var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

April 23, 2009 3:56 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Why? TWC isn't wrong. How can any business compete with an entity which has the power of taxation?

20 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 2:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: @Esquire99: boo hoo. I love how \"capitalism\" in this country has come to mean \"keep the government out of my business unless my business model is flawed and unstable and thus unable to survive on its own and then I want government intervention and some rule changes to make my business viable.

What next? \"but think of all the jobs we will lose if we go under!\"

$\"user-pic\"$

mmmmna

April 24, 2009 4:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Randy Treibel

April 24, 2009 12:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: @Erwos: I hope this is a level and you're really not that ignoramous.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gokuhouse

April 23, 2009 6:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: This is the same as a city providing water to the community.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coopon

April 23, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

April 23, 2009 10:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 3:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TechnoDestructo:

\"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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

s73v3r

April 23, 2009 11:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madanthony: Check Time Warner's filings. They've got plenty of capital for investing in infrastructure.

$\"user-pic\"$

Veeber

April 23, 2009 5:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coopon: I'm not against the idea. I think it makes sense given that phone and internet are almost to the point of being considered a utility.
However, a for-profit company will always have difficulty competing with a non-profit company. Now if TWC was able to demonstrate that they offered better service they could probably make a case for people to choose them but it seems that everything about Greenlight is better.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos:
It's not just the power of taxation that the city has, it's all of the other powers as well. Their ability to exercise eminent domain if they need a place to put a node, their access to the right of ways without having to pay franchise fees, their access to other public lands without the need to rent space from the city. If they ever decide to offer wireless service, they don't have to pay the thousands of dollars per month to place a transmitter on a city water tower.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 25, 2009 4:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: You point out that the city doesn't have to pay as much money to place transmitters and use land. That's because this is ALREADY THEIR PROPERTY!! Lets make this more layman.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 28, 2009 8:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SudakshimaTapir: Or rather, people don't complain about the city annexing property for libraries, government offices, and water sanitation facilities. Why should people care if they use it for an ISP? Telecommunications are almost as vital now as water, electricity, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

April 23, 2009 8:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Yeah, that'd be pretty much the deal the monopoly gets with the city. The get to eminent domain the crap out of things to put stuff places, they have free access to public lands, and while the cable company has to pay a (minimal) franchise fee, the phone company doesn't.

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

Joshua Sims

April 27, 2009 9:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): On the subject of access fees and such, that argument is not totally solid because the city, by using the land needed themselves is cutting off a source of income from selling it to someone else. Therefore, it could be seen as a loss of income exactly equal to the loss of income by the cable companies who have to pay the fee.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

April 23, 2009 5:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: You're assuming that franchise fees, etc., form the vast majority of cabler's operating costs in a world where it's very much the opposite.
These very impediments are what cablers use to constrain their markets to exclude real competition. Now they're whining because an entity managed to defeat these barriers, so now they use the \"OH NOE, IT'S SOCIALISM!\" canard to beat back fair competition.
And launching their armies of PR flacks and lobbyists to strangle the baby in its crib. Hardly Free Market or competitive, is it?

$\"user-pic\"$

sinfuly Delicious

April 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: But a cable company can do that now with nodes. Its a utility easement right. Also if the company is run correctly then yes they would have to pay those same fees. Its being run like a seperate entity.

$\"user-pic\"$

farcedude

April 23, 2009 4:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I see the argument, but I grew up in a town where all the utilities were initially provided by the city, and were later sold off to various entities. The service before the sell-off, despite what those entities advertised, was much better. How I view this service is as a utility, and as such I think that a city should be able to offer it as such if they so choose.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@farcedude: Excellent point, why DON'T we consider broadband internet a utility? By definition, that's what it is.

$\"user-pic\"$

silver-bolt

April 23, 2009 6:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JPropaganda: By definition, a utility is a necessity in life. Water, Power, Gas. Telephone, halfway. Telephone, Cell, Cable and Internet are all services, optional.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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...

$\"user-pic\"$

korybing

April 23, 2009 6:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: The internet is way more of a necessity to me than the telephone. I barely use my telephone, but the internet, and especially email, is vital to me, as it is how I make money and therefore pay for food and shelter so I can live. I would very much consider it a utility.

$\"user-pic\"$

Keen314

April 23, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: Humans lived before running Water, Electricity, and Gas.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

April 24, 2009 2:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

They also died at much earlier ages.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: it can be argued that power and gas are not necessities in life also.

$\"user-pic\"$

farcedude

April 23, 2009 4:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: I don't see what the problem is AS LONG AS the entity that is providing the broadband only uses money from it gets from its subscribers to provide the service, aka it doesn't use tax money to provide cheap internet. According to the blog page (which is, I admit, one-sided evidence) the service is self-sustaining, and any profits go to fill the cities coffers.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Interesting point, but it sounds like it's a co-op, not a true business.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

$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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Guard

April 27, 2009 2:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: I pay $75/mo for cable + 10mbps cable internet with 20mbps being offered for $5 or 10 more. Digital cable through the same company bumps the cost up to around the same $100/mo, so this service isn't only offered outside the US, its offered in other parts of the country where Time Warner isn't the standard.

I live in Northern Kentucky, near Cincinnati. Once you cross into Ohio, you're in Time Warner country.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: Since no evidence has been presented that the city is abusing this power, I fail to see its relevance. Time Warner and Embarq are apparently scared because the city is providing better service for less money. Who wouldn’t be afraid for their monopoly in this situation?

$\"user-pic\"$

Mike Kenyon

April 23, 2009 4:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Erwos: From TFA:

\"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.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 8:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike Kenyon: Anyone want to call that Communism, be my guest. I call it a co-op, kind of like a credit union. Everything's cheaper when the customers own the company.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

nybiker

April 23, 2009 3:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Now there's a reason to move to NC.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Charlotte Rae's Web

April 24, 2009 3:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: North Kakalaky all the way!

