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.'"
Convert? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not a legal eagle on NC law, but I would think it wouldn't be that difficult to convert to a citizen run profit/nonprofit corporation and then TWC is effectively screwed.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Funny)
go fornicate with goat and our lawyers took care of it
Now THAT's money well spent!
captcha: shocker
shocker [wikipedia.org]
Re: Convert? (Score:5, Funny)
we told them to go fornicate with goat and our lawyers
How rude!
we told them to go fornicate with goat[,] and our lawyers took care of it.
Oh. I liked the first one better.
Re: Convert? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous when a private company is stifling competition.
The benefits of competition are only of interest to companies as a mantra for getting government regulations eliminated. No company actually wants it.
Re: Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, especially when the regulations are not beneficial. In the case though, TWC is looking for regs that harm their competition, and that they are ok with. The same goes for bailouts, which are a form of regulation. Real companies have never behaved as though they want real, fair markets with free access. They just want to win, and are happy to have that win handed to them by the government.
This should all be plainly obvious at this point, and anyone who thinks that mantra has any meaning beyond a marketing ploy to fool citizens into working against their own interests, well, there are some painful conclusions to draw about those people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a problem with government not with businesses. Business should be seeking to win government should not be enabling them to cheat! Certainly not explicitly in the form of bailouts and granted monopolies. Ideally government would seek to avoid being gamed, where regulatory legislation is passed to that is more beneficial or less harmful to one player than others.
The problem is the government is currupt through and through, its structure, our constitution, and stat constitutions are probably fine but
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything should be done it might be the privatization of the newly created service provider. The city should retain a minority controlling share, impose oversight and fair rules; and then let the company exist as a competitor. If TWC want to gain back their customers they should perhaps try to actually provide the services people want, at fair prices and with good service. Instead of using resources that could be better spent trying to hinder and punish citizens who's example should be honoured, respected and emulated.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the companies delivering internet doesn't deliver the speed or quality desired by the citizens of a region or city; then I see absolutely no problem with the people taking matters into their own hands. In fact I would call it democracy in practice.
It's more like socialism in practice. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is.
Ok, there's a bit of a distinction here. "Citizen-owned" and "City-owned" are two different things. A "citizen-owned" entity would just be a corporation like any other, subject to the same rules as Time Warner. Time Warner itself is "citizen-owned". But such a competing corporation couldn't operate in most cities because of franchise rules that on the one hand keep there from being a tangled mess of wires and torn-up streets everywhere but on the other hand also sanction monopolies.
This is a city-owned entity. It is a government organization that is undercutting a private company by selling its products and services at cost. There's no way for any private for-profit company to "compete" with that. Socialism is not about competition; it's about government providing services at the lowest cost possible. Businesses exist to be profitable; they're not charities. The goal of a business is to sell products for the highest price possible, not the lowest.
Now, I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with what this city is doing. But I wonder how many people who are criticizing Time Warner over this really understand what they're arguing in favor of. They're arguing in favor of an economic system that is designed to be anti-competitive and to provide services for less than a private company ever could. Given that most seem to be criticizing Time Warner for "not competing", I would say very few understand this.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I wonder how many people who are criticizing Time Warner over this really understand what they're arguing in favor of. They're arguing in favor of an economic system that is designed to be anti-competitive and to provide services for less than a private company ever could.
This is conjecture. Just because people are critical of the way TWC have handled this case, and just because they took matters into their own hand to find one solution (temporary or permanent}; does not mean that it have to lead to the implementation of a socialistic economic variation. Even if you accept that the solution they adopted here is moving into one of the fundamental concepts upon which the numerous variations of socialistic philosophy is based.
I would urge you, and others, to keep in mind that reality is not easily put into one category or another. Socialistic and Capitalistic concepts and ideas are not all Either Or; one or the other. What matters is practical implementation of ideas; something that makes no distinction between the various ideologies behind the implementations chosen or attempted.
While they people in question here might have taken the path the did because of perceived flaws in the system in place; does not mean anyone is advocating a total replacement of the system; or that following up on what they did with Greenlight will necessarily lead to the total implementation of a variant of a socialistic economical model; or that all socialistic economical models are hostile to all sorts of competition.
