Time Warner Cable Backlash ContinuesMetered billing gaffe brings renewed attention to muni-broadband... ( old news - 02:38PM Thursday Apr 23 2009) tags: Fiber · competition · business · alternatives · municipal · RoadRunner CableOn Tuesday we mentioned how Time Warner Cable is lobbying to crush community deployed fiber service in Wilson, North Carolina. These lobbying efforts, which have been going on for years, normally don't garner much attention from the gadget and Steve Jobs obsessed technology media, but that's changed. With Time Warner Cable not apparently in the public's good graces, Wednesday and Thursday were jam packed ( Daily Tech, Slashdot, Techdirt, Consumerist, dozens more) with coverage of Wilson. The attention has driven a lot of visitors to the new Wilson blog, where city Public Affairs Manager Brian Bowman is trying to alert residents to Time Warner Cable's efforts to prohibit cities in North Carolina from serving themselves with broadband -- even in instances where nobody else wants to. Bowman highlights just how much power Time Warner Cable has over local lawmakers: Here’s the part that really surprised me. Several times, members of the committee asked bill sponsors Rep Ty Harrell (Wake) and Rep Thom Tillis (Mecklenburg) for clarification. The lawmakers turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf. You read that right. The sponsors, elected by their communities, had to ask a Time Warner rep to clarify what their own bill said. Of course carriers have been writing such bills for lawmakers for much of the past decade, have successfully passed such laws in more than a dozen states, and this is their second serious push in North Carolina. It's interesting that Time Warner Cable's (so far) failed attempt to impose metered billing not only resulted in an unprecedented backlash against metered billing, but it rekindled interest in community broadband bans. That's probably not what Time Warner Cable had in mind, but the city of Wilson probably doesn't mind. As an aside, Time Warner Cable's CEO Glenn Britt's compensation was $14.4 million last year, sadly 8% less than he earned the year before. Britt's last two years of compensation are more than it cost to build the entire Wilson fiber network, which for $28 million delivers symmetrical speeds up to 100Mbps to an entire city of 50,000 people under the Greenlight brand.
Related:- Time Warner Cable Deploys 100Mbps FTTH
- Locals Try To Keep Utopia Afloat
- Lafayette Unveils FTTH Pricing
- Powell, Wyoming: Population 5,500, Gets Fiber
- Seattle Still Considering FTTH Network
- Utopia Hits 100Mbps
- Powell Completes FTTH Build
- TDS Telecom Launches 50 Mbps Fiber
|
 
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | OK> What about At&t? Yet, At&t is going ahead with their plans..  | |
|  | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: OK> What about At&t? AT&T is being a little smarter about their plans...larger caps on low tiers to begin with.
quote:
The boiling frog story states that a frog can be boiled alive if the water is heated slowly enough — it is said that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will never jump out.
TWC = boiling water
AT&T = slowly heating it
Also, is AT&T in that market ? I know they're planning it for TX and Reno, NV.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC | Re: OK> What about At&t? The ILEC there is Embarq. | |
| | | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: OK> What about At&t? said by Fisamo  :The ILEC there is Embarq. But in most of North Carolina, at least the major cities, it *IS* AT&T. | |
| | | | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: OK> What about At&t? Isn't it Embarq for Raleigh ? | |
| | | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: OK> What about At&t? said by en102 :Isn't it Embarq for Raleigh ? Nope, AT&T. I know AT&T has my area (Winston-Salem, parts of High-Point and all of Greensboro), the majority of Charlotte, and the RDU area. Research Triangle Park is Verizon for some weird reason, but no FiOS yet. AT&T is also Ashville I believe. Embarq is mainly in the rural areas. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VOIPo
| Absolutely true. I'm in a Uverse area, but the deployment hasn't reached my neighborhood yet. Since AT&T is already wiring up Apex, I doubt our town would consider a muni project (even though we are also an electrical co-op member).
Here's my feeling on the anti-muni bills: They do need to pass one, but it should be very simple.
