We can see why they are worried. Wilson's ISP sounds great. It's an all fiber optic network that has 81 basic cable channels, 10 Mbps (download and upload), and a digital phone plan with unlimited long distance to the U.S. and Canada, all for $99.95, says Daily Tech. A comparable TWC package would cost $137.95, for an introductory rate.
Now Wilson's ISP, which calls itself "Greenlight" has started a blog to protest the legislation. Here's an excerpt:
My name is Brian Bowman. I'm the Public Affairs Manager for the City of Wilson, NC, and I'll bet my broadband is faster than yours.
I have a 10Mbps up/down connection at my house. Can't get half that from the cable company. I buy it directly from the City of Wilson. After less than a year of residential service, almost 3,000 Wilson citizens are subscribing to Wilson's fiber optic network. Local businesses can get up to one Gbps. Local homes get up to 100 Mbps. We call it Greenlight.
NC Senate Bill 1004 and House Bill 1252 would change the law to stop cities from providing broadband. The bills say they "Level the Playing Field" but they are designed to protect cable monopolies in our state. The cable company told me Wilson would be exempt, but it's still wrong for NC.
Time Warner and Embarq can't compete with city-owned ISP, trying to outlaw it [Engadget] (Thanks, Alejandro!)
Time Warner, Embarq Fight to Outlaw 100 Mbps Community Broadband in Wilson, NC [DailyTech]
[Save NC Broadband.com]
High population areas are the bread and butter areas for a private business to earn revenue to expand their network to more rural areas where there may only be 10 or fewer customers per mile. Areas like Wilson are necessary to keep the price of the same service to these rural areas close to the same as the price for urban areas unless you want the rural areas to pay 5 or more times the cost for the same service.
The proposal by the Rockingham County Commissioners, to build a fiber ring throughout the county and spread out from there to provide every county resident high speed internet access would compete directly with the telcos and catv removing their incentive to advance their development. If government intrusion into private enterprise is allow to continue we will end up with total government run monopolies of all business because the people unknowingly drive out competition by demanding their government restrict all competition through the force of law.
In recent years we are seeing more and more government run enterprises. Why? Because people do not understand what free market economies really are and people have become conditioned to think government is to provide us with everything we need. We have not had free market capitalism for many years, we have State capitalism, a big difference. http://mises.org/daily/3735
The only way a private company can become a monopoly is if government regulation creates it and is primarily the reason for higher costs of services like healthcare. Government creates the problem then steps in to fix it. Read this: http://mises.org/story/621
If you believe the Post Office is a good example of a government run business and there is open competition to them read this: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=170
Only the government is permitted to deliver first-class letters.
Anyone asking for Government run business is asking for and will get a socialist country.
If you don’t believe it read this: http://fee.org/articles/not-so-fast/dont-cry-argentina/
'To level the playing field'... That's nice. It's cute actually. But the choice of phrase in itself is amusing.
We're talking about a company whose size and momentum is a bit overbearing; whose roots within the market and industry stretch rather far and mold it accordingly like clay.
It's almost silly how the internet, established with RFC's and the IETF, in a very open manner, is kept to be so bottle-necked by monopoly.
You are telling me that with the current technology, establishments and networking we cannot raise the peg past 10Mbps?
Oh sure, many would argue that somehow all of this would cost insane amounts of money and blah blah blah. Bravo. You're right, it would.
Would it be found as interesting to know the degree of diminishing returns when it comes to the current system in use? The actual lack of quality? How much money you would gain BACK after reforming to a higher-grade system?
How is it that Japan offers 1Gbps service, at the price of DSL here, without having it crumble under the financial strain? Very interesting indeed.
TWC has no problem maintaining itself, nor its service- I would conjecture. They're a massive corporation, and for the most part, have indeed earned it. But it's almost silly to see them take such action against a step being made in the right direction.
Industry and economy, market. None of that changes much until the current status quo is challenged. Up until that point, everything else doesn't matter. Telecommunications is no different. Doubly so the internet.
For the amount of bandwidth, users and maintenance that is involved with the current systems- the balance is way off. The amount of money which is being invested into maintenance is one of the problems... The lack of investment into the further expansion of services (be it quality, quantity or cost-effective architecture) is another. The list is rather expansive and forks off into many sub-topics.