$\"user-pic\"$

gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*

April 23, 2009 5:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: grew up in raleigh, now stuck in charlotte

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein: If Charlotte and Raleigh were cell mates in prison, Charlotte could make Raleigh sit down to pee. It is that much more awesome.

$\"user-pic\"$

Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz

April 24, 2009 12:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pigbearpug: I'm going to have to agree with you there, but they'd both be the small town's bitches.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

April 23, 2009 4:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: Barbecue is a good reason too.

$\"user-pic\"$

Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz

April 23, 2009 5:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yes. YES. YEEEEEESSSSSSSS! I LOVE BARBECUE!

@nybiker: I really is a good place to be.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

April 23, 2009 6:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz: And lets hear it for sweet tea. Enough sugar to rot all of your teeth in one gulp! (Disclaimer: I loooove me some sweet tea!)

$\"user-pic\"$

Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz

April 24, 2009 12:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LadySiren: Is there any other kind?

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: Be forewarned: Once you live here, you'll never truly be able to leave.

Seriously, it's not that bad here. I live in Youngsville (small town outside of Raleigh) and it's pretty nice.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese

April 23, 2009 5:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@tinky XIII: I agree with y'all - once you get here you don't want to leave. I'm originally from San Francisco, and have lived in LA, Las Vegas, Baltimore...and this is still my favorite. Go Heels!

$\"user-pic\"$

Charlotte Rae's Web

April 24, 2009 3:06 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LadySiren: GO HEELS!

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: Or a reason to live here if you already do.
(Me.)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Drew Thiesen

April 23, 2009 3:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

HAHA!!! Monopolies taken down by some po-dunk town. WIN!

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

April 23, 2009 4:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Drew Thiesen: Wilson isn't really podunk. 40,000+ residents isn't podunk. Podunk is if Alliance, NC with a population of 781 people decided to start their own ISP.

$\"user-pic\"$

TechnoDestructo

April 23, 2009 11:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

pb5000

April 23, 2009 5:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Ha ha, the first thing you see on Alliance, NC street view is a big hole in the ground.

$\"user-pic\"$

Megan Squier

April 23, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Drew Thiesen: If only Huntsville (Alabama) utilities would do the same thing. Then I can drop my troublesome AT&T DSL!

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!

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 4:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Megan Squier: Ha! I wish Appleton, WI would do this. I'd love to see AT&T / TWC put in their respective places.

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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ForrestWhitakersLazyEye

April 23, 2009 4:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You give crappy service enough, people will revolt. Here it is. If you didn't suck Time Warner, this probably wouldn't have happened.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

April 23, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They have some good barbecue there, too.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Darrone

April 23, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

There are lots of these. I had been using BELD for about 10-12 years (Braintree Electric and Lighting Department). They provide great cable before anyone else did, the broadband cable speed shames other options, and they're CSR's used phrases like \"Well, we can have a guy there at 6:30pm,\" \"What day?\" \"Today...\"

It was a dream (then i moved.)

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ncpeters

April 23, 2009 5:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Darrone: My town has it's own cable and internet company as well. It has great service and it's cost is much lower than the national average. The competing cable company also has had to greatly cut it's price in an attempt to keep customers. Last night I was having a problem with my service (it ended up being my own fault, the breaker with my signal booster had blown) and called at 5:45. They had a guy out within 15 minutes and quickly diagnosed the problem.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

T Axel Jones

April 23, 2009 4:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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?

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Darrone

April 23, 2009 4:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@T Axel Jones: It's unrealistic to expect people to just band together and create a broadband and voip network out of shear will.

Plus this is a co-op, there is minimal government involvement. lets not forget, for the people, by the people, of the people.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

April 23, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@T Axel Jones: Coop community services like this don't need to turn a profit or appease investors or shareholders. All they need to do is repay loans, provide service, pay their bills and make payroll.

I remember the absolute panic of private cable and cellular providers around Mpls when they proposed city wide free wifi as a community project.

$\"user-pic\"$

wardawg

April 23, 2009 4:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Up here in the frozen prairies (Saskatchewan) the provincial IT office that I work for has a plan to provide all major cities in the province with publicly free wi-fi in the downtown areas and around schools and universities by 2012. Sure it's not lightning fast, but it beats the heck out of having to buy Starbucks to use their network for half an hour a day.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Heh. In my town a citywide wifi project started up, was incredibly popular, AT&T was terrified. Lobbied the state government which proceeded to make public municipal wifi illegal. City privatized the wifi network, the contractor (Earthlink) proceeded to overload and degrade the wifi network to the point where even when I could connect I was getting 1-3kbps.

Then earthlink declared they couldn't make municipal wifi profitable and shut it down.

AT&T is still laughing.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 2:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@EarlNowak: Are you talking about Philadelphia? Cause that's almost exactly what happened here.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mar Charbel

April 23, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@T Axel Jones: Did you even READ the links?

$\"user-pic\"$

T Axel Jones

April 24, 2009 6:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm pretty torn on this issue. I understand the cities decision, but it bothers me that they are potentially using state/city taxpayer dollars to subsidize a non-essential service. I also have a problem with the government competing with private business. The city has a lot of power to make their service work efficiently that the cable companies don't have. They don't have to pay themselves to run cable over/under city property. If they want to build a node on public property, they can do so without having to rent land from the city. They have potentially have access to the city coffers if they have a budget shortfall. Finally, I simply don't believe that providing services like this is the business of government. The government should be limited to providing only essential services (police, fire dept., water, sewer, etc.). That said, they are providing a good service at a good price, which is certainly beneficial, at least in the short run, to its citizens. However, I think the long-term impact of allowing the government to step in and compete with private business isn't worth the short term gain.