Any municipality that feels the need to build out its own network should be allowed to do so, without restriction from selling service to residents. However, any municipality that chooses to build its own network must give up all local regulatory power over the telcos and cablecos regarding cost controls and service level requirements (e.g. local franchise agreements).
Suppose a town were to build a fiber network and operate it as a common carrier--operate the physical plant and resell the service to AT&T/TWC/whoever. Could such a model fly? In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? | |
| | | | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: OK> What about At&t? said by Fisamo : In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? Or liabilities that other providers being hooked for now.
Does the RIAA/MPAA get to inspect packets or do they make the muni do it?
Do this impose throttling at peak hours? | |
| | | | | | | ericdaboy
join:2005-09-21
West Palm Beach, FL
| Re: OK> What about At&t? said by S_engineer :said by Fisamo : In such a model, what say (if any) could the municipality have with regard to speed offerings, caps, prices? Or liabilities that other providers being hooked for now. Does the RIAA/MPAA get to inspect packets or do they make the muni do it? Do this impose throttling at peak hours? Do you know how the reports get to the abuse dept of the ISPs from the MPAA or RIAA? | |
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by ztmike :Yet, At&t is going ahead with their plans.. Here's why TW was getting all the heat
Comcast 250 GB cap all tiers
Charter 15 Mbps and under 100 GB, 16-25 mbps 250 GB, 26 Mbps and over no cap
At&t caps 20,40,60,80 and 150 GB.
TW 5,10,20,40 GB.
at&t caps are a joke too but at least they start out with 20 GB not 5. | |
| | | 
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
|  Re: OK> What about At&t?
said by BF69 :said by ztmike :Yet, At&t is going ahead with their plans.. Here's why TW was getting all the heat Comcast 250 GB cap all tiers Charter 15 Mbps and under 100 GB, 16-25 mbps 250 GB, 26 Mbps and over no cap At&t caps 20,40,60,80 and 150 GB. TW 5,10,20,40 GB. at&t caps are a joke too but at least they start out with 20 GB not 5. But road runner took it to the next step they should be praised not insulted!!!
If I was an ISP I would do something like this...
1GB CAP for lowest Tier
2GB CAP for next higher
3gb cap for next higher
4gb etc and higher...
1 dollar per GB is awesome...
The ISP doesn't pay per GB but per megabit
I heard it was 4-5 dollar per MBIT
24.99 for lowest tier at 768k
20gb usage.... tackled 19.00 = a total of
43.99
an extra profits of 19.00
AWESOME  | |
| | | | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
1 edit | Re: OK> What about At&t? said by jadebangle :
I heard it was 4-5 dollar per MBIT Lower than that if you have your own network. | |
| | | | 
Anonymous Coward
@verizon.net
| said by jadebangle :If I was an ISP I would do something like this... 1GB CAP for lowest Tier 2GB CAP for next higher 3gb cap for next higher 4gb etc and higher... 1 dollar per GB is awesome... The ISP doesn't pay per GB but per megabit I heard it was 4-5 dollar per megabit 24.99 for lowest tier at 768k 20gb usage.... tackled 19.00 = a total of 43.99 an extra profits of 19.00 AWESOME Uh, you're doing it wrong. ISPs and co-location customers are typically billed either on a weekly average or a 95th percentile utilization of a bandwidth of x Mb/s. They can easily go through hundreds of GB a month and not exceed their allotment of bandwidth OVER TIME (the unit measure is Mb/s where "s" is seconds). A cap works off of an *ABSOLUTE* counter wherein after one exceeds that absolute cap of GB, either an alternate (read: SLOW) traffic shaping plan is applied to that user or they get billed for overages. In other words, the "OVER TIME" bit is one whole month for the poor residential cap victim, GB/m. That's a BIG difference. | |
| | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
| Ok is it just me or does this whole debate about metered service somehow back up the indistry's claim that a-la-carte service would boost prices?
Are the people complaining about metered service heavy users or is it everyone thats testing it complaining? | |
| Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
| awww... Brit made only $14.4 Mil.... 8% less profit then he did last year...awww...that's too bad.
I have sympathy towards your poverty, are you going to be able to survive??
