Time Warner Cable Won't Compete, Seeks Legislation 621
narramissic writes "The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business. Apparently they're having some success, as the NC State Senate has proposed bills that would do TWC's bidding.'"
What crap... (Score:5, Informative)
It's mostly because of the competition among the providers.
What's the matter TWC, afraid that your archaic bloated business model couldn't compete?
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Informative)
Old Practice (Score:5, Informative)
ISPs and cable companies have a history of trying to avoid competition like this. A similar municipal wi-fi initiative was stifled in Pennsylvania a few years ago [wired.com].
Amen to that.
Re:They need to be put in check (Score:4, Informative)
That's because TWC and Embarq believe in "Corporatism"
Re:What crap... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:$99 per month ain't cheap!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
A comparable plan from Time Warner Inc., with six fewer channels (no Cartoon Network, Disney, The Science Channel, ESPNU, ESPN News, or ESPN Classic) and lower upload speeds costs $137.95, for an introductory rate, which lasts a few months and then will likely be ratcheted up.
Utter BS (Score:5, Informative)
here is the link to the actual bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v0.pdf [state.nc.us]
In essence, what the bill is saying is that a govt provided internet service should be self-sufficient, unsubsidized and be applicable to all costs and taxes that a private organization is. It is not trying to establish a monoply but instead trying to take the unfair advantage away from a govt sponsored organization.
Here is the text from actual bill:
Requirements. â" A city that operates a public enterprise under G.S. 160A-311 that provides communications services to the public for a fee over a communications network that is directly or indirectly owned or operated by or provides a financial benefit to the city or another city shall meet the following conditions with respect to the provision of communications service:
(1) Comply with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements that would apply to the communications services if provided by a private communications service provider.
(2) Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and source of investment dollars associated with the provision of communications service.
(3) Shall not subsidize the cost of providing communications service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water, sewer, or garbage services. In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service.
(4) Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications services, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality; and (ii) an amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and other assessments that would apply to a private communications service provider including federal, state, and local taxes; rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.
(5) Shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider.
(6) Shall prepare and publish an independent annual audit in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that reflect the fully allocated cost of providing the communications service, including all direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs shall include amounts for rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees, regulatory fees, occupation taxes, pole attachment fees, and ad valorem taxes. The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that
32 are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service. The North Carolina Utilities Commission may adopt rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, and all records demonstrating compliance shall be filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and made available for public inspection and copying.
Public Utility Cooperative (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative
We need more of these everywhere.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Informative)
Why convert it to a private entity? Just run it as a city utility. I have city power, water, AND fiber triple play. The service and quality is much better then anything I've ever gotten form private companies.
Let the government own and operate the lines, and let others offer services over those lines.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Informative)
I've yet to see any one of these projects that have use or did use taxpayer money. I have service from my city, and no tax dollars were spent on the project. None. Nor do they take any income from taxes.
And yes, my service is orders of magnitude better than anything Comcast could offer.
Re:Convert? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Time Warner shouldn't have any trouble competin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Convert? (Score:1, Informative)
Oh, someone else who failed Econ 101 by failing to remember the difference between accounting profits and economic profits.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not necessarily cheaper or better. If they only charge $99/month, but then need another $100/month of increased taxes from each person then it isn't really any cheaper. In fact it could be much more expensive.
Did anyone read the last article?
http://savencbb.wordpress.com/about/ [wordpress.com]
One last note, Wilson tax money does not fund Greenlight. Citizens who choose Greenlight buy the services just like they would from any other provider
Re:Convert? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually in most cases cable companies lease pole and underground conduit space from the power company... the same as the telcos do.
Re:So they have two Cables running in parallel? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What crap... (Score:3, Informative)
you claim to RTFA, then you show you didn't
they're not getting any tax subsidies.
Re:Convert? (Score:3, Informative)
That's a little misleading. With any health-care insurance, if you don't use it your (Taxes/Dues) fund it, even if you don't use it. I pay a lot for private health care through my company and we rarely get sick. The only way out of this is to not have health insurance, which is something that needs to be nearly illegal (since my tax dollars are being paid to bail out idiots who don't have any but could have/can afford it, run to the hospital when something happens and vanish). If not illegal, then we need to be willing to let people die of stupidity, something that has traditionally not been acceptable to the masses.
If you fund this corporation with bonds (which they did), which are being repaid by subscriptions, then strictly speaking it's not taxpayer money. I agree it's not necessarily that clean, but generally the taxpayers dollars will ultimately not go towards funding this operation.
Re:Convert? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, one of the links says that, instead of it being hoisted upon all citizens like some tax, it's an opt-in where people pay for it the same way they pay for TW. The money is spent LIKE tax-dollars (education budgets, infrastructure, etc), but the people don't have to pay for it if they don't want to.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Informative)
Utopia will fail because of the predatory pricing of competitors. If you live where you can get utopia you can get Comcast internet for $24.99 without having to be a cable subscriber. Everywhere you can't get Utopia the price is $54.99 and requires that you get a cable subscription or pay $64.99 a month
Utopia's model is a great system, it takes the last mile out of the hands of the providers and opens it up to competition. The problem is the ILEC's aren't going to compete fairly to ensure their death they are going to use every monopolies favorite tactic to eliminate competition, under price the competitors below what they can offer.
Re:Convert? (Score:3, Informative)
Residential pricing for 15Mbps service in Murray and most other Utopia cities is $50/month, and no TV subscription is required.
In Layton and Tremonton, you can get 10Mbps Utopia service for $42/month, with no other requirements.
These are set prices. Comcast may be $19.99/month for their 12Mbps (including PowerBoost) service, but that's only for the first six months; after that it's $42.99/month, putting it more on par with Utopia's offerings.
I'm not sure where your information is coming from. Yes, it's a little more expensive than Comcast, but it's also faster. Faster is more expensive? Go figure...
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not saying either thing would be easy, but the only way that the a government-run organization prevent private competition is through regulation. If there are no laws protecting the government-run company then there's no fundamental reason that private businesses couldn't compete; the government's lack of profit motives if no different than having access to lower-priced source material -- it's a competitive advantage, but it's not a guarantee against all competitors.