23 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 29, 2009 7:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: @Esquire99:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jim Vernon

April 25, 2009 9:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I have no problem with this at all. I see it being like roads. Businesses need roads to transport stuff, and everyone benefits when governments build roads. The internet is the new \"road\", and business need it. Cheaper, higher capacity internet is good for business, and thus good for the entire town.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 25, 2009 5:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: With all due deference, it would appear that Internet service IS now an essential service. Not only is the city undercutting the price (your arguments appear valid here) but they are also ramping up the service, which TW could have done just as readily. But chose not to ... and apparently continue to choose not to -- seeking legislation to keep them from having to actually compete for the customer buck.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 24, 2009 11:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 1:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

April 23, 2009 8:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Incidentally, I have private-corporation water. There's no magic list of which utilities are \"necessities\" that the government must provide and which ones are \"luxuries\" that come from private corporations. It's frequently determined by habit, history, and happenstance. (Frankly, I find the idea of municipally-owned water a little odd because I've mostly lived places with private corporation-provided water.)

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.)

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 11:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle):
I think a lot of my disagreement with this comes from my view on what government should be. I think government should be small and nonintrusive. When they start to expand into running businesses that are traditionally private sector businesses, it opens a door for more expansion and for bigger government. I also believe the necessary utilities argument that I am/was making is a one-way street. If the government wants to delegate certain essential services like water to a private corporation, I have no problem with that. That doesn't affect my belief that government should provide nothing more than the essentials. I also think one can make a list of essential services, and I'm not quite ready to put internet on that list. I believe internet is an important and valuable resource, but I don't believe it's as important as water or sewer service. There may come a time when internet is that important, but I still think it's a service that belongs in the public sector. The government is, in part for good reason, slow to change. Putting a technology business in their hands is simply not efficient. They're ahead of the curve now, but how will this entity look in 5 years?

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

April 24, 2009 1:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: \"When they start to expand into running businesses that are traditionally private sector businesses\"

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

mmmsoap

April 23, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It sounds like (thought I could be wrong) you don't have a lot of experience with municipal utilities. Although my town currently only operates its own electric/light company, proposals to expand to fiber/TV have been on the table for a while, and I personally can't wait.

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

Pierce Nichols

April 23, 2009 6:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pierce Nichols:
For one, TWC isn't a government sponsored monopoly. In some areas, they operate pursuant to an exclusive franchise granted by the municipality, in others they compete with other cable companies. Even in areas where the possess an exclusive franchise, they compete against satellite and DSL. Further, the competition in this case isn't locally owned in the traditional sense, it's owned by the local government, which is vastly different.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It's an essential service.

$\"user-pic\"$

Trai_Dep

April 23, 2009 5:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: But the whole argument for cablers jacking their rates, blackmailing content providers, blocking traffic based on type and throttling bandwidth is that the cablers pretend that they're just like any other business, competing in a vigorous, open, free market.
\"Forget our quasi-monopolistic status!\", they cry. \"We're a wide-open, competitive field!\"

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mar Charbel

April 23, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sqr99: Frm TF:

\"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.\"

Y mrn.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mar Charbel:
First off, the \"moron\" comment was completely uncalled for. Second, if you had any reading comprehension skills whatsoever, you'd notice that I said they \"potentially\" have access to tax dollars. The fact they aren't using them today doesn't mean that tomorrow, when they need them, the City won't pass legislation to allow them access. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully before you start to attack people.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Several of the \"worst companies in america\" ACTUALLY have access to tax dollars. And companies are worried about a non-profit \"potentially\" having access.

I think it was called for.

$\"user-pic\"$

TheBursar

April 23, 2009 4:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I think claiming the internet service nowadays is \"non-essential\" is where you lost me.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

April 23, 2009 4:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TheBursar: Maybe not the internet service, but phone service would be. people need to be able to reach 911 right?

$\"user-pic\"$

Jonathan Quinn

April 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: At first it does seem odd, but you mention that a government should only provide essential services. I think in this country and much of the developed world, Internet is quickly becoming a vital service. Moreover, since greenlight would not pay for nodes, fees and right of way access, this would be more efficient.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Internet is an essential service - I'd rather have it than running water.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WendelPurpureo: Ditto. I live in a very small town where unemployment is the highest in NC. Fortunately I work online. No Internet = no money in my house. The Net's not just for pr0n and Facebook, you know.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WendelPurpureo:
Vital != essential. You can live without internet service, you cannot live without water. I agree that internet is a very important service for most people, but it's in no way on the same level as water, police services, etc. Personally, I'd probably rather have internet than water, but I know that I don't really live in reality.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Think about this: 100 years or so ago, sewer systems were considered non-essential. You can dig a hole in the ground and take a crap, the same way you can go to a library to use the internet. Sewer systems were installed to improve the quality of life. I think we're at a place where calling cable and internet an essential utility isn't entirely out of line...improving the quality of life should never stop.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

W10002

April 23, 2009 4:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I understand where you're coming from. But on the flip side, I think it'll promote better service and lower prices from private companies that can afford it. When you own a monopoly that no one wants to compete with, you set the rules. Competition is always healthy in Capitalism, even if the competition is from the local government. Plus, tax payer money isn't being used in this situation [at least from what I gathered in this article], so you don't have to worry about your tax money being spent on stuff you don't want.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@W10002:
I agree that competition is healthy, but I don't think it's the governments place to BE that competition. A more appropriate course of action would have been to actively seek out alternative service providers to come in and compete with TWC. The city/state has numerous tools in their arsenal to encourage and incentivize a competing provider, without having to be that provider themselves.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 27, 2009 8:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Why not? The government's job is to help and protect the citizens, so if necessary, why shouldn't that extend to offering alternatives to private services?

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

idip

April 23, 2009 4:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: What happens when a private company comes in to provide fire, police, ems, sewer, trash, and water?