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' eh? Heh.
Great philosophy. Is it a wonder that TWC is now looking at the city of Wilson, baffled and 'threatened'?
To companies out there: If the penny is so close that you can't see the dollar, you will eventually fall apart. C'est la vie.
]]>People forget that it's the city governments that prohibit competitive cable companies from entry to the market. Monopolies only exist because of these governments. Wilson didn't help the problem -- it was (and is) the problem.
]]>"The government should be limited to providing only essential services (police, fire dept., water, sewer, etc.)."
I guess you're against municipal libraries also.
]]>The basic principle of capitalism (you know; that economic structure that survived communism and ended the cold-war) is that the market determines who lives and who dies. The government should not interfere with this model or that defeats the inherent purpose.
I'm siding with the city here. They let capitalism work and are winning and TWC (my ISP too, I know they're tracking me *tin foil hat*) is try to ruin the free market with government intereference.
Like Darwin said, "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
]]>A friend of mine is pushing for a government-run health insurance corporation, available to theoretically any citizen but not funded by tax dollars. Unlike private insurance companies, this entity would not be responsible to share-holders, nor have any incentive to profit. Therefore, your premiums and co-pays would only reflect your risk and administrative costs and nothing else.
When such a service provider has the backing of the government (i.e., when the people or their representatives vote it into existence), removing the need for profit, it mitigates or eliminates factors such as advertising, corporate espionage, proprietary information, hidden fees, obfuscated contracts, predatory EULAs, fraudulent accounting, loophole exploitation, lobbying, and countless other forms of jiggery-pokery and plain old greed.
This is not monopoly. This is not socialism. This is democracy at its best, working to keep competition competitive. It's time that conceptions of "The Market" recognize The People themselves, and not merely rationalize new ways to limit or exploit them.
]]>To this day I still only get 3mbs. At best. My IT pro was using my computer remotely because I had switched hardware/software types, and he kept saying "This is really slow... is this DSL?" I, embarrassed at my impotence, shook my head over video chat and said "No, I pay for the best, the top." He insisted on running a test again and got 3mbs. He insisted I get yet another person in here to fix this and - I have to tell you that by now I'm just beaten down by TWC, and my life doesn't have room in it to be ground down like this. I give in - I'm done. I don't want these people in my home anymore, I don't want to be treated like I'm stupid, I'll pay and just get treated like crap, just get out and leave me alone.
By the way - are there a lot of people in this town in NC? Is this a nice place to live? I work remotely and remember liking it when I visited there 15 years ago. I could buy a house tomorrow.
]]>If TWC offered a better package, even at a higher price, they would sell it.
Wilson reacted, correctly, in my opinion, to the needs of its citizens. This will be a ground-breaking case.
]]>Yes and no. In places like wilson, nc there is no other option than time warner or sometimes embarq (SPRINT) will also be around. And you can pay top dollar prices for terrible service. I remember when they started building this as I worked for the state association of power cooperatives at the time. They do have benefits that the cable company doesn't, in that they can run fiber on their poles for free, they already have facilities to set up as switching stations in every single power relay station, etc. In a lot of cases they're tired of getting raked over the coals by the likes of time warner and sprint for leased line fees and have decided to run fiber as a way to cut down on their own costs. Branching out to offer services to customers is just gravy. You would be surprised how many leased lines it takes to run a small power company.
]]>I would however would require them to provide equal access to public land, if they don't have to pay rent to have their equipment on city property, then neither should their competitors.
]]>I live in Northern Kentucky, near Cincinnati. Once you cross into Ohio, you're in Time Warner country.
]]>/brag
]]>You own a house with an extra room that isn't being used. You have one of two choices: Rent out the room which means John Doe is paying you to use your property (e.g. - bedroom) or you can instead use the room as your study or something. You dont have to pay any rent to use it as a study as it BELONGS TO YOU.
So you can't protest the fact the city doesn't have to pay these taxes. It puts these taxes in place because someone else wants to use their property. It's entirely fair.
