Print 56 comment(s) - last by Floorbit.. on May 26 at 7:24 AM

NC Governor Bev Purdue

A comparison of broadband download speeds
Governor Bev Purdue says that she will neither sign nor veto H.129

It looks as though the big telecoms that provide internet service in North Carolina -- Time Warner Cable, AT&T, etc. -- will score a major victory in their assault on municipal internet. This victory has been made possible thanks to Governor Beverly Perdue's indecisiveness on the matter.

I. Governor Beverly Purdue Chooses Inaction over Ruffling Feathers

Purdue issued the following statement on Friday in regards to House Bill 129 (H.129):

I believe that every school, household and business in North Carolina – no matter where they are – should have access to efficient and affordable broadband services.

There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector.  My concern with House Bill 129 is that the restrictions the General Assembly has imposed on cities and towns who want to offer broadband services may have the effect of decreasing the number of choices available to their citizens.

For these reasons, I will neither sign nor veto this bill.  Instead, I call on the General Assembly to revisit this issue and adopt rules that not only promote fairness but also allow for the greatest number of high quality and affordable broadband options for consumers. 

Since Governor Purdue has chosen not to sign the bill, it will automatically become law in North Carolina. 

II. H.129: “No Soup for You!”

H.129 would put restrictions on cities that currently provide internet service to its citizens (Wilson, Salisbury, Morganton, Davidson, and Mooresville), and would significantly hinder any efforts by other cities to pursue their own municipal internet services.

H.129 ensures that companies like Time Warner Cable and AT&T will continue to be the dominant players in most N.C. markets, even with higher pricing and speeds that often lag far behind what cities themselves can provide for its residents.

Some of the provisions in H.129 state that cities: 

  • Shall provide nondiscriminatory access to private communications service providers on a first-come, first-served basis to rights-of-way, poles, or conduits owned, leased, or operated by the city unless the facilities have insufficient capacity for the access and additional capacity cannot reasonably be added to the facilities.

  • Shall not use city resources that are not allocated for cost accounting purposes to the city-owned communications service  to promote city-owned communications service in comparison to private services or, directly or indirectly, require city employees, officers, or contractors to purchase city services

  • Shall not subsidize the provision of communications service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water, sewer, or garbage services.

  • Shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service, including any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city-owned communications service provider and allocation of costs associated with any shared use of buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel with other city departments.

Companies like Time Warner Cable say that they simply can't compete with the lower-priced offerings from municipal-based services. For example, 10Mbps Road Runner service will cost you $57 per month. A competing plan from Greenlight (run by the town of Wilson) only costs $35 per month.

III. Citizens Suffer, Lawmakers and Telecoms Reap the Benefits

This “non-action” by Governor Purdue represents a significant blow to N.C. residents who live in underserved communities when it comes to broadband access, or are simply looking for cheaper alternatives. The rise of municipal internet in N.C. was a direct result of the major telecoms dragging their feet when it came to providing services or boosting broadband speeds. Then, when the cities decided to take matters into their own hands, the telecoms stopped dragging their feet and started running to lawmakers for help

However, this outcome shouldn't be too surprising. Rep. Julia Howard (R-Davie, Iredell) proposed H.129 and sure enough, she received $6,250 total in campaign donations from Time Warner, CenturyLink, and AT&T. Likewise, Time Warner's political action committee (PAC) has provided over $214,000 to state lawmakers since 2008. As for Governor Purdue, she received $3,000 in her winning gubernatorial campaign in 2008 from Time Warner. Time Warner also gave $10,000 to the Democratic Governor's Association -- which Purdue hosted -- in April.

Reuters recently reported that the United States ranks ninth out of 29 countries when it comes to broadband adoption (63 percent penetration). In addition, download speeds lag behind other countries. New York City residents, for example, average download speeds of 11.7 Mbps. Residents in Seoul, South Korea, however, are enjoying average download speeds of 35.8 Mbps.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

N. C. Residents, remeber this on election day.
By Mr Perfect on 5/22/2011 1:11:35 PM , Rating: 5
Vote her out.

RE: N. C. Residents, remeber this on election day.
By T2k on 5/22/2011 1:36:40 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Classic PoS rent-a-politician except she's too sleazy t0o even come clean which side she's on...


