5 ms·

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 compe

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 16y ago
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.
- mseebach 16y ago
  No, I'm relying on the linked article to conclude that the headline linking to that article doesn't accurate reflect the content of the article, in fact it editorializes it. Both are contrary to HN guidelines. The fact that you agree with the editorializing is irrelevant.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    or you could go read the bill at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H129v0.pdf http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H1... It basically stops a community from providing broadband as part of the basic city services (like fire, police).
- 5teev 16y ago
  Carrying the "natural monopoly" point a little further, it's not all upside for the municipal operator: while the commercial operator could walk away from an unprofitable service area, the municipality will have to provide the service even at a loss. (At least as long as taxpayers think it's worthwhile.)
  - gergles 16y ago
    Right, and while it may be unprofitable to build roads to the trailer park, if a city thinks the trailer park deserves connectivity to the rest of the city, the roads will get built. Equal access is a fundamental principle of infrastructure projects -- or at least it should be.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Typically the operating agreement giving the company a monopoly ensures that they provide service to everyone as one of the conditions.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      >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?
_delirium 16y ago
Most of those conditions seem reasonable to me except for the ban on cross-subsidies and sub-cost pricing. If a municipality chooses to pay for a subsidized city broadband network from tax dollars, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. At least, I don't see a reason that that decision has to be made for every city by the state legislature, instead of leaving it to each local government to decide its own policy on the subject.
- wtallis 16y ago
  More important on the cross-subsidy issue, I doubt the commercial ISPs will be banned from subsidizing the connection service with their business as a content provider. If the existing ISPs were just ISPs, then the ban on cross-subsidies would actually level the playing field, but that's not the case.
- yuhong 16y ago
  Yea, amendments to the bill would be best IMO.
jellicle 16y ago
The actual bill is very clearly intended to throw up a prohibitive roadblock in front of any municipal buildout. Cities are forbidden from entering into any sort of public-private partnership to build a network, etc. etc. Judging the bill by its actual content, a more honest version of the bill would simply be a full ban on municipal networks.

gergles 16y ago

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.

mseebach 16y ago
No, I'm relying on the linked article to conclude that the headline linking to that article doesn't accurate reflect the content of the article, in fact it editorializes it. Both are contrary to HN guidelines. The fact that you agree with the editorializing is irrelevant.
- protomyth 16y ago
  or you could go read the bill at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H129v0.pdf http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H1... It basically stops a community from providing broadband as part of the basic city services (like fire, police).
5teev 16y ago
Carrying the "natural monopoly" point a little further, it's not all upside for the municipal operator: while the commercial operator could walk away from an unprofitable service area, the municipality will have to provide the service even at a loss. (At least as long as taxpayers think it's worthwhile.)
- gergles 16y ago
  Right, and while it may be unprofitable to build roads to the trailer park, if a city thinks the trailer park deserves connectivity to the rest of the city, the roads will get built. Equal access is a fundamental principle of infrastructure projects -- or at least it should be.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Typically the operating agreement giving the company a monopoly ensures that they provide service to everyone as one of the conditions.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    >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?

_delirium 16y ago

Most of those conditions seem reasonable to me except for the ban on cross-subsidies and sub-cost pricing. If a municipality chooses to pay for a subsidized city broadband network from tax dollars, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. At least, I don't see a reason that that decision has to be made for every city by the state legislature, instead of leaving it to each local government to decide its own policy on the subject.

wtallis 16y ago
More important on the cross-subsidy issue, I doubt the commercial ISPs will be banned from subsidizing the connection service with their business as a content provider. If the existing ISPs were just ISPs, then the ban on cross-subsidies would actually level the playing field, but that's not the case.
yuhong 16y ago
Yea, amendments to the bill would be best IMO.

jellicle 16y ago

The actual bill is very clearly intended to throw up a prohibitive roadblock in front of any municipal buildout. Cities are forbidden from entering into any sort of public-private partnership to build a network, etc. etc. Judging the bill by its actual content, a more honest version of the bill would simply be a full ban on municipal networks.