It's called a recession, and we are all feeling it as we loose 40% of our 401k and our credit card interests skyrocket.
TWC...why don't you use the recession as a marketing advantage like the rest of the ISP's that are offering deals to try to keep customers. | |
| | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Re: awww... oh poor Mr. Britt how ever will he survive with only 14Mill
well I guess he won't (fire the B@##@$@d) and revoke his Platinum Parachute | |
|
ATT Victem
@bellsouth.net | Why no outrage against ATT? Why aren't people complaining about ATT's ongoing rape plans? The big monopoly, newly rebuilt, is badder than ever. | |
| |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? said by ATT Victem :
Why aren't people complaining about ATT's ongoing rape plans? The big monopoly, newly rebuilt, is badder than ever.
Give it a little time. with these idiots at TW continually hanging themselves in regards to their own practices and policies, the attention will be focused on all carriers including the newly rebuilt Deathstar!
What surprises me is that there are no politicians sticking their neck out for the consumers. You could build a decent resume on fighting the monopolistic tactics of these carriers. For years we heard about "Big Oil" gouging the consumer but nothing about Big Binary! | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? said by hayabusa3303 :said by S_engineer :What surprises me is that there are no politicians sticking their neck out for the consumers. Why should they, people voted them in so Two party system, either way, we win. | |
| | | 
doublea
join:2007-06-04
Petaluma, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by S_engineer :said by ATT Victem :
Why aren't people complaining about ATT's ongoing rape plans? The big monopoly, newly rebuilt, is badder than ever.
Give it a little time. with these idiots at TW continually hanging themselves in regards to their own practices and policies, the attention will be focused on all carriers including the newly rebuilt Deathstar! What surprises me is that there are no politicians sticking their neck out for the consumers. You could build a decent resume on fighting the monopolistic tactics of these carriers. For years we heard about "Big Oil" gouging the consumer but nothing about Big Binary! I really hope that AT&T gets the same attention as TWC, What makes AT&T worse is they are being way more sneaky about the whole ordeal, I hope that AT&T really gets bombarded by the press if they move further into their testings.
And what the heck happened to comcast? don't they already cap people now? Why are they not under the flame? | |
| | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? Comcast has a cap...its at 250 GB, not 5.
Comcast is showing upgrades via DOCSIS 3, TW is only surgically upgrading if they do it at all.
Brian Roberts isn't out implying his customers are stupid and that gouging the customer actually benefits the customer, Time Warner is!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| | AVonGauss
Premium,MVM
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
| Not Karl, but most of the media I believe has/had forgotten about the AT&T trials or are confused with the details. During the TWC posts a few weeks ago, a lot of other publishers were making comparisons to AT&T's "unlimited" service forgetting the fact that they are doing the very same type of trials as TWC. AT&T is also being a little bit sneakier about how customers fall in to the metered billing trial - as another poster pointed out, AT&T is still at the slow boil phase. | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? AT&T is traditionally a lot more sophisticated on the PR front than Time Warner Cable, which I think explains a lot of it. It also helps that as noted last week, people in those trial markets don't know they're on metered billing until after they sign up for service.
Rochester, NY is also a more technologically savvy market than I suspect Reno or Beaumont is. People in Rochester generally understood the broader implications of shifting the business model as the advent of HD video approaches... | |
| | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? said by Karl Bode :AT&T is traditionally a lot more sophisticated on the PR front than Time Warner Cable, I think you win the award for the understatement of the week! | |
| | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Why no outrage against ATT? You think that having your $14 million a year CEO call your customers confused for not wanting to pay $1-$2 per gigabyte in the middle of a recession might have been bad form?  | |
| | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Why no outrage against ATT? Bad form?...just it bit. Every business in the country is re-evaluating their business models searching for that elusive efficiency level that offsets the recession. This model takes the cake.
