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....
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.. :/
"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."
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our lawmakers love keeping us technologically irrelevant. Now if this bill had something to do with College Basketball it would have turned out different. -_-
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
27 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 64.8 ms ] threadFor 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....
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328544
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.. :/
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If only 10% or less are served in an area, than that is an "unserved area", and the bill does not apply there.
Are you suggesting that Dems, the RIAA party, would have done things differently?
* 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.