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

s73v3r

April 23, 2009 11:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@idip: If that chair was an Aeron, then it was totally worth it. Those chairs couldn't be worth more if they were made of gold.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

W10002

April 23, 2009 4:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The problem is, no one is willing to compete. Even with numerous incentive, competitors in this industry just doesn't like to invest in areas where another company already has a stake in. Lots of areas are only stuck with limited choices of ISP and Cable companies. I have no idea why this is the case. If it wasn't the case, I would oppose the local city's involvement in this business. But seeing how the ISP refuses to upgrade their network because it'll set them back 2 years [but help them in the long run] and how no one else wants to go and compete with like TW, I don't see a major issue.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is great news for the people. I hope TWC won't get that legislature passed just so they get the message that people don't like their crap.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

raleel

April 23, 2009 4:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

we have such a thing in our area (Kennewick, WA) but it's not cheaper by any means, and pretty limited coverage.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Competition = good
Lack of competition = bad

A local monopoly isn't exactly a lot better than a national corporate monopoly.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

April 23, 2009 5:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@smartmuffin: At least with a municipally owned monopoly the people can eventually vote the people controlling it out of office. Subscribers can't oust executives at TWC

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@smartmuffin: It's not a local monopoly. It's a local co-op offering that has a reasonable price, with TWC as its competition. I don't understand how that can be considered a monopoly.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 7:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JPropaganda: TWC and Comcast are both known for having strangleholds on local areas. TWC/Comcast ARE the monopoly, and you even just described it (well, technically, it's an oligopoly, because more than one company is involved, but it's the same principle).

In this case, TWC is working to eliminate their competition through the creation of laws.

$\"user-pic\"$

madog

April 23, 2009 4:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@smartmuffin:
Martial arts = good
Prime Minister of Malaysia = bad

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: RELAX!

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Mar Charbel

April 23, 2009 4:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Can people actually read the information before jumping to OMG SOCIALISM conclusions?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

April 23, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mar Charbel: Seriously. It's not socialism, it's capitalism at its finest, where innovators and the guys offering the best deals on service come out on top.

$\"user-pic\"$

zentex

April 23, 2009 5:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mar Charbel: how long have you been using the internets again? ;-)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

April 23, 2009 4:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If I remember correctly are the lines run throughout an area public domain? I think that was the case in the 80's to block monopolies in cable so other players didn't have to run a second set of lines all over town.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

scoosdad

April 24, 2009 5:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: No, not in the public domain, they're owned by the utility that put them up. And usually one utility will own the poles, and the others will pay a lease fee to attach their lines to the poles.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 4:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Vail, Colorado offers wireless internet for free in the city to compete with Comcast. I'm personally not seeing a problem here. The towns here in Colorado at least chooses one cable provider to allow in the town. Why not make it themselves?

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

nbs2

April 23, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

SDreamer

April 23, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Tim Beto

April 23, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Internet as a public utility? *gasp*

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!

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

cjones27

April 23, 2009 4:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

cjones27

April 23, 2009 4:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cjones27: ...not that I'm saying you're advocating national internet. Just sayin'.

$\"user-pic\"$

Tim Beto

April 23, 2009 5:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cjones27: hahaha yeah -- agreed. local control would be key.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Joe Caputo

April 23, 2009 4:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Customers of TW should call their provider, and threaten to cancel your service if they don't drop this initiative. Vote with your pocketbooks people.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 24, 2009 6:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Joe Caputo: @Joe Caputo:

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

idip

April 23, 2009 4:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Joe Caputo: Unfortunantly that would mean nothing, unless it was from the people in that area.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coyote

April 23, 2009 5:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@idip: If I read the article right that's what's already happening. 3000 customers that were TWC are now getting better faster cheaper service. Instead of trying to win them back with better service they just want to kill what they use now and force them to come back.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

jc364

April 23, 2009 5:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@idip: Actually, if the people of Wilson didn't buy from TWC, where would they get their Internet/Cable? A signed petition from the people of Wilson would mean nothing; it's called a monopoly for a reason.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 4:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I grew up in Wilson, and my father owned a business there, recently retiring. Before the City put in their broadband, he could not get broadband access to his office, because TWC did not want to run cable to his building, instead asking him to pay $thousands for this. This is one reason the City of Wilson did this: they wanted to reduce the barriers for businesses to move to Wilson.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The state should set two rules of local competition:

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

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 27, 2009 1:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I agree. There must be something prohibiting competition under capitalism in the community. It may be territorial agreements between Comcast, TWC, etc. in their little oligopoly. We wouldn't want \"dog eat dog\" competition, now would we? Someone should research or an insider should leak exactly what the story is. We have Verizon and Comcast keeping prices under control in my area, and it works very well - I get 20Mb/8Mb and basic cable for $70/mo from Comcast.

$\"user-pic\"$

Coyote

April 23, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rachmaninov1: AFAIK that is how it's done. However this isn't a private industry, as somone pointed out earlier, Greenlight is probably exempt from both those rules. However I still can't argue for TWC, if people can get all aorund better serivce it shouldn't matter where/how they get it. If peoples lives are made easier is all that should count.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Morac

April 23, 2009 4:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe if TWC spent less money buying off politicians, they'd have more money left over for profit and would be better able to compete.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

esd2020

April 23, 2009 4:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The city needs to do what's best for its residents, not what's best from some abstract idea of what capitalism should look like.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Gosh! I have an idea for Time Warner and Embarq...eat shit and die. If you can't compete without cheating, then you don't have the right to own my cable service. Bastards.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I LOVE this. It's great, I think, that they saw that they were getting gouged, and DID SOMETHING about it. wonderful. Consumer-friendly. They're providing a service that's desired at a good price, without ripping people off to pay an exorbitantly-inflated CEO's salary.