Lower the service, then insult the consumer when he/she shows discourse. This is certainly a Darwinian approach at business!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| 
Squirrelly
join:2000-10-24
Harrisburg, PA | going down hill What has happened to this country, we are going down hill | |
| | ericdaboy
join:2005-09-21
West Palm Beach, FL
| Re: going down hill said by Squirrelly :What has happened to this country, we are going down hill You didn't notice that the problems started in January 2001? | |
| | 
luster
join:2009-03-28
Berlin, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Yes, we are Squirrelly! Going downhill in a hurry, I might add. Greed and apathy breed unchecked. Corrupt venal representation is rampant and honesty is no longer. "Dollars, dollars," cry the elected who fail even to describe their own drafts. Going downhill, indeed. Obscene compensations to corporate bobbleheads who's fantasy is how much s/he can cheat you out of. And., place these deamona in our neighborhoods so none can go without. Require their use by mandate of the venal ones. Can you feel the breeze picking up as we descend? We haven't much farther to fall. | |
| 
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Still expensive That's $560 per person, considering there's probably 2 or 3 people to a home there, it's no big surprise why TWC wouldn't take on ftth.
Though, if I was in charge of one of these companies I would probably take a different approach. Such as cutting a deal with municipalities for them to foot the bill for such endeavors. Allow the city to own, operate, maintain, then just be a content provider, just what Earthlink does.
Although, it would probably take many years for the city to recoup it's investment.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. | |
| | | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Re: Companies are all the same. I think we just need to find a way to become big business then they'll be on our side again | |
| | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Re: Companies are all the same. What we need are our own lawmakers. Actually, no, what we need are more educated and involved voters. As it stands, many people only seriously consider candidates with the biggest media presence, and that translates into the candidates with the most money to spend. And who is in the best position to fund these candidates? Businesses, of course, which makes these candidates dependent on their financiers.
So the trick is to figure out a way to create informed, open-minded voters. Do that, and you'll go a long way toward solving the problem. | |
| | | | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Re: Companies are all the same. never happen
92% of people have an IQ below 130 and have you tried talking to someone with an IQ of 100
so just not happening | |
| | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: Companies are all the same. I disagree. With enough discontent, things can change. Remember Perot?
He didn't get elected, but he managed to put a couple of issues in play that both Dems and Reps were staying away from.
That was before he flipped his lid!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| | | | |
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| said by DarkLogix :never happen 92% of people have an IQ below 130 and have you tried talking to someone with an IQ of 100 so just not happening Incorrect...
100 and above is considered exceptional...
average IQ are 90 and below | |
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| TW pays only $40 mil TOTAL for bandwidth Even if you assume the "average" TW customer only uses 5 GB a month that less than 8 cents per GB. | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
asdfdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| ... "turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf. You read that right. The sponsors, elected by their communities, had to ask a Time Warner rep to clarify what their own bill said."
My understanding is that a vast amount of legislation in this country is written by corporate lawyers and then sponsored by members of Congress. This is in addition to all the connections between congressional staff and corporate lobbyists and the revolving door where congresspeople themselves leave office and head straight to K street for nice lobbying jobs. | |
| 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| TWC is on the radar. TWC is on the radar of the press, and the only way to keep BAD news from hitting the press, is to actually do something GOOD, and not something "forced by the users" such as stopping the caps.
They are behind Comcast when it comes to DOCSIS 3.0 and HD channels, they are WAY behind the satellite companies when it comes to HD channels, the only thing they got going for them at the moment is that on average, their internet is relatively stable compared to what I hear from charter and others.
But yeah, if they want to get of the press radar, they really need to stop feeding the negativity train and hire some competent press staff.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: TWC is on the radar. said by maartena :But yeah, if they want to get of the press radar, they really need to stop feeding the negativity train and hire some competent press staff. It's going to take more than that after showing complete disrespect for their customers. | |
|
Elliott
@comcast.net
| "The sponsors ... had to ask a Time Warner rep to clarify This happened, over and over again, in the Tennessee General Assembly. att was in the second year of its push to get statewide franchising in the Volunteer State. They started with the standard att boilerplate of the legislation and many of us hashed through those battles for, as I said, two years.
In the end, I suspect most of us knew the finished product inside and out (it was not what att wanted), most of us except the elected members of the General Assembly.
