly going to be guaranteeing it one way or another, because people
aren't going to be willing to put up with a company going bankrupt resulting
in service just being discontinued.

Even in states where energy _production_ is free-market/deregulated, with
consumers choosing which power generators to buy from at market rates, the
actual lines over which the power flows are either government-owned or quasi-
governmental, because competition for provision of power lines doesn't work
particularly well.

Regardless of the pros/cons though, _municipal_ experimentation in this area
seems the least problematic to me. If the federal government or even a state
is doing something, it's hard to escape and covers a large area. If a town is
doing something, and people don't like it, it's much easier to just avoid that
town. If some strategies clearly end up working much better than others, we'll
be able to see which towns succeed in their strategies and which fail.
Municipalities are also somewhat more constrained in their ability to waste
unlimited taxpayer money, due to a mixture of fewer taxes they're allowed to
levy, and the fact that people can just move to another town if things get too
onerous.

~~~
jerf
Building power lines isn't the same level of risk. What's the probability a
given house wants power? Basically 100%. Municipalities have lost their
metaphorical shirts on fibre rollouts before. If it was similar in all
relevant ways you wouldn't have such different outcomes. That's a sign your
argument isn't capturing something about reality.

The reason why I'm not in a hurry to ban it is that I'm actually not upset to
see people experience the consequences of their actions. It inevitably happens
anyhow and trying to legislate it away has the usual problems that arise when
you try to legislate an impossibility.

I suppose I shouldn't have used the dreaded l-word; we say nearly the same
thing but you wouldn't know it from the karma outcome.

~~~
IgorPartola
I was under the impression that telephone lines were considered utility
infrastructure and not everyone wants a land line (or ever did).

------
robterrell
The article focuses on two cities that bought out their failing local
providers. Considering that they were failing, it's probably no surprise that
city managers with no experience in that business can't run them any better.

The article completely ignores Greenlight (<http://www.greenlightnc.com/>) --
the successful municipal broadband network in Wilson, NC that has been
battling TW in the courts. To me, it appears the bill is aimed directly at
Greenlight.

BTW I live in Raleigh, I pay TWC $105 per month for business class service:
10/2 with 5 static IPs. (I get roughly 7/1. They won't prorate for the missing
bits.)

~~~
mseebach
Is Greenlight profitable on its own (including capital costs), or is it
subsidized?

~~~
jellicle
Why would that matter? Are roads profitable on their own (including capital
costs), or are they subsidized?

------
mseebach
The headline is not just editorializing heavily, it's plain wrong.

 _[The bill] seeks to ensure that cities, who function in the dual role of
regulator and competitor in such markets, don’t abuse their regulatory power
to privilege themselves with respect to their competitors. [...] The bills
require municipal broadband operators play by the same rules and regulations
that apply to commercial operators, to refrain from cross-subsidizing their
networks by raiding other kitties, to price at cost or above, and to allow
fair access to rights of way._

Say what you want about Time Warner being out there, pushing any bill, but
let's at least judge the bill by it's actual content.

~~~
gergles
So, you're relying on the editorialized summary of the legislation instead of
the actual text to call the article "wrong"?

Municipal broadband operators shouldn't have to "play fair". Broadband access
is a natural monopoly, and a municipality offering quality service should not
be bound by the same obligations as a profit-making enterprise.

If the city and its residents believe that broadband is worth funding, via any
method they choose to do so, that should absolutely be their right regardless
of what TWC and their lobbyists think.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Broadband access is a natural monopoly, and a municipality offering quality
service should not be bound by the same obligations as a profit-making
enterprise._

Neither of these statements make sense.

First, regarding the "natural monopoly", I just can't understand why you'd say
that. You've offered no supporting argument. So I'll just point out that, 30
years ago, ATT said exactly the same thing. But we've come a long way from
there, virtually all of it good. Why would you want to run your broadband
access under the same ideas that gave us the evil old phone monopoly?

I don't understand why you'd think that a government-run service should have
special privileges over a corporation. I would say the other way around,
because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and all that. Plus there's
the dismal track record of other governmental efforts. Take sports stadiums,
for example. Giving public education huge benefits in that business certainly
hasn't delivered better outcomes.