Of course on the last point I will agree; very few seem to understand this; or that reality is not easily divided into ideological camps. Few things are black and white, one or the other. Our society and government(s) are what we make them, shaped by our ideas and actions.
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.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, english is my fourth language, so, pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about?
TWC was invited to come in and provide the service. They refused. So the city built its own. And now you're saying TWC can't "compete" with that? Well, too bloody bad. The government offered it to TWC, and TWC turned it down. And now they want to cry "bad city"? Well, I'd like a pony with that too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The capitalist argument is that private companies are favourable to nationalised industries as the private companies can provide higher service or lower costs.
The key word there is "can". Private companies can be expected to eventually produce the most efficient product or service possible. However, this only happens when there is sufficient competition, and 2 companies is generally not enough. They generally balance out and become the same thing, only different. The government actually has the most ability to provide the highest value of a product or service, but they rarely have the motivation of profit that a private company does.
It's competition that driv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CPI (Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation) was -0.4% (that's negative; prices went down) March 2008 to March 2009.
My Time Warner cable bill was +4.8% for Feb 2008 to Feb 2009.
CPI's got nothing to do with it.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately corporations are structured in a way that only benefits greed and shareholders, not stakeholders. If bullying, corruption and toxic law promise a higher profit, even by a margin, that's where these entities put their efforts. Better service and healthy competition do not guarantee profits higher than the promise of competition-killing laws.
If corporations were truly persons, many of them would be in jail or mental health institutions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
because many localities have service agreements with cable companies. That was all good and fine when each town had their OWN cable company. Now, they're all owned by one of the big 3-4 players that simply don't care about upgrades. The town gave themselves permission to lay their own lines (OK) but the problem is that they also ran Cable TV service (after granting monopoly to somebody else) which is probably causing the row. These things come up every 5-10 years for renegotiation, and TWC probably walked
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only easier, but fairer.
I have no love for TW -- I run a small ISP. But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business. I would certainly be complaining if it looked like my taxes dollars were being used to compete with me !
So let them turn it private. If they can THEN charge break-even prices great. More likely, they'll find they can't. Either way, it's then fair competition.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
Seriously, if the people choose to provide the services themselves, why should they be prohibited from doing so?
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
TWC does not have a right to make a profit. No entity does. If they can't compete with government-provided service, then they should rightly have no presence in the market.
Unless of course, you choose to ignore the economics of the issue... please recall from Econ 101 that in an ideal free market, profits will approach zero anyway. TWCs profit is a sign of market inefficiency. The ideal outcome is for both (or more) competitors to fight over minimal profit.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
I would suggest that this is completely in line with free-market idealism. They found a better solution and decided to go with it. The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion (i.e., punishment). For example, if they found a better solution but were prevented by law. In that case the punishment is fines or imprisonment. And that is exactly what TWC is doing: using the government to punish the free-marketers who found a better solution.
The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion.
(repeated for emphasis)
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Interesting)
Becuase it is government that is acting, there is coercion involved
Is a small town that much different from a company? Because an executive makes a decision, there is coercion involved. Anyone dissenting is forced to suck it up, or quit their job. Chances are the executive wasn't even elected. Of course, nothing is stopping the people in that town from moving to some other town. Changing jobs often requires moving - so which is a "free"er market - a small town or a corporation?
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not sueing, they are lobbying the state gov to override the rights of local gov's to prevent them from providing services, whether or not they use tax money (and its already been stated that so far almost all of the city/county gov provided services use bonds, and not tax dollars).
And more to the point, who cares if it does indeed use tax dollars, if 90% of the populace of a particular area vote in favour of a project that uses tax dollars, that to mee seems like democracy at work, majority rule, b
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except it says BREAK-EVEN, so unless you know for sure they are using additional tax money to run the business, then what exactly is the issue??
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Too many utilities run very well.
You could Tax and make it free like roads roads.
or charge and use bonds to pay for large changes, not taxes.