They don't have time for that after politicking and preening. | |
|
Elliott
@comcast.net | Sorry, here's the part I forgot If someone has connected the dots between T/W's planned pricing scheme and this: »tinyurl.com/WarnerOnDemand, I've not heard of it. | |
|
Hamsterdamn
@telus.net
| T/W worse then comcrap? Funny T/W has more control then the people in a area in a DEMOCRACY.
consumers: time warner sucks and fails as n isp we are sick of crappy service and over priced rates for a shitty network so we will build our own.
T/W :O noes you don't we own your representatives so you will never be able to build a fast efficient that will cost us pennys on the dollar to what we charge HAHAHAHAHA monopolistic laugh of crappy evil corporation. You will forever buy TV and internet from us at over priced rates so deal with it! PS every gigabyte costs you 10 dollars now cause we need to pay for bandwidth its be expensive. | |
| | | chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| quote from my father ( ON BELL CAPS and PRICES ) In speaking how much he uses the net about 30 hours a month, and while he would like highsped , even this UN teksavvy man can tell you he can't see the value anymore.
THAT IS THE CORE CUSTOMER THAT A BELL CANADA WANTS AND THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE COST OF IT NOW!!!!!
We both agree that with me explaining in human non tech terms what the new tarrif will do, means both he ( dial up user wishing he could afford or see value in high speed ) and I ( using the net for just about everything from gaming and entertainment to actual business work ) are going to just say no to this thing we call internet form as we both agree all these companies are getting too greedy.
We don't see many of those OLD folks speak up and say the truth do we , fact is i was right when i said a lot more then the so called p2p hogs will get affected by caps and rate hikes. AND they lose these low end customers that are older and more value conscious. They lived in a time of frugal and they do know what value is and they unlike many PUT THERE MONEY WHERE there mouths are.
So comeone people get some of the older folks involved and ask htem to give an opinion about these hikes and caps, be nice and explain clear and down to a level they can get, you'd be surprised how well some people learn. | |
|
nukscull
@rr.com
| Yes, a network that only cost $28 million to build... And they say that they won't use tax money to recoup the cost, only subscriber fees.
Which is not even possible in the amount of time they promised to have it paid for.
Yes, it cost $28 million to BUILD, but it still has to be run, bandwidth costs have to be paid for.
Even if they got every household in Wilson to switch to it, an impossible task, they'll still need tax money to foot the bill, or they'll be selling the network to a private company to make back the money.
If it was profitable, Time Warner and Embarq would have taken the money offered to build the all fiber network in the city.
Now all they have is a 3rd competitor that will take a few customers and make no money for the city.
How do people not see this? People just want to say how evil the incumbents are, and forget that this network has to be paid for.
So unless Wilson is going to revoke TWC's and Embarq's business license for the city and make them drop all of their customers, and then FORCE every household and business in the city to pay for the all fiber service, it's not going to work out for them. | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Yes, a network that only cost $28 million to build... Take a look at TWC's 2008 10K. They spent $146 million on HSI(page 60) and revenues from HSI were 4.159 BILLION(page 89). That is less than 4% cost. Somewhere in the other 96% I think they can make payments on the $28 million for construction. | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| left to be built... AT&T is still building it's network in its newly gobbled up regions, so they have alot to fear from a substantial change in terms of service-- it's easier to claim they are following other provider's lead on the bit capping plans.
Though at some point, there will be enough backlash & duopoly hatred to warrant 3rd party providers to begin covering areas that today in 2009 don't have decent broadband at affordable prices. There should be at least 5% of the market in each state reserved for 3rd party providers which is scaleable depending upon the status of duopoly competition at the particular point in time. 5% should easily scale to 20% which is about where the two major providers start getting worried about not having enough profits amongst them.