RE: N. C. Residents, remeber this on election day.
By Iaiken on 5/22/11, Rating: 0
By FastEddieLB on 5/23/2011 2:14:16 AM , Rating: 4
Just because you might wind up with a male doesn't make him any less of a bitch. Such is the nature of politics.

By inperfectdarkness on 5/22/2011 6:55:34 PM , Rating: 4
how many instances like this do we need to demonstrate that politics--in the USA as it exists today--do not serve the consumer?

how long will citizens tolerate this? how long before they wake up and realize that we need MORE than just a change of butts in legislature? voting in new people is like re-arranging turds in a toilet. the changes that needs to happen--won't be legislated; that would require legislators acting against their own personal self-interest.

this has NOTHING to do with an "unfair" advantage. if a community VOTES to band together and provide its own municipal services...that's legal, fair, and equitable. telecoms have no right to bitch; they had their chance.

By rs2 on 5/23/2011 12:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
Politics should be about serving the *voter*, not the consumer.

They're not necessarily the same thing.

By Dr of crap on 5/23/2011 8:41:45 AM , Rating: 3
Amen - I'm so tired of the same old political crap and everyone falls for it!

By bupkus on 5/23/2011 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
The average voter is a consumer. But besides that, is it the consumer who is best represented by lobbyists? Need help?
No it is not.
Lobbyists and those who hire them win and we the consumers lose because they are simply smarter.
Even on the occasion when consumer advocates win on an issue so many consumers who prefer ideology to their own self interests profess their desire to shoot themselves in the foot.

By stimudent on 5/23/2011 12:45:31 AM , Rating: 3
The Special Interests will probably win. The companies and politicians like the ones mentioned in this article usually win over the general public with their money. In the end, after they win, we'll see the Public Relations efforts go into overdrive. These efforts will feature Cute/pretty models/actors smiling at the camera along with catchy jingles and colorful and pretty logos and other effects. The Public will be taken in by it and will once again become complacent and disarmed - where the politicians and corporation want us. History repeating itself.

By wiz220 on 5/23/2011 11:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Funny you mention that. I see these exact types of cute cuddly adds coming out from the oil companies every day. Trying to convince us that they really do a bunch of good for us with the 10's of billions of dollars they make, plus the billions in taxpayer money that they get. It's pretty sickening.

By gorehound on 5/23/2011 8:17:53 AM , Rating: 3
and along with her so we do not keep nagging on government the rest of the corrupt republicans and democrats should go.

we need a new party with good ideas to oust the corrupt assholes out of washington

By Lerianis on 5/23/2011 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 3
No, what we need are attorney generals who are willing to do their jobs and bring elected officials up on charges, unlike today.

By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2011 11:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that they voted her in first should tell you that this alone isn't going to be enough to convince everyone to vote her out.

N.C residents, for whatever reason, love tax and spend Democrats and left leaning Republicans. Bev Perdue throws out that smile, some southern charm, and the idiots are left drooling with their check books in-hand.

RE: N. C. Residents, remeber this on election day.
By mcnabney on 5/23/2011 2:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, Jesse Helms. Quite the lefty he was.

By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2011 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because ONE guy either way proves a lot..

Why am I not surprised?
By Jkm3141 on 5/22/2011 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 3
Another politician siding with big business which hurts the citizens the politician represents... American Politics at their shining best.

RE: Why am I not surprised?
By ebakke on 5/22/2011 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 3
I'd argue it's siding with lobbyists in general, not just 'big business'.

RE: Why am I not surprised?
By Motoman on 5/23/2011 11:54:21 AM , Rating: 3
Yup. Which is why lobbying should be illegal.

RE: Why am I not surprised?
By Jkm3141 on 5/23/2011 12:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Who do the lobbyists work for?

Did you guys even read her comments?
By bdunosk on 5/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Did you guys even read her comments?
By foolsgambit11 on 5/22/2011 7:59:10 PM , Rating: 3
I think people here, including Brandon, realize that it doesn't matter what she says as much as what she does. If she really wanted the legislature to revisit this bill, she would have vetoed it, but instead she's doing nothing, which is effectively the same as signing it into law.

That being said, I'm confused about exactly which part of this bill people are having problems with (including the governor, who leaves that point very vague in her statement). The bill, as outlined here, breaks down to:

1. Governments must let private companies run their lines along any place the government runs theirs, so long as there's room (ensuring equality of access). This was generally the case before the bill, where private communications providers could use easements designed for 'utilities'. This is to ensure local government doesn't change this policy to strangle competition, and is a reasonable safeguard.