"does anyone in gov. EVER look at the cost of something?"
every day all the time. In fact some of the best cost analyst in the world work for the government. Nice attempt to propagate that myth.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps a more efficient way of doing things would be for the city to maintain the physical infrastructure, whereas smaller ISPs like yourself would lease bandwidth on the public lines.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I own a private road business, and all this government owned and operated road business cuts into my profits. We should make government owned roads illegal, that way I can charge everyone who uses it as much as they will take short of a revolt and make a tidy profit.
Seriously, these guys are producing poor results and charging a ton of money for it. This is pretty standard, but suing public townships who try to set up public works their citizens strongly favor so that the money will flow in their direction is extremely damaging. I cannot abide by that.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, if Time Warner is like most cable companies, they are not operating on a level playing field either. Most cable companies get a tax break on personal property taxes, often have subsidized costs on rights-of-way (because they are using municipally-owned RoW for their cables), and often had many of the startup costs subsidized by municipal and regional governments as part of the franchise agreements.
You, as a business owner, don't have a right to make money. For a group of citizens to invest their tax money to build infrastructure, it means the broadband providers have failed as business people.
TWC had a chance to provide the service, they declined. At that point, their moral right to complain disappeared.
Re: (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:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business. But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business.
It's not fair competition because it's not competition: time warner refused to give them fast service, THEN greenlight was born. Furthermore, TFA points out that tax money is NOT used!
What is happening here is TWC offering B, the community wanting A and making it themselves, so TWC is trying to ban A so everyone has to buy their B.
Anyway, even if this were not the case, who cares? Maybe my pink roots are showing, but if the people of Wilson are getting a better deal, so what if it's not strict capitalism? I don't think most of us are capitalist because we think that's what God wants us to be. The only reason to go with capitalism is because it's generally more efficient. In cases of monopoly, like this basically is, it apperantly isn't more efficient. So why not do this?
And it's not like government goliath vs david TWC. TWC has way more money to invest, they have much more of an advantage than this grassroots organization. That they're unable to compete is all their failure and they should eat it.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a government and I think you've been drinking too much Limbaugh kool-aid...
I am always amazed how industry has been yelling "big bad inefficient government; privatize now and we'll do it better cheaper quicker!"
Now that government is actually competing, they're yelling "big bad unfair government; they can do it cheaper than us and we need protection!"
So what is it? If government is so "inefficient" why does industry need protection? If privatizing is so much better, why worry about government getting into your business niche?
In other words, government all too often does do things "better cheaper quicker" - we may pay a lot for a consultant, but our CEOs earn $100K/year, and not $100M/year. You can buy a lot of consultants for what one private industry CEO gets in a year.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most complaints are about the Federal Government. State governments can be bad as well, but when you get down to the municipal level, things can get a lot more efficient.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared to almost all corporations with more then about 100 people, the feds run very efficiently.
There are literal 10's of thousand of projects going on at any given time that run smooth, on time and at budget*.
Sure, sometimes things don't work out that well, but overall they are better at doing certain things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is it? If government is so "inefficient" why does industry need protection? If privatizing is so much better, why worry about government getting into your business niche?
I would worry about the Fedex/UPS vs post office comparisons. In the case of UPS & Fedex, they are limited in how low they can charge their services. UPS and Fedex get around this by offering more services than the Post Office and bring more value to the customer....
still...UPS/Fedex can't compete with the Post Office. Ask man
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
still...UPS/Fedex can't compete with the Post Office. Ask managers in those companies and they'll tell you how much they hate it and think they can do a better job than the Post Office.
I think they'd have a hard time providing both the coverage and all services of the USPS. When you actually talk to the managers, they really only want to provide service to high-density/volume areas. The hinterlands, not so much. So, as usual, private enterprise wants to cherry-pick the public service, letting the rest of us pick up the now increased costs for the problematic customers.
BTW, FedEx can't get a package to my (notably small) hometown in less than two days. The USPS can get me 24-hour priority delivery. Why is that? Somehow I think it has something to do with the fact that FedEx doesn't find it profitable to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A) with a government agency you ahve a lot of writes to find out what they collect and what they do with it, and to change it. With a private company you do not. Why do you think when a 3 letter agency wants to skirt the law they do it through a private company?