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

ChibaCityCowboy

April 23, 2009 7:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@randombob: Right on, +1 internets

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

GriffonJames

April 23, 2009 4:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My town of Shrewsbury, MA offers electricity, cable, internet, and phone service, along with water/sewer service. I pay $40/month for 8Mb/768k service with a 75GB monthly usage cap. This comes bundled with 78 channels of cable tv for another $34, and I pay $13/month to an internet VOIP provider for my phone service. Total, about 88/month for cable/internet/phone.

My personal opinion is that internet service IS becoming an essential utility. But that just means that I shouldn't be denied access to such services.

I have other options for electricity, cable, phone, and gas services; I just choose to use the providers that offer decent service and customer service at a competitive price.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have no problem not letting government compete with private business they have no business being in, IF capitalism is allowed to exist and companies are not allowed to collude to create monopolies to exploit the customers. Competition is a good thing.

Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

redkamel

April 23, 2009 4:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I cant beleive people are defending time warner. What happened to all the \"free market\" rhetoric that goes on here? or the \"community is best\"?

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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I live in a city that is fortunate enough to have a power utility that is owned by the people who use it, not by a for-profit company. We have some of the cheapest power in the country, and we don't run the risk of the Enron-caused brownouts in California that happened because the company wanted more profits.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Mooshie

April 23, 2009 4:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

\"I'll bet my broadband is faster than yours.\"

My internet is 20Mbps, 23 with power boost. I win. Pay up.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Mooshie: I'll bet you're paying through the nose for it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Mooshie

April 23, 2009 5:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's through Cox's bundle package. 100 dollars. We are paying an extra 40 dollars though for DVR.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

GriffonJames

April 23, 2009 4:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Regarding the use (or not) of tax dollars, there are communities out there that are using or considering using tax dollars to provide free or subsidized wifi to the local community. Good for them. If the local taxpayers approve of having their taxes spent that way, then I'm certainly against having a state government tell them they can't.

But, to offer another argument on the other side of the fence.... It does take capital to start-up an ISP, and governments have access to funds other than tax dollars. Such an ISP could borrow from a bank, like any other small business, or it could use funding raised through the sale of city-backed bonds. Yes, the ISP would pay back the bond-related debt, but the city would be liable for that debt if the ISP defaulted. I don't know the details of any given city's funding; I just wonder if this has been the funding source for some of the community cable/internet services around the country. (?)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

kerrington.steele

April 23, 2009 4:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

my dad is from Wilson! YAY EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

GriffonJames

April 23, 2009 4:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I also note that I have yet to hear of any city-owned internet provider that has a monopoly to offer internet service. Can the same be said of any of the larger companies who are lobbying to prevent cities from competing against them?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 4:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What is the problem here? How is this any different than having city water? The ISPs really need this sort of kick in the pants, and as a NC resident, I really hope this legislation gets killed.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think anyone who is siding with TWC does not fully understand what internet, phone and cable mean in the 21st century.

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.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wilson N.C. is the motherf***er of all I-95 speed traps: they extended their city limits out to the highway so they could write tickets, for which a court appearance is required. Then, they give the names and addresses of the accused to every lawyer in town, so they can offer to represent you in court.
If you try to stand up to them, they revoke your driving privilege in North Carolina... meaning your home state will revoke it too.

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: Gosh, you don't sound bitter or biased or off topic at all.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 10:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@crunchberries: My son came back from Iraq in October 2003 after driving a tank to Baghdad with 3-7 Cav. He had killed a few dozen people up close and personal, some with various firearms and some with the treads of his tank. He was half-crazed with PTSD, on a dozen medications, and incredibly sleep-deprived... but he was determined to come home to his family just as soon as the Army would let him.
On his way home, for the first time since the war started, he got stopped in Wilson. He was in full uniform right down to the cavalry spurs on his boots, but the cop who stopped him didn't care. He remains to this day 100% certain that he was going less than ten MPH over the speed limit, but that cop wrote him up for 16 over.
Then, after he got home, we found out why they wrote him up for that speed: the ticket required a court appearance, which is Wilson's main industry. Lawyers started mailing him letters and brochures. He was determined to plead not guilty. To prevent the inevitable, I went with him.
It's a good thing I did: Wilson's racket is that getting a ticket for 16+ MPH over the limit gives the judge leeway to take away your license if you make the mistake of pleading \"not guilty\" and display any kind of attitude.
If he had gone down there alone, and reacted to their scam the way any angry 23-year-old experienced military killer should, he would have ended up in a cell... or worse. Instead, I kept him calm, he paid the exorbitant fine, and we drove home.

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.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

s73v3r

April 24, 2009 12:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: No offense, but what does your son having served in Iraq have to deal with the rest of the story? Soldiers have to follow laws just like everyone else.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 1:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@s73v3r: As I said, the officer lied and inflated his speed. He was guilty of going, at most, eight miles per hour over the limit. The cop wrote him a more serious ticket, perjuring himself for the benefit of Wilson's leading industry (screwing travelers), and got away with it.
(By the way, I checked his speedometer in his Altima the day after the ticket was written. At an indicated 60 MPH, it covered a measured mile in 60 seconds... and ten measured miles in 10 minutes ten seconds. He was not guilty of going 16 mph over the limit).

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 2:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: So, if you feel so wronged, why don't you take it up with Wilson instead of engaging in bitter off-topic rants at random internet people?

Your personal experience does not mean that Wilson's municipal internet business model is illegitimate or deserves to fail.

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek: Thank you for this. I love your grasp of relevancy and your lack of crazy tangential rants.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

menty666

April 23, 2009 5:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if the town paid for the fiber or if they just waited until it was there and then killed the TWC contracts. I ask because though Verizon is doing a massive push of their FIOS service, in 3 years it still isn't onto my street and I don't have any reason to believe it will be anytime soon.