2. Government can't make people, including its employees, buy the city plan over the private plan, and all advertising for the city plan must come out of the city plan's coffers. Again, reasonable safeguards to ensure equality between private and public services, and protection of people's freedom of choice. Totally reasonable.

3. The city plan can't take money from other parts of government. From the wording, it appears that the communications service could borrow money, either through a municipal bond or even a loan from the city's coffers, but the budget for the city plan's operation must balance itself in the long run. This is pretty reasonable, although it does prevent municipalities from taking advantage of economies of scale, and so might be considered a little unfair. But that's debatable. The biggest concern I have with this provision is that the wording seems to disallow a levy - I think people should be allowed to vote to fund the development of public communications infrastructure, if they so choose, just like they can vote to fund the installation of a privately-operated toll road or bridge.

4. The city plan must charge a price that actually covers its expenses, including its 'fair share' of any government property and personnel it uses. Seems almost redundant at this point. The city has to run their communications service like a business, including accounting for costs which are shared with other city services. I assume (though I could be wrong) that the city would be charging the private companies the same amount it charges its public provider for any use of government buildings, etc. allowed by #1 above. Not only is that fair, but it should keep the government honest in its bookkeeping, since it would be less likely to undercharge its communications provider for use if it was receiving identical funds from several other communications providers for the same usage.

I'd say the bill seems pretty reasonable. The biggest concern I have is that the private communications companies will use this bill as a foothold to launch frivolous lawsuits against local governments, questioning (for instance) their accounting practices regarding shared assets, and ultimately leading to government deciding it's not worth it to provide the service anymore.

Sorry for the wall of text, by the way.

RE: Did you guys even read her comments?
By farsawoos on 5/23/2011 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
A very apt post!

Certainly, after reviewing the bill itself ( it becomes clear that much of what the bill introduces is fairly reasonable and, as far as my very limited legal understanding goes, doesn't directly harm any otherwise competitive agreements into which municipalities would normally enter.

I do have a couple of questions for some of you legal hawks, though:

1. The bill seems to invoke reference to the Umstead Act ( ), which I find a bit puzzling. The Umstead Act basically says that the State, any office or division of the State, or any employees of stewards of the State cannot engage in the sale of goods and services otherwise rendered/offered by private enterprise with a list of exceptions. Fine ... except THE first exception in the list is "Counties and Municipalities." If that's the case, why invoke it in the text of H.129?

2. There's a section of H.129 that defines "payments in lieu of taxes." I say again that I'm not a legal type, so there's a lot of political and legal nuance that escapes me, but why does it seem to me that this document basically says "You don't pay taxes, but you pay what you WOULD pay in taxes as simply a fee." This includes a non-tax amount that equals local and State property taxes, income taxes, franchise taxes, etc. Why not simply say they pay taxes? What's the legal difference here between paying taxes and simply paying that same monetary amount in "fees"?

And just a comment to close... I found this little ditty towards the end of particular interest:

In considering the probable net revenues of the proposed communications 16 service project, the Commission shall consider and make written findings on 17 the reasonableness of the city or joint agency's revenue projections in light of 18 the current and projected competitive environment for the services to be 19 provided, taking into consideration the potential impact of technological 20 innovation and change on the proposed service offerings and the level of 21 demonstrated community support for the project. 22
(5) The city or joint agency making the application to the

I may not truly understand the real-world impact of this addition to the bill, but I find myself skeptical of any techniques brought to bear by either side to determine the "impact of technological innovation." :/

By farsawoos on 5/23/2011 11:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
Oops! That first link didn't work for some reason. Corrected below:

RE: Did you guys even read her comments?
By AMDJunkie on 5/23/2011 11:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
This is a bill about making a "fair, level playing field" between public and private internet providers, but anyone who actually goes through your points and then the law will see how if anything, it gives far too unfair advantage to the private provider:

Like #2: Government can't make its employees chose its service over a private providers', but in municipalities that already have only a private provider, they are functionally locked in to a private monopoly instead of a government monopoly. What's the difference between being told you only have the government service option to choose from or being told you only have the private service option to choose from? And if the private option is the only one available, government isn't able to step in and create the competition necessary for this heralded theory of economics called "capitalism" requires. Even if residents aren't currently being served by "broadband" (apparently defined by this law at the absurdly low 756Kbps), all a private broadband provider has to do to gain exclusive franchise to lock out a municipal network from ever serving those citizens is claim that they intend eventually to serve them. That's right, just state with nebulous plans that you will roll out service eventually to those saps.