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is to use tax dollars for the initial costs of infrastructure and then convert to a private entity once established for operational costs and maintenance. Not a terrible idea at all. Makes me wish I lived in a smaller town, actually.
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Interesting)
I live in Provo, UT (for the next week, anyway). Provo used tax money to build a fiber infrastructure, then leased it out to two companies who provided tv/internet/phone.
Provo lost money every month. Know why? Provo wasn't legally allowed to advertise service on their own network, precisely because it was city-owned; the majority of Provo-dwellers I've spoken with didn't even know about it. (For unknown reasons, the companies who the city leased the networks to weren't advertising either. I heard about it from my neighbor who had service from them. I have no idea how he found out about them.)
Eventually, Provo simply sold the fiber network to some company in Salt Lake City at a huge loss.
This is why Sandy (where my parents live) refused to join Utopia (a loose coalition of cities in Salt Lake Valley building fiber networks) - they felt it would be a waste of taxpayer money, since they felt they would inevitably lose a lot of money on the project in the long run.
Re:Convert? (Score:4, Insightful)
So should all government utilities only run at a profit? The point is, these things cost money, and someone has to pay for it. The question then, Is it cheaper (per user or if important enough, per captica) to use tax money instead of allowing a company to skim a profit (or bull doze a profit in the case of large American companies)?
If your questions about efficiency are only centered on turning a profit, then you are probably missing the point of a public utility.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not arguing for nor against the idea. I'm simply describing what happened over the last year or two in Provo and Sandy, and the reasons behind those events.
I don't think a city-run utility needs to run a profit; however, running a "huge loss" is probably undesirable, especially if most residents of an area don't want (or worse, don't know about) the new service.
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: (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
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Interesting)
You make it a co-op that is owned by the customers...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My neighbors here in TX would prohibit using the network for anything deemed "pornography", probably ask that it be shut down on Sunday morning for church, and probably would prevent anything that seemed like anonymity.
I might tolerate some of that for better service than what AT&T provides (which honestly, is just about anything)...but it's definitely not a utopia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for them. I'd make equally [in]valid requests to prohibit using the network for anything deemed "AOL", and that the network randomly get a speed boost for at least an hour a day. While I'm at it, all traffic will be encrypted at all times and the data retention policy will destroy all logging not critical to billing and other operations, and be destroyed once the operations for which the data was kept have been performed, anonymizing whenever possible.
If they want to request that a utility (which is w
Re:Convert? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't your tax money used in the first place when TWC and almost every other utility, private or otherwise), got subsidies and rights of way to run their initial coax/fiber lines in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hush. You're cramping his ranty "OMGZ Teh SOZIALIZT COMMIEZ" style...
Re: (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 t
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:What crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's happening at the state level where TWC is manipulating the law to prevent this is actually a perfect example of how broken government is the higher up you get.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? What's so special about the idea of non-governmental corporations that makes them preferable?
There is no right to profit (Score:3)
What if I don't want to pay somebody else's profit? What if we, as a community, decide we want to start a service cooperative, where no one takes any profit, rather than shoveling our money into some fat cat's pockets? We as a community decide what to do, and we do it. And nobody profits, which is how it should be. We put up the money to do it, we reap the reward, and the capitalist vultures can go steal someone else's money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you claim to RTFA, then you show you didn't
they're not getting any tax subsidies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Total BS (Score:4, Funny)
So is this proof that the Gov't is run by Corporations? Like we really didn't already know but come on...
If all lobbying was eliminated, we might have a semi-fair and equal system but that won't be happening while the politicos keep getting free vacations and money to line their bentleys.
Re:Total BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total BS (Score:5, Funny)
You may be sarcastic, but it does beg the question: Isn't that what we pay those people for? Isn't it their damn job to investigate what to do and what laws to pass? Isn't that basically their only reason to exist, to find out what's "best" for what is considered the common good and act in this manner?
If they cannot act that way, fire them. Yes, fire them. Out of a cannon if necessary, but they are essentially our employees. If I'm not satisfied with the performance of an employee, I send him packing and hire someone who can do his job.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd pay to see that. In fact, that could be a monthly event the community could rally around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may be sarcastic, but it does beg the question: Isn't that what we pay those people for? Isn't it their damn job to investigate what to do and what laws to pass? Isn't that basically their only reason to exist, to find out what's "best" for what is considered the common good and act in this manner?