]]>Oh, I forgot. The U.S. Post Office has a monopoly on first class mail. They raise the cost of a first class stamp (monopoly), so that they can reduce the cost of overnight mail (competition).
Once Wilson N.C. gets rid of the competition, they will do what all monopolies do, they will soak you.
We live in a world where internet is also an essential service. So what is wrong if the government is stepping in to provide public a basic necessity? Private companies do charge an exorbitant fees for no reasons.. the quality of service sucks, and above all the customer service sucks.
]]>@Mar Charbel: Yes, I did. And no where in the links does it say it's a "co-op", it all says that it was started by the city government.
]]>i wish there was one of these in kansas city
]]>What next? "but think of all the jobs we will lose if we go under!"
]]>Too hot and humid?? Haha, have you ever been to Florida? NC is nothing compared to that!
Are you from Canada or something? Lol
@Esquire99: What, exactly, makes police, fire, sewer and water so special? I see two major problems with this argument.
First: Why must the municipality provide those services? My municipality only provides them to the urban core. I provide my own sewage and water, my policing is provided federally, and I'm about 90% sure that my fire services are handled provincially. In fact, I can't think of a single service my municipality actually provides.
Second: If we accept that the municipality must provide "essential" services, why only those four? Where's EMS service on that list? What about communications, ie phone? Kinda hard to get a cop, a fire truck, or an ambulance without calling them, after all. And if communications is "essential", then why not the best communications channel we have, capable of pretty much any means of information transfer we can think of? After all, the essential infrastructure is eerily similar.
it's kinda hard to argue that the municipality MUST provide X, Y, and Z, but such a versatile communications infrastrucutre doesn't fit the bill.
]]>If Time Warner Cable is greedy and corrupt enough to kill Greenlight then that's reason enough for me to move to Verizon. It would only be a matter of time before TWC attempts to kill competition nation wide.
]]>I used to work for a Cable company and calling and threatening to cancel will do nothing. It will make very little to no difference to the person that takes the call, and you will only make things tougher for somebody that has unrealistic expectations placed on them. I agree that there needs to be competition, and this is a great idea, but it may be better to write, and call your representatives.
]]>U-Verse sucks - My neighbor just gave up on it after 4 months of spotty service, after waiting over a month to get it working at all. He lives less than 500ft from the VRAD.
Wouldn't mind dumping my TWC RR Business which costs me & the wife 500$ / mo.
]]>Troll: what makes you think Wilson is using "the power of taxation" to keep their ISP subscription costs down? Wilson isn't operating over the same existing infrastructure which TWC must maintain, so the Wilson overhead is definitely that much lower to begin with. Grow a pair of saggital lobes.
]]>"Risk" case-in-point, the City of Marietta (Georgia) ran miles and miles of FTTC and hired an outside company to run a city-built ISP.
People didn't buy into it because it was too expensive compared to other DSL/cable options available in the area (and because most of the citizens are rednecks who think 'World Wide Web' refers to some sort of fishing lure). City lost most of its investment, ISP went under.
Why was it so expensive? Because part of the deal was that in exchange for having a city-run ISP, they'd charge above-market in order to assuage the cable/telephone companies.
]]>@Keen314:
They also died at much earlier ages.
]]>Your personal experience does not mean that Wilson's municipal internet business model is illegitimate or deserves to fail.
]]>My point is that the entire municipal budget of Wilson is built upon being a speed trap. They even stretched their municipal boundaries several miles to include two slices of I-95, as you can see on this .PDF map:
[www.wilsonnc.org]
Wilson is a parasite feeding on interstate travel & commerce. The building where this municipal Internet access was legislated, and the law offices that surround it, are all built and funded with money stolen from innocent folks driving up and down the Interstates.
My complaint has little to do with their Internet access... except that I wish a plague of locusts and black-tailed jackrabbits upon them to take out their Internet access.
]]>But my point was, there isn't necessarily such a thing as "traditional private sector businesses." This varies by history and happenstance. Where I am, water provision is a traditionally private sector business, but you consider it somehow ontologically a government service that they MAY delegate if they choose, while internet is ontologically NOT a government service. But that argument is based on your experience of what government "traditionally" provides, and it's different from my experience of what government "traditionally" provides. That's my objection to your argument.