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.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Who owns the fiber network? Did the city lay it's own or are they leasing from one of the big boys?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

s73v3r

April 24, 2009 12:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MrsLopsided: The city owns it, which means there should be no problem with Time Warner leasing use of the fiber so they can provide service on it.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

StevePJobs

April 23, 2009 5:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have no problem with government-owned internet access. If a municipality can provide better service, then that's the end of it. As long as that service remains properly neutral, all is fair. If TWC can't compete, that's their problem.

I can't believe you people are defending Time Warner. You're defending a for-profit monopoly.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

jc364

April 23, 2009 5:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

People shouldn't be made to suffer for the benefit of one business that can't compete. I hope that TWC fails miserably on this initiative.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 5:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Our city-owned electric company here in Burlington, VT spun off a telecom company that offers phone, internet and cable. The service is great, it's cheaper than Comcast and it doesn't cost a penny in tax dollars. Things are going so well that other local town governments have asked them to expand their service area.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I live in Raleigh, and Wilson isn't too far from here, so I'm extraordinarily jealous of their situation. For most of NC, the options for internet service are basically TWC, AT&T DSL, or dial-up (which isn't really an option in my mind, but some people still use it, apparently). Of the three, TWC tends to provide the fastest service (dependent on location obviously), but it's still nothing impressive. I'm currently paying for their top-tier consumer-level service, and I can get maybe 10-12 Mbps downstream on a good day. Certainly not on the level of FiOS or anything.

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.\"

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Gotta cheer for the little guys here. What an awesome thing to come out of such a crappy situation. If little towns can make 10Mbps connections on a small scale why can't larger companies do better? makes no sense. When I look at the quality of TWC, Comcast, and other cable tv/inet proveders, then I see that s.korea gets 40Mbps home connections for a fraction of the price. What are we doing wrong here?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My parents have a similar deal in Florida. TWC has a monopoly where I live and I'd leave in a minute if I had the choice.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

KingPsyz

April 23, 2009 5:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

When American auto workers couldn't compete with Mexican auto workers, they were told to re-train, learn new skills. When a business can't compete it wants to bar the competition. Something sounds fishy here.

If a business can't compete with a small town, their is something wrong with that business.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 5:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

OH NOES TEH COMPETISHUNZ
WE CANNOTZ COMPETZ
WE R SU U!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

picardia

April 23, 2009 5:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

The-Joker

April 24, 2009 1:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@picardia: yea our system would be totally fucked up if they actually passed the bill in NC to outlaw the Greenlight company.

I swear when i turn 21 im movin out of this fuckin shithole and on a plane to Japan. (im 16 now btw)

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

paradisefound24

April 23, 2009 6:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

How about letting NC say \"okay, but from now on, we're going to act like WE own the cables and wires we do in fact, actually own. By which we mean, we're going to let whoever we want use them, and we're going to charge all of these people for running your service on them. Voila. No monopoly, and no whining about what it's going to cost you to upgrade. Just you and the market for the service you provide.\"

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Screw TWC and these monopolies. They can get my money in hell.

1 million percent support for Wilson NC.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

The-Joker

April 24, 2009 1:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Tijil: yea but in America internet is not really considered a utility. Something to do with those old as Republicans who should just die already....

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well it seems that TWC is just making a rash of bad decisions recently, less than a month ago they proposed a internet cap charging customer by the Gigabyte. It seems to me that TWC is not working alone on these kind of deals. Go Wilson, NC and pass your knowledge on to us in the eastern part of the state.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 6:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, now there's a municipality that's doing it right. Now, if only my backwater in the middle of nowhere could follow such an example.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Tiber

April 23, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I fail to see the point of their argument. They say they can't compete. I say, \"...So?\" What exactly do they have to offer that Greenlight isn't doing better? You say you have to pay your shareholders, while Greenlight doesn't have to. TWC was never forced to become a publicly traded company. You need to \"level the playing field\"? Please, if you look like the little guy it's only because the mountain of money behind you is screwing up everyone's perception.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Tijil

April 23, 2009 7:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yup. There ARE a lot of municipal owned power companies, water companies, cable companies, etc.

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

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

How does one go about starting up a community ISP in his community? (Oly, WA)

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Companies that can't compete should die out, not legislate themselves into power.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Joeb5

April 23, 2009 7:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They use the same cable boxes / DVR and there HBO, SHOWTIME, MAX, and stars HD line up and lagging only ONE channle each?

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

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 7:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is a sharp edge to play with, but if your community wants it I say go for it. Maybe in a few years TW will be able to undercut the then bloated govt infrastructure which will undoubtedly charge the same price it did at launch even as the technology gets cheaper.

This is what brings people to communities! Schools, jobs and data infrastructure should be what folks look for.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 8:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is also an issue in the Mooresville/Cornelius/Davidson area or NC. We have MI Connection here, with way more channels that TWC *ever* offered, and at a better rate. The company is also local government owned, and is trying to fight TWC every step of the way.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Ricky Jones

April 23, 2009 8:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

They are setting up a government backed monopoly, a kinda public private ownership. Sounds like a great idea, look how well freddie mac and fannie mae have done for us.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

cerbie

April 25, 2009 10:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ricky Jones: reading. You should try it. There is no monopoly. It is not government backed like Mae and Mac.

$\"user-pic\"$

The-Joker

April 24, 2009 1:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ricky Jones: i thing every state should have its own internet/telco/tv utility company, either for break-even or for profit. Companies that break even wouldn't be a stress on the economy and for-profit companies would help close the budget deficit by pumping profits into the government.

$\"user-pic\"$

s73v3r

April 24, 2009 12:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Ricky Jones: On a national scale, its a bad idea. But on a local, municipal level, there can be much more accountability, and its easier to get change.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 23, 2009 9:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like a great idea. I wish I had it where I live. One of the suburbs is considering doing this but a lot of the residence there are seniors that don't know any thing about technology so they are having a hard time passing the idea.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 23, 2009 9:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Funny how free-marketeers loooooove to say that competition is healthy because it keeps down prices ... until actual competition shows up. Then they scream bloody murder. Too bad TWC, you can't have it both ways.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

It's not my baby, baby!