Verizon even seems worried that in a bad economy customers are choosing lower priced cablemodem triple play over it's fttp triple play.. so much so, they're offering $64.99 triple play for 6 months.. but then lock you into a 1-year contract (etf & install fee applies too). There is some confusing language about months 7-24 (2 year contract?) rate. I hope they're not trying to pull a fast one & making people think they only have to buy 6 months at $94.99 when in reality it's a 2 year contract.. 6 months @ 64.99 & 12 months at 94.99... essentially that's a 2-year contract, just a introductory low rate. It still makes sense in cablevision land to do $29.95 x 2 or 3 without the taxes 7 fees riggamaro. Neither provider has any incentive to p/o it's customers. | |
| SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Government should not compete with the private sector. Unhappy with Time Warner? Bring in private competitors. But do not use taxpayer money, or the faith and credit of the government (i.e. bond guarantees), to compete unfairly with private enterprise. Otherwise, you'll shut down private business, kill jobs, kill innovation, and ensure that no other private vendor will ever enter your community. | |
| | | | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Re: Government should not compete with the private sector. There's tons of competition. Wireless ISPs (WISPs) currently serve an estimated 3 million customers in the US, and cellular broadband is nearly ubiquitous. (Fiber, remember, is nothing but "wireless in a very expensive tube.") And anyplace where there's a cable company, there's a telephone company too. If folks want still MORE competition, they can incent it for far less money than it takes to drive it away. But asking government to provide broadband is like asking the DMV to service your computer. (Shudder.) | |
| | | | |
Rep Thom Tillis
@ncleg.net
| Let's get the facts straightI'm one of the primary sponsors of HB 1252, and I received an email that had links
to a few blogs following the Government versus Private Enterprise issue for high speed
communications. I thought I would share my view on the story being circulated.
I met with the lobbyists representing Municipal Cable companies and with Town
officials, and I listened to their concerns. We have adopted several amendments,
which address the legitimate concerns the government-owned
cable/broadband companies identified (CLICK here to see the amended legislation).
With the changes that address the legitimate concerns, it seems the folks opposed
to HB 1252 have run out of valid arguments and have resorted to cheap shots. The
story being circulated is misleading and self serving--It was posted by someone
who works for a government owned broadband provider and who has a vested
interest in expanding government competition with private enterprise.
The blogger says:
Here’s the part that really surprised me. Several times, members of the committee asked
bill sponsors Rep Ty Harrell (Wake) and Rep Thom Tillis (Mecklenburg) for clarification. The
lawmakers turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents
the industry to speak on their behalf. You read that right. The sponsors,
elected by their communities, had to ask a Time Warner rep to clarify what their
own bill said.
Folks this is grade A certified BS.
What the blogger did not mention is that the attorney was at the podium in the formal
committee meeting, which is subject to parliamentary procedure. The attorney had
been recognized by the committee Chairman to respond to a question directed to
him by another committee member about how the industry viewed the Injunctive
Relief provision. The discussion regarded an amendment to remove the injunctive
relieve and the members had asked a representative of the industry to express
their position on the amendment. The blogger also failed to mention that we all
voted for the very amendment the attorney spoke against. The blogger knows how
the process work and he knows this is a common process. These are facts that can
be verified with a request of the meeting minutes/recording. If you can't
get it, contact me at thom.tillis@ncleg.net, and I'll make a request.
The person who posted the blog is the Public Affairs Manager for the City of Wilson
(Brian Bowman--check out his blog CLICK HERE). He apparently did so with the full
approval of the Town Manager and Mayor, since many of his posts were made
during regular business hours. Mr. Bowman is very familiar with the committee process,
so I can only surmise from his comments he intended to sway people to his way of
thinking through whatever means necessary.
I strongly believe we need clarity as to the extent government can compete in data
communications. There may be advantages to some citizens now, but I worry
about the long-term implications. Mr. Bowman's acts raises a completely
new area of concern for me regarding government-owned media/communications.
I do not want taxpayer dollars being used to spread misinformation that supports
the goals of government right or wrong.
Respectfully, Thom T.
Representative Thom Tillis
North Carolina House of Representatives | |
| | w4ncr
join:2000-10-27
1 edit | Re:Let's get the facts straight The NC Anti-Muni BBND story hitting the blogs is not “misleading” or “self-serving” as Rep.Tillis calls it; the story is being broadcast so the public knows whose really behind this bill and sees the facts straight, since apparently there is alot in the legislature that is pretty crooked.
