3 ms·

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 s

by Spyro7 15y 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.

ChrisLTD 15y 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.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  Really? This isn't the first battle that's been fought in this conflict: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/07/north-carolina-kills-moratorium-on-muni-broadband.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/07/north-carolina-k... I would just like to note the minuscule effect that victory had on the ultimate outcome. It seems to have merely delayed the inevitable. Take a look at the map in that article. The problem is that unless some kind of solid, pro-municipal broadband legislation comes down from the federal level, the big telecoms are going to fight a take-no-prisoners, state-by-state war of attrition. The big ISPs are well-heeled and, unfortunately, politics is a money game. Given the present situation, I just don't see things working well for municipal broadband in the long run. There has to be a game changer of some sort. Let's pose a hypothetical. Say she vetoes it and somehow the legislature upholds the veto. All the ISPs would have to do to get the situation back in their favor is to run some TV ads decrying big government. Ordinary people will line the streets protesting government takeover of the internet. Within weeks the whole thing would be rolled back, and we're back where we started. It is great for us technologically savvy people to sit over here and be hopeful, but the reality is that the most effective way to fight back against this kind of legislation is to educate consumers about how things could be. The impetus is on Netflix and similar companies to get ordinary people to place more value on better bandwidth offerings. Until then, we will continue to see these types of setbacks.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    I don't disagree. That's why I said it's a remote possibility. All I know for sure is that by not even bothering to veto the bill, Perdue assured defeat for a cause she says she supports.
robterrell 15y 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.
- Spyro7 15y ago
  "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.

by Spyro7 15y ago

ChrisLTD 15y 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.

Spyro7 15y ago
Really? This isn't the first battle that's been fought in this conflict: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/07/north-carolina-kills-moratorium-on-muni-broadband.ars http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/07/north-carolina-k... I would just like to note the minuscule effect that victory had on the ultimate outcome. It seems to have merely delayed the inevitable. Take a look at the map in that article. The problem is that unless some kind of solid, pro-municipal broadband legislation comes down from the federal level, the big telecoms are going to fight a take-no-prisoners, state-by-state war of attrition. The big ISPs are well-heeled and, unfortunately, politics is a money game. Given the present situation, I just don't see things working well for municipal broadband in the long run. There has to be a game changer of some sort. Let's pose a hypothetical. Say she vetoes it and somehow the legislature upholds the veto. All the ISPs would have to do to get the situation back in their favor is to run some TV ads decrying big government. Ordinary people will line the streets protesting government takeover of the internet. Within weeks the whole thing would be rolled back, and we're back where we started. It is great for us technologically savvy people to sit over here and be hopeful, but the reality is that the most effective way to fight back against this kind of legislation is to educate consumers about how things could be. The impetus is on Netflix and similar companies to get ordinary people to place more value on better bandwidth offerings. Until then, we will continue to see these types of setbacks.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I don't disagree. That's why I said it's a remote possibility. All I know for sure is that by not even bothering to veto the bill, Perdue assured defeat for a cause she says she supports.

robterrell 15y 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.

Spyro7 15y ago
"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.