The municipal networks in this bill cannot service any areas outside the borders of the city even if residents request the service too, even if they're de facto suburbs or unincorporated land counted in census population of the metropolitan area.

And #3: It makes sense not to throw good money after bad - except that's how businesses drum up attention for new services all the time. Exhibit A: The cable company here advertising that they can offer VOIP for cheaper than a dedicated landline (tangent: why can't the internet just provide the internet first and foremost, instead of being threatened to be segmented into services we already have available and deep-packet sniffed into oblivion?). I doubt either the advertising, or the introductory pricing, are hindering them from picking up a subscriber base that will, once hitting a certain number, provide a profit to be made.

Also, the bill allows cable companies to charge under their costs in areas that do have municipal networks, while recouping their losses in places that don't by keeping prices high there. Time Warner is a national company; the prices in Florida aren't going to go down because they can keep funneling money from that area into North Carolina, to try and trample these municipal carriers. So, competition wins for the consumer, like it should; until the cable company strangles out the hamstrung municipal network from charging any lower than them to retain subscribers, and magically the cost of services has to go up once they're out of the picture. Back to square one.

4. Not only must the city have a plan that covers expenses, but it also is forced to pay the same fees and taxes as the cable operators. Yes, government is paying tax to itself. And basically make sure that there's no difference in your bill from the municipal company than from the private company. Thus, why switch? Let inertia kill the public option because the public option is, after the bill, nickle and dimed back up to the price of the private one, fairly or not. I'll quote Lawrence Lessig from this article:

But the same might be said of companies that would like to provide private roads. Or private fire protection. Or private police protection. Or private street lights. These companies too would face real competition from communities that choose to provide these services themselves. But no one would say that we should close down public fire departments just to be 'fair' to potential private first-responders.

By mcnabney on 5/23/2011 2:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
The key weapon in the bill impacts financing. All of the other language is meant to serve business talking points and spin.

Muni-Internet can't use funds collected from other sources or borrow against existing assets. That kills them right there. It would be like telling someone to buy a house, but they can't report their income to get financing. Most private internet providers received some sort of government aid - like government-backed loans (zero risk for the business), but municiple ISPs would have to miracle up their investment dollars.

Tell the GOV how you feel...
By Marlin1975 on 5/22/2011 5:17:14 PM , Rating: 5
Office of Governor Bev Perdue

20301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699

1-800-662-7952 (for NC residents only)


919/733-2120 (fax)

RE: Tell the GOV how you feel...
By YashBudini on 5/22/2011 9:49:52 PM , Rating: 5
Ironically I know that last name from a long history of chickens.

Moving to NC
By fishman on 5/22/2011 2:09:08 PM , Rating: 5
I am retiring soon, and have considered moving to NC. Unfortunately, things like this make NC less and less desirable.

RE: Moving to NC
By Mitch101 on 5/22/2011 10:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
The article is not entirely accurate. Greenlight is the one and only municipal cable/internet/phone provider that seems to be competing at a level that Time Warner cannot. As for Mooresville I live here and Time Warner is much cheaper and faster than MI-Connection. In other parts AT&T U-Verse is an option and I would dare to compare HD channels on U-Verse compared to the local municipal provider.

Here is MI-Connections Fees

The cheapest phone service is if you subscribe to cable and internet which is $35.00 heck Vonage is $26.00 a month and my Ooma is like $10.00 a month because I bought the most expensive package but I paid for the equipment up front but after a year its much much cheaper than anything else. So your not going to get thier phone service meaning you will pay a little more on cable and internet. Ok now you look at Digital Cable which is $78.99/mo for 175 channels hd is an additional $5.00 and your going to pay $12.89/mo for a HD DVR. Your around $100.00 a month but then you realize you can get Direct TV and can get 35 more channels for $65.00 a month + $5.00 HD-DVR + 5.00 receiver charge. Well in the end with Direct TV you have 35 more channels and its $20.00 less a month so why get MI-Connection cable service? Lastly we move to internet. Its close I pay $64.95 for a 16meg connection and MI-Connection charges $8.00 more but they offer 2 meg upstream. But its the hiddens that kill the deal. Time Warner offers a $35.00 first year internet that MI-Connection cant come close too. Also MI-Connection has a ton of fees like Installation of One Service $49.95 which companies like Time Warner will waive. MI-Connection has stupid fees like DVR Activation Fee $25.00. I mean really $25.00 to activate their DVR?