]]>I swear when i turn 21 im movin out of this fuckin shithole and on a plane to Japan. (im 16 now btw)
]]>Fiber optic phone, internet, tv is the FUTURE. I WANT IT NOWWWWWW!!!
]]>Probably from New York or LA or something.
It's ironic that those from the most cosmopolitan cities (everywhere, not just the US) have the smallest view of the world.
]]>The taxpayer still bore some risk. The fact that they didn't have to pay out (yet?) doesn't mean the risk wasn't there, and prior to knowing the outcome, risk is a cost.
The explanation is in the first couple minutes.
]]>I will always hate that town. They pulled over a war hero -- a guy whose left toe was worth more than the cop, his car, and every dime he ever shook down motorists for -- and proceeded to f' him overwithout mercy just like they do everyone else. Every time I hear about Wilson, I remember how f'd up that little blister on the side of I-95 really is.
Bitter? Why, yes, I am.
As for bringing it closer to topic, I hope rabid squirrels eat their WAN links... and I hope this rant becomes the top Google result for "Wilson NC."
This is the same idea as some locations being served electricity and trash pickup by private companies. Would you say that is unfair to the city? No you would not, so take your little anti-government rumblings somewhere else!
If a small town with a budget in the millions can oust a multi-billion dollar corporation then the company deserves it! A government monopoly will beat a private monopoly every day of the week!
]]>Hooray for the citizen investors of Wilson, NC! Citizens take the financial risk AND reap the financial rewards (Geithner: watch and learn.).
If the legislature passes the bill to legalize monopolies, might as well make the next bill to ban capitalism.
]]>My only public utility is sewer. The rest come from private companies. Including my garbage service AND 911/ambulance service. (Police and fire are municipal.)
]]>So why, again, shouldn't my city compete on an equal playing field with the corporations who get all kinds of benefits from the city and in return like to screw me? Oh, right, because capitalism only counts when we determine the winners in advance and keep competition out?
]]>This is what brings people to communities! Schools, jobs and data infrastructure should be what folks look for.
]]>why is GSN in the sports tear?
can you pay the
Unreturned Digital HD Box $400.00
Unreturned Digital HD/DVR Box $500.00
fee and pay $0 /m for them?
Standard Digital Box - Primary Included
Standard Digital Box - Additional $7.95
Digital HD Box Upgrade - Primary $4.00
Digital HD Box - Additional $11.95
Digital HD/DVR Box Upgrade - Primary $7.00
Digital HD/DVR Box - Additional $14.95
High Definition Tier $7 /m for 3 channels?
951 HDNET
952 HDNET Movies
953 Universal HD
I still think that dish / direct tv is a better tv deal with better boxes and way more hd
direct tv is with HD and DVR is
]]>In this case, TWC is working to eliminate their competition through the creation of laws.
]]>They are generally set up to be self supporting, and to not use tax money for support. They are either "break even" or "for profit" operations, and most of the "for profit" types pump money INTO the tax base rather than take it out.
Locally many utilities (which are natural monopolies) are municipal.
Here's Comcast's local competition: [www.click-network.com]
Tom - University Place, WA
]]>You don't want cheap internet? Don't get it. It's not the same as socialism, since Greenfield isn't a monopoly. TWC is free to compete, they just have to offer a competitive price.
]]>In my experience, there isn't a lot of "subsidizing" with tax dollars going on. (It should pay for itself, particularly if the bylaws are written correctly.) I've lived in 3 towns with municipal utilities so far, but I can only assume the experience translates. While the price to the consumer tends to be cheaper, the discount comes from the fact that (A) the town just wants to break even. They have no real interest in making a profit. Also (B) it's a small area they have to serve. They don't need big fleets of trucks and a service hub that covers the whole state. There's a lot of overhead they save that way.
I guess I don't really understand the concern about allowing a government to compete with private business. (Concerns about government to step in and take over I get, but just compete?) I mean, usually we say that government is a bureaucracy filled with red tape and that private businesses can do things better. When the private businesses aren't doing things better or more efficiently, shouldn't that be a red flag that something is wrong with the business?