If they cannot act that way, fire them. Yes, fire them. Out of a cannon if necessary, but they are essentially our employees. If I'm not satisfied with the performance of an employee, I send him packing and hire someone who can do his job.
You have a chance every 1, 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on the position) to do just that. Fire them! Get a new guy! Of course, you can't make the decision by yourself and need to get the agreement of a plurality of your peers... but hey how hard could that be? It's funny how we really do get just the system of government which we deserve. Except by funny, I mean heartbreaking.
Re:Total BS (Score:4, Insightful)
apparently you missed the memo about our country being a representative republic, not a democracy.
Our representatives do, in fact, work for us and can be fired (recall election / impeachment).
-nB
They need to be put in check (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They need to be put in check (Score:4, Informative)
That's because TWC and Embarq believe in "Corporatism"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
We let that sort of thing happen every time we concede more and more to the government in terms of providing services for us. With all of the extra money and the ability to represent everyone, you suddenly realize that corps don't have to care what individuals want any more, they only have to care what the government wants.
And the advantage from their perspective is that unlike in the market, where they have to serve millions, when you play to the government, you only have to satisfy a few hundred legislators and bureaucrats. And bribing/lobbying a few hundred people is honestly a lot cheaper than bringing a quality product to market.
So, if you were a corp, what would you do?
Government regulation and lobbying controls aren't going to do diddly until people realize the problem isn't with the lobbyists, per se. It's due to the fact that we've created the perfect customer for these corporations. It has incredible amounts of money to spend, not very high standards, a preference for a centralized and monolithic "low bid" sorts of vendors, and of course, it is easily and efficiently manipulated by controlling just a few key people.
The only question is whether the multinationals need the bloated government or if they can someday discard its bloated corpse and operate like the dystopian sovereign megacorps that you refer to.
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
Hogwash. We let that sort of thing happen every time we concede more and more to the corporations in terms of regulation and oversight.
The problem is not big government providing services. The problem is failure of public (government) oversight and regulation. And the reason this has happened is because the public has handed control of their government to the big corporations, by failure to exercise due diligence in electing officials, and the failure to practice due diligence in overseeing the actions of their elected officials. Largely this is an issue of scale -- on average, a US Representative is responsible for something like 560,000 constituents. There is no way to have personal accountability. Even on the state level, it's impossible. NC, the state in question here, has 50 assembly members for a pop of 8 MM -- that's 160,000 constituents per Assemblyman.
No, my fried, the problem is not allowing the government to provide services. The problem is allowing the government to NOT oversee and regulate monolithic corporate entities.
Even if we had a small government that didn't get involved so much, we'd still have the problem of the government being bought by corporations... it would be even worse than now, since in some cases the government can and does provide cheaper and better service than private entities would.
Re:Sickening (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sickening to watch massive corporations give up on the ideals of commercialism (competing for the consumer's dollars on the basis of quality, service, and price) and instead simply doing business through legislation (make it illegal for your competition to exist...). I feel like I'm watching someone's Cyberpunk or Shadowrun campaign come together as megacorps take control of governments... It's all sickening...
A corporation that exists to make profit will use any means available to make those profits. If lobbying and back-room deals pay better than R&D, then that's where the corporation will put its efforts.
I don't like that any more than you, but we have to face the facts: that's how it works.
If you want corporations to compete on value (i.e., cost/benefit for the consumer), then you need a system where R&D gives better returns than lobbying.
This kind of stuff has been going on for ever. In feudal times, there were monopolies, guilds, charters; in the renaissance there monopolies, guilds were less influential, but there were still charters; in the 18th century, businessmen like Boulton and Wedgwood would petition parliament for extensions of patents in order to corner markets and build monopolies... TWC is behaving somewhat like the Dutch or British East India Companies... just taking care of business in the most efficient way that the system allows, and if that means using political influence then so be it.