April 23, 2009 9:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think it is hilarious that people on this site are naive enough to think that government is not a business. They are just the largest business.

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!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bs Baldwin

April 23, 2009 10:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

TWC can't compete when it has competition. As long as the city does not block TWC from operating, they have no case. These laws are the result of lobbies writing the laws and politicians passing them along.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

savdavid

April 23, 2009 11:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wilson might as well hang it up, unfortunately. They don't have the money to buy the NC politicians like the big dogs. Sad.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Bree L

April 24, 2009 12:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

How funny. I've been using TWC for YEARS litterally, and never once have I ever had crap service from them.
Also, where are they getting those numbers?? I get a heck of a lot more up/down speeds than that! I also get a heck of a lot more than 80 channels and I have phone service with them. The whole package and I pay 117 a month. So does this mean they're lying? Or that TWC just sucks down there?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

The-Joker

April 24, 2009 1:38 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I just hope NYC makes a plan like this, we've been bitched around by TWC long enough. And now they're planning to charge us on how much internet we use? Get the fuck out of here. We really need competition in this area, now Verizon is beginning to roll out fiber optic service and its not even available in my area yet ( i live in queens by the way).

Fiber optic phone, internet, tv is the FUTURE. I WANT IT NOWWWWWW!!!

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 24, 2009 2:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is highly illegal and can not pass. Monopolies are banned by law in our government, and should this pass, this would open the door for every other large business out there to take over and shove everyone else out. This can not be allowed to pass.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 24, 2009 2:51 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Unfortunately, in the political climate we are curretly in, competition and the free market system are dead. Big companies can't compete? Let the government bail them out. That's what is going to happen here, folks. Is that what you voted for?

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 4:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Oh ha. Okay, if Time Warner wants to play it that way, I vote that the city declare that Time Warner's lines ought to be freely available for any cable company that wants to offer service to use, sans \"maintenance fees\" so that residents have fair and freely available options other than Time Warner.
I bet they'll shut up real fast.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

ageshin

April 24, 2009 5:04 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The big cable companies want monopoly control, so they can control the fess and services that people use. They offer high priced crummy service, and are offended when the local comunity decides to do it themselves. If the cable companies want total control they should be regulated, but they don't want that. The local comunities have the right to create their own service if they want. The more power to them.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 6:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, I wanna move to NC.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 24, 2009 12:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Having visited NC more times than I like, I could never move there. Sorry, too hot & humid.
That being said, I'm hoping Wilson can continue to run Greenlight as long as possible.

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Bree L

April 24, 2009 2:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Too hot and humid?? Haha, have you ever been to Florida? NC is nothing compared to that!
Are you from Canada or something? Lol

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 24, 2009 2:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is infrastructure just like streets and water and sewer. If local government provides right of way or domain for private companies to provide service, whether phone or electric, why can't they use it too? OMG I wish there were more competition in my area the prices and services offered by the big companies SUCK.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Andy Holt

April 24, 2009 4:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

i wish there was one of these in kansas city

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 25, 2009 12:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What happens when a government runs a business? Two excellent examples are the State of Pennsylvania running the liquor stores and New York City (now New York State) running Off Track Betting. You have monopolies selling booze and operating as a bookie. You lose money. Why? You have politicians and bureaucrats putting friends and patrons on the payroll. You have government taking more than 100% of the profit (i.e. tax).

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.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 25, 2009 10:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I live in Wilson, and have used TWC for a majority of the time here. Their prices kept changing and my friends who live outside the city can't get TWC to get them service. Greenlight is fantastic! I've been a customer for 7 months now and it is great. The service they offer (more channels, faster upload/download speeds) are great for the price and now my friends outside the city will be able to have access soon.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

sam-i-am

April 26, 2009 4:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I would just like to point out that here in Utah we get 50mbit up/down fiber for $50/mo.

/brag

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 27, 2009 4:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Just cant understand why otherwise intelligent people get all bent out of shape over a city providing a service? roads are a service, bridges are a service, libraries are a service etc. What about private ownership of these or any other is so great if it turns out it is more costly and doesnt work as well. Methinks too many have been brain-washed to believe socialism = communism

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Nic Stage

April 27, 2009 5:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

We have the same deal here in Reedsburg, WI.I don't really worry myself with arguments about whether it is or is not socialism, because I'm really quite the socialist myself. More power to 'em! >:)

[www.rucls.net]

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 27, 2009 1:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

There are various municipalities throughout the United States providing Utility Services at a competitive cost.I see nothing wrong with municipalities offering Cable/Internet/Phone service.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Sammy Martin

April 27, 2009 5:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

VERY COOL AND VERY INTUITIVENESS....IF THAT'S HOW YOU SAY IT....