]]>I don't think the problem is public vs. private or co-op vs. corporate. Projects like this have been around for decades and are usually started because a municipality can't find a company that will provide services at a reasonable price or at all. The problem here is that TWC wants this type of thing to be declared illegal.
Good grief. Yes, we're a capitalist country, but companies don't have a right to a profit and shouldn't be able to demand laws that guaratee them customers. If the price/service level differences were modest, then TWC would probably be hooking people up in that town right now. But that wasn't the case. The price/service levels were so far out of whack that people realized that they could save serious money doing it themselves. And what's the problem? This is good for residents, businesses, property values, etc. TWC doesn't benefit, but if all they can offer is shitty service for 40% more, who cares?
]]>@randombob: Right on, +1 internets
]]>@Esquire99: You could live without water. It may be wholly impractical, but you could go buy drinking water from the Walgreens down the street, and as far as showering goes, I think you could figure that out too.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Feel free to ignore me. :P
]]>1 million percent support for Wilson NC.
]]>@silver-bolt: Why should the government provide access to water? Why can't you dig your own well, or pay a company to dig that well for you? If the municipal government is going to provide any utilities, I think it's a good idea for them to provide as many utilities as possible. I've lived in two cities with municipal electricity/water/internet/cable services and they've both been completely awesome. Right now I pay $70/month for about 200 channels (50 in HD) and a 7Mb connection with no throttling or monthly cap bullshit. I'm about to move 30 miles away and the same service will be around $150/month...
]]>@gStein: If Charlotte and Raleigh were cell mates in prison, Charlotte could make Raleigh sit down to pee. It is that much more awesome.
]]>@Esquire99: Your argument is nonsense because Time-Warner Cable is a government sponsored monopoly, not a private company. They do not operate in a competitive marketplace, therefore they have no basis for claiming that competition from a locally-owned ISP is in any sense unfair.
]]>@nybiker: I really is a good place to be.
]]>I wish more municipalities would try the same. If government can do it more efficiently and more cheaply than private business -- with the fees charged paying for themselves -- then why not let government do it? Yes, I hear you saying, "the private sector is better at business!", and usually I would agree, but the cable companies are a prime exception to that rule. They have virtual monopolies in many areas, charge exorbitant rates and now want to sue rather than COMPETE and therefore obey the golden rule of capitalism.
]]>If a business can't compete with a small town, their is something wrong with that business.
]]>@idip: It would still mean something - they'd learn that their terrible practices in one part of the country have repurcussions throughout their consumer base.
]]>Come on Vegas get with the program and offer the same thing! We have plenty of money here for this kind of thing.
City provided WiFi, make it happen...
]]>I would imagine if TWC wins this, the town would be out 23 million for the fiber/equipment already in place, TWC won't use it, and it can't be resold as with a monopoly no other ISP could move in. The service will get slower out of spite. And rural areas that are now covered will be cut back.
Sorry I have no respect for TWC after they have proven on several occasions that they don't care about their customers, only their bottom line. And to anyone that would say that's how capitalism works, it's not that's what we would call Marxist feudalism.
]]>I'd love to have a city-owned ISP that could offer a competitive service. If nothing else, at least that gives consumers something to bargain with. For most of us in NC, trying to get TWC to lower your broadband fees is a very one-sided battle, with TWC basically saying, "or what, you'll leave us for crappy slow DSL? Good luck with that, buddy."
]]>I think the fact that they used bonds for financing might be part of the reason it's cheaper - a government can raise capital cheaper than a company, because there is less chance of default - plus I think the income is tax-free under certain circumstances.
]]>Lately, it seems that TWC hasn't done a very good job of making people happy. I guess I've been lucky with TWC so far.
]]>I can't believe you people are defending Time Warner. You're defending a for-profit monopoly.
]]>It's through Cox's bundle package. 100 dollars. We are paying an extra 40 dollars though for DVR.
]]>All exposed as the lie it is, once competition knocks on their door. Then it's an immediate about-face and they launch their army of flacks and lobbyists to strangle competition, regards of which form it takes, in back-door corridors until the baby is strangled.