You can't wish it away. If you want to think of TWC as the enemy and defeat it, you need to understand the strategy and tactics available to your enemy and adapt your own strategy and tactics in consequence. If TWC has access to those who write and enact bills, then get access for yourself, or block TWC's access to that resource.
K.
So they have two Cables running in parallel? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have Greenlight and Time-Warner cables running in parallel to one another? Good!!! I wish more communities would do stuff like that. If every city had TW, Comcast, Cox running 3-4 cables in parallel, then the power would be in the hands of the People to choose which one they like best.
Re:So they have two Cables running in parallel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So they have two Cables running in parallel? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Time-Warner...is trying to legislate the competition out of existence
Yeah I know. It's a shame that the North Carolina government is not constrained in its power to collude with private companies. If only there were some kind of contract, a piece of paper if you will, that specifically enumerated the power NC could exercise, and reserved all the other powers to the citizens. Then all of Time-Warner's posturing would not matter, because the NC government would be powerless to grant such a monopoly.
It's a shame we don't have anything like that.
Oh wait we do! It's called the North Carolina constitution. I can not lay my hand on any part of that document which gives NC the power to grant a monopoly to Time-Warner and/or force competitors like Greenlight out of business. Such an action by the politicians is unconstitutional.
Businesses cry "free market capitalism!" (Score:5, Insightful)
But only when it is convenient. When it isn't convenient, they expect the government to prop up their business model in order to ensure that their profits are maximized and that their competition is none.
This is an extremely ugly an hypocritical face of modern business today. People want lower prices and more affordable services and if they have to build it themselves to get it, they should be allowed to do it.
This is not an entirely new story as other communications/media companies have sued municipalities to prevent them from making competitive progress in areas where they otherwise did not want to compete or operate. And these companies won. I am a little lost on what legal justification was used in winning their cases though... anyone have any insight?
Surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
This has happened before, for a municipal-sponsored project.
From the project manager's blog, some of what they are doing is actually fair: not allowing cities to price below costs. This makes a lot of sense and is actually good for competition. Not allowing subscription fees to pay for other city projects - this on the other hand is not necessarily fair. Ideally TWC should be pricing their service competitively to Greenlight such that no extra profit is left over to fund other city projects. But they don't want to do that. They just want to minimize the threat from Greenlight given that they can't get rid of them. In my opinion, though, a public service using public resources should not overcharge to begin with - it should charge all subscribers a fair rate so that it's a self-contained project which provides exactly the service it was created to do.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is insanely stupid from TWC's point of view. If I can't charge a little bit extra for my muni broadband to pay for extra police (or a new SUV for myself, or whatever), then I'll just lower my rates to breakeven.
Which will just make it harder for TWC to compete, since they have to make a profit, and I'm forbidden to make a profit.
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.
best goverment money can buy (Score:4, Insightful)
Bubububbut I thought the market decided these things! I guess I didn't realize that the legislature was on the market as well.
And why has this suprised anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations have always used the power of government to stifle their competition. It has been this way especially since the advent of mercantilism 400+ years ago.
It was this way when the East India company was importing tea to England. It was this way with the railroads in the 1800's. It was this way under FDRs New Deal (which had the gove help big corps and put policies in place to screw over smaller ones). Its that way now.
The product may change over time but the methods used to bury your competition are ancient.
$99 per month ain't cheap!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think that $99 is a good deal?
How much does TWC charge for similar service?
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.
So... publicly owned infrastructe do work, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
It does seems like it from the few working experiences that we have around the world [1,2]. I hope this is realized that we do need to guarentee a public network, maybe along the private one but nonetheless a good public network!
We need ISP agnostic fiber to the homes, now!
For those in Canada (note the "eh" in the title :P), give your voice below, the CRTC is asking for advise (for what it's worth...):
http://isppractices.econsultation.ca/ [econsultation.ca] (english)
http://pratiquesfsi.econsultation.ca/ [econsultation.ca] (franÃais)
[1]. http://cis471.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-is-connectivty-in-stockholm-so-much.html [blogspot.com]
[2]. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/shocker-aussies-to-build-own-open-access-fiber-backbone.ars [arstechnica.com]
Another fine example of "free market capitalism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Government should not be a competitor to industry (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problem with the idea of busting up the monopolies but you don't do that by making your government compete with private industry. No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same). If you insist on putting your government "in business", then you will eventually drive out all the other competitors aside from the government. Remember, the government can do LOTS of things that private industry can't so, by default, it's an unfair playing field. Look no further than the banking system right now for an example of how that plays out. Government was never designed to "be in business".