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Joe White

April 28, 2009 3:56 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is the last thing a city needs to provide. The overwhelming power the government would have over the distribution of information if they controlled all broadband would be mind boggling. Why would anyone condone this? Just to save a couple bucks? Please. Why has socialism become so commonplace in people's thoughts these days. Do you need the government to do everything for you? Every time a business is in trouble nowadays, the government takes it over. Every time there is not enough competition in a certain sector, the government takes it over. Where does this end? Government has no business providing your link to the internet, none. Next will be all the energy companies, you know that right? See, the government has two things going for it. They can legislate, and they can print money. Corporations can't do either. Don't let the government become the monopoly on everything. You know those lines at the post office? How about that tax code that is soooo easy to figure out..hahah.. Ya, they do a great job of making things easy. Wake up and smell the coffee. Start with your broadband connection. Don't let them take it over. You will regret it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 28, 2009 7:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What annoys me is that if they would open the market up and not allow cable companies and the like to monopolize markets the city would probably not have had to do this in the first place.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 29, 2009 11:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If someone is cheaper, than it sounds like Time Warner is too high, sounds like they need to drop their prices, or have a \"we'll beat anyone's prices\" thing. Maybe they'll get some of their customers back, let's face it, times are tough, people are going to save money any way they can, even if it has to lack in quality.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 30, 2009 12:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

as long as the people of a city/government participate in a joint venture (for whatever type of community project it may be) it would not be considered a monopolly sence it is not owned privetly or by a corporation for profit. everything we do in life wether its for work hoby, we do it for our selfs and or for the people. after all thats how we make money.the people buy our services. so it can never be considered a monopoly or ilegal sence the people are involved by ownership. if a company decides to convince a legislature to outlaw community owned isp's it is there right to do so. on the other hand if the legislature would even consider attempting to do so would be in my oppinion illigal. why you ask ? well thats very simple. the legislature works for the people, and if they go against the people, they should all be fired or burned at the stake. the community is made up of people not the legislature. we should remember that.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

April 30, 2009 1:06 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I chose not to use city water or sewer. I have a well, pump and septic system. I think the notion of essential services is fluid. (No pun intended!)

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 1, 2009 12:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I've been paying Time Warner the top price for the top service- 10 mbs. I've never gotten more than 3. Never. I've tried to get that fixed, and the people who come here have no idea what to do. I've never had a service person come here with knowledge or skill. They are nice people but clueless. One person told me I don't really want the extra power. He tried to explain to me logically - stood here in my apt wasting my time with this - that it would be streaming too much information and that could actually slow me down. \"Get out. Please get out.\"

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 1, 2009 4:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The real story here is that public entities could provide better alternatives for virtually any service under the control of an oligopoly. An ISP is a great example.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Leif Briddle

May 3, 2009 1:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Sebastián Lalaurette

May 3, 2009 6:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

\"The government should be limited to providing only essential services (police, fire dept., water, sewer, etc.).\"

I guess you're against municipal libraries also.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 4, 2009 4:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

So now EVERYONE in Wilson has to pay for internet whether they like it or not. If they don't pay up, they go to jail. If they resist jail, they're beaten down (or worse). Yeah -- oughtta be illegal. Yeah, monopolies suck. What worse is replacing one monopoly with another and then forcing everyone to pay for it -- at gunpoint, if necessary.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

May 4, 2009 7:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Hoo boy. Where to begin?

'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.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

cleverhands

June 24, 2009 3:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is the way it should be there is no use for telephone or internet to be a (buisness) competition much less a bad one at that..... one being able to be won by a small town. it just goes to show how \"cheap\" these gigantic companies are really trying to make it for us. they make incredible amounts of money for something that is no longer a commodity. these are both needs to get by. so many people make a living because of the internet. and how necessary phones are goes unsaid. same with gas...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 25, 2009 1:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

As part of the \"stimulus\" package the FCC should refund all monies paid by companies like Time Warmer, Comcast, AT&T, for their bandwidth and get them out of the internet business completely. Then they should turn these licenses over to Universities to offer free internet service supported by some advertising or small basic operating fees.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 27, 2009 6:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Guys and Girls. The comment regarding not being able to get cable run to a builiding due to TWC not wanting the expense is dead on. And, although a rural town, Wilson has some fairly big industry including a Major Bank Corporate and Data Center there. So, it needs reasonable and readily available Internet at the minimum, which TWC was not willing to build infrastruture for. For those who worry about it being socialized, be aware that your local governments SUBSIDIZE every major business in your area including ISPs and cable with reduced taxes and gimmies. So its a wash. Lastly, regarding those who worry about government oversight of the 'wire'; tsk, tsk. The government, through cable, wireless and land line phone carriers, is already tracking, listening and recording ANY of your converstations and online content - being employed by a major carrier, I have seen the 'rooms that connect to all public infrastructure' that only certain techs and men in black suits can get access to :) Not paranoid, its real. Peace out homies.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 25, 2009 8:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why is the Wilson network profitable and prices lower than the telco/catv rate? They are supplying a small area with a high number of customers. In a town or city you have 100s of people per mile of cable placed. The cost of construction and maintenance is minimal and as noted in a previous comment the government has no right-of-way and other regulation to deal with. They can change regulations to suite their need. Cities and Counties entice their residents to push for these changes at the State level, “for the good of the people” creating less competition and in the end higher prices.

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/

","

$\"user-pic\"$

April 28, 2010 10:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Here we have a perfect example of government doing something good for the people. I salute the City of Wilson and I hope to see more city governments take such good care of thier citizens.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

drburk

August 11, 2010 8:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If a city can make money and not subsidize the operation with tax dollars it only shows that at some point big business isn't as viable as small side / local business and how badly TW et all are thrashing us. My company made more profit the year it was a side business since I didn't havea salary coming out. I presume Greenlight was able to start as a part time venture for a handful of city employees then ramp up operations. While TW jumps in feet first with dozens of employees and an office. It's simple a different business model.
When I worked for the Government (local and the state fair, I am that cool) everything we bought was tax exempt. I may object if GreenLight doesn't pay sales tax on purchases that right there is a 6% savings over TW.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

wcu2012

October 23, 2010 8:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My parents recently opened up a new business in the town of Wilson, NC, they too have contracted Greenlight's services because Centurylink (previously Embarq) took over a month to come and install their services at the location. We were given several dates where technicians were suppose to come and install the services and on every single appointment they failed to show up. The worst part is that Centurylink tried to charge us for their services when we had none. Within a week of contacting Greenlight we had several phone lines and internet. The prices are great and the service is even better, not to mention the internet is so much faster than Centurylink.

");