If it wasn't GreenLight, it'd be anyone else that shook up their oligopolies. They just slant the PR firestorm to fit the situation. But it'd be anyone. And will be. Unless consumers band together and beat them down like a red-headed stepchild.
]]>They must have put it in though if the speeds were so slow under the old provider. I'm assuming with a 28 million budget that included a chunk for infrastructure in addition to staffing, but still, it's a big project to just wake up and decide to do.
]]>I agree with you, competition=good. This is competition. Especially since IO, TWC and Comcast all seem to agree on what areas they will service so there is NO competition other than FiOS.
]]>F*** Wilson. I hope their courthouse gets hit by a meteor large enough to wipe out the whole town... and I hope the crater is visible from I-95.
]]>Just as many municipalities in the 20th century (and forward) have their own power, gas and light utilities, now some can apply this idea to 21st century tech.
And why not? Anyone in those towns still can choose another internet provider, phone or cable service. It's just that the city can do it better. And frankly, I'd assume they're making enough profits to help keep tax rates DOWN.
]]>I think it was called for.
]]>@cjones27: ...not that I'm saying you're advocating national internet. Just sayin'.
]]>@Tim Beto: As a locally-provided service, I agree this is a good idea. Local providers and services are much, much better than the big conglomerates.
But national internet? Absolutely not. You think TWC sucks, just wait until the government tries to operate it.
]]>My internet is 20Mbps, 23 with power boost. I win. Pay up.
]]>I would love to have a communications utility that is owned by the people that use it, like any other co-op, credit union, or public power provider.
]]>some community decides TWC blows, and builds their own ISP, with their own money, and pays for it, and it runs at no profit. Everyone is happy. A great example of communal run business AND private run business. Except TWC is screwed. This big company "can't compete"? if a huge company cant compete with a small town, they have no business even being in the game.
Get lost TWC. Some town had the balls to punch you. I want a community ISP in MY town.
Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?
]]>@TheBursar: Maybe not the internet service, but phone service would be. people need to be able to reach 911 right?
]]>LOVE THIS. THIS is the kind of capitalism I like, not huge conglomerates wielding large money to gain large power to gain more money at everyone else's expense. THIS is the capitalism the USA should be encouraging, not legislated monopolies.
]]>Then earthlink declared they couldn't make municipal wifi profitable and shut it down.
AT&T is still laughing.
]]>If the people in the city of Wilson said and signed a petition saying they would not buy Time Warner services, then it might mean something to them, because then they'd be spending more money in that area then they were receiving.
]]>Having cheap/free Internet access makes life better for everyone in the community.
It's not a good idea to let profit-motivated companies "compete" on municipal services. That's how you end up with Enron holding all of CA's electricity grid hostage.
]]>@idip: I submit that while internet/cable service might be "Non-essential", many cities spend funds on non-essential services all the time. Arts, History museums, tourism, tax-breaks, etc.
]]>"n lst nt, Wlsn tx mny ds nt fnd Grnlght. Ctzns wh chs Grnlght by th srvcs jst lk thy wld frm ny thr prvdr."
]]>1) all competitors -- regardless of ownership -- must be granted equal access to government property, and be required to pay equally for that access
2) all competitors must pay equal tax rates
If TWC can't compete in that environment, then let creative destruction do its work helping consumers
]]>Now, companies can move to Wilson and enjoy incredibly good highspeed internet, as well as several vendors to choose from, yes, including the City.
Oh by the way, after Greenlight went live, TWC ran a cable connection to my father's office for free. And he bought RoadRunner for the office as a result. You can imagine that TWC has gotten much more customer service focused in what was before most likely a small forgotten eastern NC town that was just some extra cash for the bigger Raleigh TWC operation.
]]>Seriously, it's not that bad here. I live in Youngsville (small town outside of Raleigh) and it's pretty nice.
]]>They used bonds for funding. And since they have been making a profit they can use that to repay the bonds. No tax money. And still lower prices and better service than the private companies.
So why can't the private businesses compete with that?
]]>Love the idea. My city-owned electricity service is a gem among the deregulated mess that is power delivery in Texas.