Now you could say Ill triple play but you wind up speding $170.00 a month for less than what time warner offers for $130.00 a month.

The reality is Time Warner sold MI-Connection the old and 3-6 months later Time Warner rolled back through the developments putting in top of the line stuff. Basically the sale probably paid for Time Warner to upgrade to all new. So MI-Connection paid then had to pay again to update everything and they still don't offer as much.

The best part it was paid for with peoples taxes and loses money and in order to remain afloat they want more tax dollars. They should just let it die. Let AT&T and Time Warner and any other big corp fight it out. Kudos to Greenlight but MI-Connection is just crooks.

RE: Moving to NC
By Mitch101 on 5/22/2011 10:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't let the cable get you down fishman its just one of the stupid things and you can get service from someone else. Really what are we talking $35.00 a month but there are alternatives.

I moved down from NJ. My taxes are half, Car Insurance is just a under half, My house is new too so its not like new house tax back north, water and electric are cheaper but I got a bigger house in the process, My commute is better where in NJ I would have had to spend 100K more on a home to get to where the jobs were. For those who say you make less thats bull I make more when you factor in Im in a lower tax bracket so I pay less in taxes and pay less in bills so in the end I have more dollars in my pocket. What you make is whats after all the bills have been paid not your pre-tax skippy. Do the math. Gas is about 10 cents more per gallon and you have to pump it yourself which I actually enjoy because I never enjoyed who and how the gas attendants handled my credit card in NJ when I couldn't get to my regular station. Yea buddy just leave it in the pump where the guy behind me can see it and is probably taking a picture of it right now. My credit card number was lifted 3 times living in NJ.

Oh and if I accidentally cut someone off they don't try and follow me home or feel the need to try and run me off the road. Because of it I'm a much more courteous driver now.

Do yourself a favor and move North Carolina its awesome. Lots to do and enjoy here. 4 Seasons. No snow shoveling but they do get ice roads but are getting better at treating it. If you want really cheap drop just over the border into South Carolina. My buddys farm only because he has a few horses paid $1200 in property taxes last year. Then the government gave him back another $400. LOL.

This exposes the inherent problem with Capitalism...
By rdhood on 5/23/2011 9:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly, I am a capitalist. I strongly believe in capitalism. But this exposes the inherent problem with capitalism. In theory, markets would take care of this problem. In practice, the telecommunications industry is so big, has few players, and the barrier to entry is so high that the big players do not have to compete (much). I live in an area with ONE High speed internet service provider. I have no options. I live an an are with TWO telephone providers (AT&T/Verizon). These guys can pretty much call the shot with no fear of the markets.

The state of high speed internet in the U.S. is poor. Look at other first world countries, and much of the U.S. outside of a few markets simply can't compete. Almost everyone else pays far less for throughput that is far higher.

Gov Perdue is wrong. The current internet providers CAN do better than the government... they just don't want to. Nor do they want the competition. She handed them a huge victory.

By Lerianis on 5/23/2011 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
rdhood, I have to say that capitalism only works for NON-necessities in life. For infrastructure? Capitalism simply doesn't work. Those kind of things have to be nationalized or regulated out the wazoo and companies forced to resell their services to other companies..... it's called 'linesharing'.

By interstitial on 5/23/2011 2:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, works fairly well in Britain. BT is subsidised by the government to provide universal line coverage and must allow other ISPs to use the lines at a regulated cost. We still have other, separate networks though so your ISPs are full of it when they say a government sponsored option would kill competition. I personally use Virginmedia from whom I get 100 down 10 up for the equivalent of about 50 dollars a month. Awful customer service but I get those exact speeds, even during peak times.

America needs to get it's act together on infrastructure or it's digital economy will start to lose out. The rest of the developed world either has advanced networks in place or is in the process of building them. The internet is getting to be as important as good roads.

By M4gery on 5/24/2011 3:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say that capitalism only works for NON-necessities in life.

Works just fine for the food supply, and it doesnt get much more "necessary" than food.