~~~
gergles
AT&T was _right_ that telephone service is a natural monopoly. There's still
only one set of phone lines running into your house. This trend on HN of
expecting every argument to be entirely self-supported and encyclopedic-
length, defining everything from first principles, is really quite annoying.
You don't win an argument by going "HA HA YOU DIDN'T DEFINE A TERM." If you
don't know what a natural monopoly is, go look it the fuck up. Utilities such
as telephone service and internet access are the textbook definition of a
natural monopoly.

Government run services already have tons of special privileges corporations
don't. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. Regardless, it is my
opinion (and I'd believe the article writers would agree with me) that
infrastructure is something that is inherently in the public interest and
therefore best managed by the public (through government.) You don't drive on
four separate interstate systems, you don't have eighteen sets of phone lines
running into your house, and you don't have 4 sets of power cables either.

~~~
billswift
>infrastructure is something that is inherently in the public interest and
therefore best managed by the public (through government.)

By this idiot "argument", government should go back to the 1950s through 1970s
and start nationalizing railroads, power companies, and oil companies again.
How did that work out again?

~~~
gergles
I don't know, let's ask California how their energy prices are doing now that
they've been radically deregulated. Let's take a train on our efficient, safe,
and inexpensive national rail system there to ask them.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Sigh.

The brownouts a couple years back were because the State deregulated only one
side of the market, leaving the sellers of electricity in an untenable
position. Essentially, they had to compete to sell on the one hand, but were
forbidden from competition on the purchasing side. The problem was _entirely_
(and it's not often one can point a finger at one single cause, but here it
is) the fault of ham-fisted State regulation.

The federal rail system is not inexpensive, it's heavily subsidized. Don't
start with the per-passenger-mile comparison to highways, because it's wrong:
the study failed to account for capital cost in the railway, while counting
for it against roads. On the topic of rail, the network of rail in the US was
subsidized and built using eminent domain -- yet all of those railroads failed
or were merged into others. The one exception, the one railroad that stood on
its own without federal strongarming others into supporting it, is the only
one that managed to survive until the present day.

------
nhangen
Time Warner is probably the worst cable service provider I've ever used in my
life. I was so happy to move to Florida and get Verizon at 30/30 for the same
price I paid for Time Warner's poor quality and consistently dropped service.

As for the bill itself - I don't see why any regulatory body or bill should
tell a business how much they can charge, government or otherwise.

------
dylanrw
I spoke at length with my Representative about this several weeks back and he
was on the fence. He does not want to see Government compete directly with
private corps, but in this case I would argue that the internet is a core
utility like water/power, especially if you expect growth in high paying tech
jobs in an area. This is an example of old world thinking/planning being
played by the savvy private interests, and it is alarming.

------
jsz0
It's a horrendous thing for consumers but let's remember municipalities lured
in cable companies to build in rural areas by promising little or no
competition via exclusive franchising agreements. The municipalities usually
get a small cut of profits from the cable provider as well. Blame TWC but also
blame the municipality itself for 20-30 years of anti-competitive behavior and
the voters who allow this to happen. If this passes it will be entirely
consistent with the history of cable franchises. In the end this may all be a
show to get a higher kick-back out of TWC.

------
IgorPartola
Some more background:

<http://www.wxii12.com/money/27123939/detail.html>

[http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2009/04/nc-considering-
bill-...](http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2009/04/nc-considering-bill-to-
limit-municipal-broadband-efforts/)

[http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-raleigh/raleigh-
city-c...](http://www.examiner.com/technology-in-raleigh/raleigh-city-council-
adopts-resolutionagainst-limiting-municipal-broadband-1)

------
CWuestefeld
If the government wants our data usage records, today we have at least a hope
that our (corporate) ISP will protect our privacy, at least until the
government comes up with a subpeona.

If the government _is_ our ISP, do we have any hope of avoiding the scrutiny
of government?

~~~
hartror
You trust corporates more than you trust the government?

At least the government is in theory suppose to look after your best
interests, corporations have no such requirement. Either way the best solution
is maintaining strict privacy laws with monitoring and oversight by the free
press and well funded and respected organisations such as a better funded EFF.