City-owned Internet access with citizens as stakeholders will put us on a level playing field with "Big Content" -- TWC, Comcast, and so forth -- thus forcing corrections to a market which has thus far failed us.
TWC is THE monopoly in my area so if the market can't provide me a choice -- honest competition -- then let the city give it a shot!
]]>Wow, I don't see what's really wrong with this. Internet is almost a necessity for communication these days. It isn't like they're getting it free. What Time Warner is doing seems wrong to me, because they can't compete, then they sue? How about just compete and offer a comparable service of comparative quality, of comparative pricing.
]]>I'm a long believer in the power of private enterprise to more quickly and efficiently take care of problems than the government can. I believe that charitable contributions should be encouraged, and would even suggest that the welfare system be scrapped and replaced with private charities. Donations to charities certified to provide access to all people equally and provide services that were covered under the welfare system (housing, food, medical) would be deductible at a slightly higher level (such as $1.15 for every dollar donated) than other charitable deductions, thus encouraging Americans to help each other out.
But, I also recognize that private business will not always provide service as efficiently as the government can. Look at the postal service. Sure, FedEx can get my package from DC to Tokyo overnight, but it would be cost prohibitive for them to deliver or pickup a single letter to Podunk, MT on a scheduled basis. Yes, the government has "special access" that allows it to compete more effectively. Yes, the government can avoid taxes that would be paid by private corporations. But what matters is the final cost to the taxpayer.
Here, the community supported system is able to, on its own, provide a more efficient service than anything that the TWC can provide. They are able to do it at a lower cost and still provide more services. This is what the government is supposed to do.
While TWC has a point - that exclusion by dumping would be a problem. But, here the community is still turning a profit. If the goal of the government is to provide access, and the internet is the primary method of communication from the government to the citizens, then isn't it beholden on the government to enable the people to get that access as cheaply as possible? After all, don't public schools compete with private schools? I don't see anything stating that TWC is banned, just that Greenlight is cheaper.
]]>If only one company decides they can offer that service then the city can no longer compete if they can form a business that suppiles that service under the business means?
I see this as no different then my city operated power. The city created CPS to control our power and they offer some of the lowest rates (even though it doesn't always seem like it) and believe it or not the company only uses resources that it collects and doesn't take tax payer money. And we still pay taxes on those bills to go to the city. And guess what, the company (even though it's a city company) still makes irresponsible decisions including buying a thousand dollar chair for the CEO.
You say the city/state has numerous tools to bring in competition, like what? Tax breaks? That's what my city does to bring in business, they give out millions of dollars in tax breaks to the companies they want to come here, how is that any better then having a city owned company that provides superior service that is funded on it's own revenue?
]]>I don't live "in" Huntsville but the utility provides electric, water and in some areas, sewer for the whole county. I live out in the sticks and we still get city water. Give me DSL and I'm happy!
]]>When the cable company provides plenty of documentation, proof that they "can't" provide the same level of service at a comparable rate, I'll agree with you.
They're not going to provide such proof, however, because it doesn't exist. The only reason they refuse to provide this level of service at this price is because they don't have to - most cable and telephone providers have a monopoly in a particular area.
It is disingenuous of them to claim that the government is going to price them out of business when they actively seek out legislation to stifle competition.
]]>Plus this is a co-op, there is minimal government involvement. lets not forget, for the people, by the people, of the people.
]]>I remember the absolute panic of private cable and cellular providers around Mpls when they proposed city wide free wifi as a community project.
]]>Competition = good
Lack of competition = bad
A local monopoly isn't exactly a lot better than a national corporate monopoly.
]]>$100/month is a "co-op"?
This isn't out of line. This is bringing a level of broadband only seen OUTSIDE the US to US citizens. Why? Because the ISPs in the US won't provide it.
And the cable company isn't actually providing this level of service. Anywhere. At any price.
]]>Interesting point, but it sounds like it's a co-op, not a true business.
]]>Sounds good, but why did it have to be through the government? Why couldn't Wilson just open up shop as a smaller, privately funded ISP?
]]>It was a dream (then i moved.)
]]>"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."
]]>Now there's a reason to move to NC.
]]>