Not Government's job to provide access...
By NAVAIR on 5/23/2011 7:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
Depending on your view of the role of government, I feel its not the government's responsibility nor right to provide cheap internet to its citizen's. Its for the free market to provide. Police, fire, roads, etc., not internet. I have not looked but, I suspect the good governor is a Rebublican and the author of the story is a liberal the way it was written.

By Brandon Hill on 5/23/2011 8:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
Bev Perdue is a Democrat

By kattanna on 5/23/2011 2:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
is it their "job".. no.

but why deny the citizens of any city the right to decide that for themselves?

Let me fix this sentence for her
By Spookster on 5/22/2011 8:03:45 PM , Rating: 5
There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over providers in the private sector.

What she meant to say was

There is a need to establish rules to prevent cities and towns from having an unfair advantage over the providers in the private sector that have paid us to make them a monopoly.

By snyper256 on 5/22/2011 4:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
As per function. Government exists to restrict.

nc born and raised
By mudgiestylie on 5/22/2011 11:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
i live in greenville nc (home of ECU and about an hour east of raleigh). we've had public wifi over half of the city for a few years now that is available for free. will this bill eliminate that or will it only prohibit new public internet projects? my understanding is it doesnt actually illegalize it, but rather makes it economically impractical. either way, its a shame considering how successful wilsons city internet has been. wilson is about 25-30 minutes away from me, and it seems to make our internet faster just by having such a fast "hub" nearby. ugh, and of course they do this right as our doc3 internet services are about to be rolled out...

By Shadowmaster625 on 5/23/2011 10:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
"You either lose or you dont win".

Why people put up with these despicable lying waffling two faced conniving sinister bastards is beyond me. Scum like this will lie to your face while they stab you in the back and crush your kids lollypop under their foot. "I will neither sign nor veto this bill." LIE. Not signing it is the same thing as signing it. Gosh can anyone be dumb enough to fall for that? If he really believes it should go back to the legislature, then he should veto the damn thing. Obviously. So it is clear that he is lying.

The truth
By wiz220 on 5/23/2011 11:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
The truth is that the telecoms have got to be scared $h!tle$$. This is because people might figure out that sometimes, government CAN do things cheaper than a private corporation. The reason is quite simple, the government run operation doesn't need to make a profit and doesn't have to show "growth" every quarter to make shareholders happy. Sometimes, private just means it's going to be more expensive.

The most embarrassing thing (for the telecoms) about this specific case is that the local municipal option was able to provide BETTER service at a lower price.

Excuse me for bursting a bubble
By TheEinstein on 5/24/2011 7:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
I need to talk to you all on this.

A municipality might charge an up front charge much lower than an internet company... But at the same time, how much of their costs are subsidized on taxes?

To understand the full picture you NEED to consider this. Especially with many cities exceeding their revenues with expenses, as with States (that even with an economic revival could not get their books to balance).

The total actual costs may be much higher for the people in a municipality that forces them to be taxed for a service they can then pay for.

But there are so many tax and spend types here who do not understand that this is damaging to the economy that I expect to be down-rated fast and hard for truth.

Numbers tell the truth, not politics.

Somewhere in kansas
By Floorbit on 5/26/2011 7:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
"WILSON !!!!"

NC is garbage
By whickywhickyjim on 5/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: NC is garbage
By YashBudini on 5/22/2011 9:42:14 PM , Rating: 4
Just a guess, your application to the high school debate team was met with roaring laughter?

RE: NC is garbage
By YashBudini on 5/22/2011 9:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, side with the OP oh great rater, that makes a lot of sense.

RE: NC is garbage
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/23/2011 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
roger that

RE: NC is garbage
By NAVAIR on 5/23/11, Rating: 0
Fighting socialism!
By FauxNews on 5/22/11, Rating: -1
56k should be enough for anybody
By Jalek on 5/22/11, Rating: -1
By NicodemusMM on 5/22/2011 3:29:18 PM , Rating: 3
With NC having (among many other things) the Research Triad and Charlotte, the second largest banking center in the US, I'm guessing you don't get out much. Maybe leave your weak attempt at humor at the expense of a state somewhere else.

On topic...

So essentially she's avoiding responsibility by voting present. Haven't seen that before...

By Skywalker123 on 5/22/2011 7:07:01 PM , Rating: 1

RE: 56k should be enough for anybody
By YashBudini on 5/22/11, Rating: 0
By YashBudini on 5/22/2011 9:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did the rater read the OP? Do they ever explain their actions?

"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki