North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law

She's a political animal. In the calculus of politics, what doesn't help you hurts you.

Picking a fight over this would make her a hero to hacker types, but it could possibly burn bridges elsewhere. Unfortunately, media companies punch above their weight in this country.

From a purely self-interested perspective, she made the savvy choice. Stating her disapproval without being too belligerent.

Call it cynicism or call it realism - this is the way these things tend to happen.

"It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing."

I'm curious to know, since when, in recent times, has bravery been the hallmark of a politician? Almost by definition, the political class tends to be remarkably risk-averse.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/07/north-carolina-k...

I would just like to note the minuscule effect that victory had on the ultimate outcome. It seems to have merely delayed the inevitable.

Take a look at the map in that article. The problem is that unless some kind of solid, pro-municipal broadband legislation comes down from the federal level, the big telecoms are going to fight a take-no-prisoners, state-by-state war of attrition. The big ISPs are well-heeled and, unfortunately, politics is a money game. Given the present situation, I just don't see things working well for municipal broadband in the long run. There has to be a game changer of some sort.

Let's pose a hypothetical. Say she vetoes it and somehow the legislature upholds the veto. All the ISPs would have to do to get the situation back in their favor is to run some TV ads decrying big government. Ordinary people will line the streets protesting government takeover of the internet. Within weeks the whole thing would be rolled back, and we're back where we started.

It is great for us technologically savvy people to sit over here and be hopeful, but the reality is that the most effective way to fight back against this kind of legislation is to educate consumers about how things could be. The impetus is on Netflix and similar companies to get ordinary people to place more value on better bandwidth offerings. Until then, we will continue to see these types of setbacks.

Are you suggesting that Dems, the RIAA party, would have done things differently?

* Must comply with the same state, local, and federal laws that a private provider would have to comply with.

* Cannot use zoning or land use regulations to force people to force people to subscribe, or make use of monopoly city services (like electricity or gas) conditional on subscribing to municipal broadband.

* Must provide non-discriminatory access to poles, conduits, right-of-ways and such unless there is not enough capacity and it cannot reasonably be added.

* Cannot use funds from other services, such as electricity, gas, or garbage collection, to subsidize their broadband offering.

* Cannot provide the service at below cost.

* Must pay to the city general fund the equivalent of the fees and taxes that a private provider would have to pay in that city. There are similar provisions covering county and state taxes.

* These requirements do NOT apply to municipal broadband in "unserved areas". An unserved area is an area where only 10% or less have broadband (and satellite does not count as broadband).

* Two public hearings, at least 30 days apart, have to be held before setting up municipal broadband. Any feasibility studies, plans, and such associated with the proposal have to be made available to the public before the meeting.

* The city can't give itself certain tax breaks on equipment and service purchases unless those tax breaks apply to private providers too. E.g., it could not exempt the purchase of routers from city sales tax if private providers have to pay city sales tax on routers.

This doesn't seem all that bad. If the phone company and cable company are being unreasonable this should leave plenty of room for a city to offer a competitive service and undercut them. Conversely, if the city can only compete by subsidizing from other services, forcing people to subscribe, and so on, then that indicates that the incumbent providers are doing fine.