For a bunch of tin-foil hat guys, the slashdot crowd really puts a lot of faith in government solutions of all kinds.....
I hate Comcast as much as the rest of you. But I cringe at the idea of my city government being in the ISP business.
No, I want industry to compete with industry (Score:3, Insightful)
However, due to government provided monopolies given because businesses are allowed to lobby the government, this doesn't happen.
The best solution is probably to strip the cable and phone providers of its guaranteed monopoly and let other businesses compete.
Re:Government should not be a competitor to indust (Score:5, Interesting)
This situation is similar to the people forming a co-op to provide themselves with network connectivity, only corporations are crying foul because instead of forming a co-op to get things done, the citizens (not subjects in this case) went through existing channels (local government).
This is precisely the kind of grassroots involvement that I LIKE to see because if people believe they can change the local government, they might believe that they don't have to lie down when corporations make their state and federal government steamroll them.
A government should, ideally, stand back and let private citizens do their own thing, but thats not happening, not at the state level, not at the federal level. TWC has lobbyists, the township citizens did not. Until the township has the same pull as TWC, the local government needs to step up and fight fire with fire.
We are well beyond a free market economy, and while its nice to think about what government would look like without the past 233 years of corporate influence, that's not the world we live in. The only way to get a free market economy would be to abolish corporations, abolish the current government, demolish the infrastructure, and start from scratch. Why? Because for every email, vote, and action taken by a citizen, a corporation will pay X dollars to a lobbyist to drip honey in senator's ears. To get a free market economy, you'd have to get rid of lobbying, all of the laws influenced by lobbying, the lobbyists, and all of the senators who were put in place by campaign contributions from corporations.
Besides, as long as there is a system to game, people will game it, why shouldn't the local government game it for the direct benefit of its citizens?
Re:Government should not be a competitor to indust (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection, etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise won't do that.
Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example and explain how it applies to this case?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Riddle me this: What incentive does your municipal internet have to improve services over time? or even offer the level of service you desire?
What incentive is there for your local cable internet monopoly to do the same? Are they doing it? I see stores about fee increases and bandwidth caps. Is that meeting customer demand? Where are these customer that are demanding higher fees for less service?
Your question assumes private industry is doing those things. But the fact that there is a demand for munici
Time Warner shouldn't have any trouble competing. (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, Greenlight, being government-run, is by very definition grossly inefficient. Time Warner ought to be able to beat them on both performance and price and still have a wide profit margin.
Either that or maybe sometimes the government can actually provide decent, efficient services...
Re:Time Warner shouldn't have any trouble competin (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
municipal internet a bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not defending TWC in any way, but municipal Internet systems are generally a bad idea. They don't keep pace with technology improvements and the cross-subsidy from the grants and what not tends to drive all the commercial systems out of the community.
Altoona PA was a good example. They created a municipal dialup system in the mid-90's because they thought that $20 was too much to pay for dialup. They were still stuck with it in the middle of this decade because they'd driven out the ISPs who would have brought in DSL and Cable modems.
Municipal physical infrastructure (like Utopia out in Utah) is a somewhat better idea. There you reframe the competitive process without ending it.
To everyone who claims privatization is best (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be a big clue to the pro privatization crowd who routinely claim that government provided services are inevitably many times more costly or much poorer quality than what a corporation would provide.
TW clearly doesn't believe it can compete with what is already offered. If they did, they'd just compete Greenlight into the ground and save the legal fees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it is an no it's not. This is a semantics thing. You hear "free" and assume it's structured to be a level playing field. They hear "free" and assume it means that they are free to bribe, cheat, steal and pass laws to screw others without prosecution.
The difficulty here is that we associate the word "free" with good things. This lead to terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" instead of "anti-choice" and "pro-death" -- the terms used by the controllers of the message about the other guys.
There's no po