Anyone who attended last Wednesday’s House Science & Technology meeting would definitely say we need more accountability for our tax-dollars, but not accountability from local governments – accountability from our state legislators, whose tax-payer paid salaries should mean they are responsible to citizens and not to $17.2 billion out-of-state corporations named Time Warner Cable.
For instance, anyone who attended last Wednesday’s meeting was likely rendered speechless at the nonchalance of Rep. Tillis in openly accepting instruction from Time Warner Cable on how to proceed on the injunctive relief provision. A representative from the rural mountains of NC where there is no broadband, Rep. Haire, was trying to eliminate that provision. Rep. Tillis was trying to block Rep. Haire's efforts, knowing Time Warner Cable had written it into the bill to give the Company a presumption of having been wronged by local communities before that charge was proven in court. Time Warner Cable’s Brad Phillips literally stood up, walked over to Rep. Tillis and handed him a note. Within two seconds, Rep. Tillis raised his hand and told the Chair he no longer had a problem with Rep. Harris’ removal of the language and then it was voted on with unanimous voice vote. So who is Rep. Tillis accountable to?
Rep. Tillis also seems to have his facts “crooked” about why Time Warner Cable was up at the podium answering questions. Many of the committee members had questions which they asked of the Committee Chair (and lead sponsor of the bill), Rep. Ty Harrell. When they asked Rep. Harrell what certain provisions meant, Rep. Harrell appeared to have no idea and called on Brad Phillips, Time Warner Cable’s employee to answer for him. And when Mr. Phillips could not explain what the injunctive relief provision meant to the satisfaction of questioning committee members, he called on Marc Trathen, Time Warner Cable’s outside attorney. Trathen addressed the questions as only the author of the language could do. At one point, word has it that Trathen actually said something comparable to “we put this in the bill to give us standing….”
When the Chair could not explain his own bill and Time Warner Cable could, anyone at the meeting knew who wrote that bill…and who continues to write it. Rep. Tillis tells us that changes have been made to the bill which addressed local communities “valid concerns” and now they are taking “cheap shots.” Wrong. The bill prevented local communities from using any of the Obama broadband stimulus funds to build these broadband networks. (Time Warner Cable is not directly eligible for that money and wrote a cunning provision that eliminated local government eligibility because it surely gave local communities an edge in getting competitive networks built). Despite “Tillis’” change, (which no cities say they approved) the bill still prevents local communities from accessing this money because they remain subject to H1252, whose rate increase requirements, reporting and financial disclosure burdens make it impossible for them to offer “affordable” and “sustainable” broadband systems, two eligibility criteria for the stimulus funds. H1252 makes local governments treat the free grant money as if it was borrowed at private sector interest rates, and local governments must increase their broadband rates to reflect it as a cost. Higher rates make them dysfunctional in a competitive market – and who in the public would possibly want that – except for Time Warner Cable. | |
| |
MaryS
@verizon.net
| Re: Let's get the facts straight Any rational person knows, no matter how much Mr. Tillis may protest, who wrote H1252 and what happened at last Wednesday's mark-up in the House Science and Technology Committee of the North Carolina House. H1252 would block all municipal competition in the broadband market in North Carolina and was written by and for powerful mega-corporate interests. In simple terms, Time Warner needs the cash surplus generated by its North Carolina systems to fend off the fierce competition being mounted by Verizon in the form of FIOS in New York and other parts of Time Warner's service area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Time Warner would like to block competition from advanced municipal broadband systems in a market that is currently served primarily by primitive cash cows.
And cry me a river over Mr. Bowman's blog!!! Why shouldn't Mr. Bowman defend and support the broadband system that the good people of Wilson decided to build through the democratic process? Oh, I forgot - the only constituents who matter are those who have been gouging the citizens of North Carolina for years - the citizens of Wilson be damned when there is a corporate interest to be served . . . . | |
| | | |
|
|
Companies are all the same.
It does not make a difference which company it is they all have the best government money can buy. Welcome to the new USA now a Banana Republic. The law makers that we employ support big business rather than American Citizens.
Sent to Committee
