is seldom black and white as issues overlap producing shades of gray. In
the 2008 and 2010 election "Tea Party" Republicans like Sarah Palin
vocally advocated reducing the size of the federal government and putting more
power in the hands of state and municipal governments. Now Republicans in
North Carolina are pushing a contrary position -- robbing
municipal governments of power.
I. Bill H129 -- "Bill-y the Municipal Internet Slayer"
At stake is the issue of whether elected officials can use their city's budget
money to offer public
cable internet and Wi-Fi offerings to make up for lack of competition
on the market.
Bill 129, a pending piece of legislation, looks to block municipalities
from being able to do that, though it partially excludes a few municipalities
with established systems.
This is a complex issue, so we feel it's worth looking at the pros in cons in
depth. So what is this crazy idea of municipal internet?
II. The Good -- Competition at Last
To start, it's important to make clear how these municipal internet projects
are born. Every year, local residents vote in city council members.
It is typically these city council members that vote to create municipal
internet projects (though in rare cases citizens may directly vote on the
While some would argue that this takes power out of the hands of citizens, that
point is more of a criticism of elected officials on all levels in general.
After all, if the citizens didn't want the service, they could vote for
council candidates who would repeal funding.
The idea of municipal utilities isn't exactly a foreign concept in America.
Much of America is served by municipal water utilities.
In North Carolina, the problem is lack of competition. Customers across
much of North Carolina have one choice if they wanted fast (cable) internet --
Time Warner. If they're willing to settle for slower speeds they have slower
alternatives like AT&T (DSL) or Embarq (DSL). Time Warner and Embarq
have taken advantage of this situation raising prices to exorbitant levels and
Those high prices caused cities to begin to step in and propose a new system of
"pipes" to go with their municipal water -- fiber optic internet.
The results have largely been a success, with communities like Wilson,
North Carolina (Greenlight, Inc.), Salisbury (Fibrant), Davidson
(MI-Connection), and Morganton (CoMPAS Cable TV & Internet).
Borrowing $25M USD to $40M USD in private sector loans up front, cities are
able to install super-fast fiber optic lines, connect citizens, and connect
these lines to the external outgoing lines. Federal laws mandate that
telephone and internet cables must enjoy equal access, so there's little that Time
Warner and Embarq can do to prevent cities from plugging into the system.
Once operational, these networks have generally been embraced by many citizens
due to high speed and low costs. For example, Wilson citizens last year
paid $35/month to get a 10 Mbps internet connection, while they would have to
pay as much as $57/month to get an equivalent connection from Time Warner.
Faced with the prospect of paying up to $264 USD less a year, most
customers are opting out of Time Warner as fast as possible.
Other advantages include that the service offers its lowest price as a set
rate, not a promotion (so customers don't have to worry about an unpleasant
bump) and they clearly post all their pricing information on their website,
without the need to enter personal information (Time Warner requires personal
information to get pricing on its website).
Given that appeal, the services are quickly able to make the transition to
positive tax flow. For example after about two years Wilson's Greenlight
project is now tax-flow positive, allowing it to pay back the loans it took to
lay down the infrastructure. In other words, at the end of the day
citizens voted for this system, get lower prices, keep their money local, and
don't pay more in taxes.
The services also are a boon for businesses, offering connection speeds that
Time Warner has refused to offer like a 1 Gbps line. Without the
municipal line, no business would be able to buy a connection this fast.
Why is this deal so sweet? Well the biggest factor is simply that the
lack of competition was allowing the prices to be kept artificially high.
And since the introduction, Time Warner has actually been forced to respond by
lowering prices. The result, according to research funded by the City of
Wilson, is that Wilson residents have saved $1M USD over the past couple years
on internet versus citizens in Raleigh, thanks to the lower priced city service
and local-only price cuts from Time Warner to try to stay competitive.
II. So What's the Downside?
Republican lawmakers in the state government have been trying unsuccessfully to
kill these services almost since they started. States State
Representative Ruth Samuelson, R-Mecklenburg in a recent interview, "I
don't believe that providing service isn't a core part of government.
They don’t deliver my newspaper. They don’t buy my groceries. I don’t see
what they should be in there providing my Internet service."
Initially the lawmakers contended that the municipalities were too inept to
implement successful services. That argument was essentially killed when
the efforts quickly showed strong signs of success, saving citizens money,
gaining large subscriber numbers, and entering positive cash flow.
Subsequently Republicans switched their tactic to complaining that the services
were unfair and created a government competitor to private business (though
they have failed to attack similar "government competitors" in the
GOP Rep. Marilyn Avila of Raleigh, a chief sponsor of Bill H129 states,
"We have our local governments in direct competition with private
Time Warner enthusiastically voiced its support, with a company statement that
remarked, "The bill is intended to create a level playing field so, If
local governments want to provide commercial retail services in direct
competition with private business, they can't use their considerable advantages
III. Allegations of Lobbyist Influence
In our discussions with state and local officials we've heard lots of rumors of
lobbyist pressure from Time Warner and Embarq on Republicans to push this bill
in its current form. The local site "Stop the Cap!" claims that one of the bill's key sponsors -- Rep. Julia Howard -- received direct campaign contributions from Time Warner and other groups opposing the municipal services. As the city of Wilson also offers cheap municipal phone service, Ms. Howard received $4,000 from CenturyLink, who supplies a large share of the local phone service. She received $750 from TimeWarner and $1,500 from AT&T (who took issue with the municipal cable offerings).It is possible other reps, including Rep. Avila received similar cash donations. It's also possible they received even more money from these companies funneled through private donors.
There's plenty of opposition against the bill on principal alone.
States Rep. Bill Faison, D-Caswell, "What this is Time Warner Cable's
efforts to cut out municipalities as a potential competitor, and it is a
monopolistic bill from the word go. We still have people who are largely
under-served throughout many areas in our state."
The bill would prevent new municipal internet projects unless they partnered
with a "private firm" and there were restrictions on what kind of
private firm would be eligible. Further, it prevents current and new
projects from seeking private loans to finance their projects (presumably the
business partner would have to seek such loans).
The bill narrow passed the House Finance Committee.But sufficient public debate was not held, so the measure must be revoted on, on March 23 after there's sufficient time for public comment. A passing vote would clear the measure to go to vote before the broader House. If it passes again, from there it would go on to
the State Senate and to the governor to sign into law.UPDATED: Friday March 18, 2011 2:25 p.m. --Our sources have given us one local news story on the lobbying accusations. It is now embedded at the start of section III. To summarize, one of the key reps supporting this bill was paid campaign contributions by Time Warner and other corporate interests.
quote: And people like me want people like that gone. I'm not interested in what people have done in the past. I'm interested in tomorrow.
quote: Really? I find their stance in NC perfectly in line with current Republican policy. Why are people suddenly calling them RHINO's, when this has basically been their party stance for the past 30 years?
quote: I think it comes down once again to the idea that most politicians are all for local/state governments doing things they way they want...as long as that way doesn't compromise the interests of their favorite lobbyists.
quote: I agree with the premise that government should not compete with private business since it does have a huge advantage in the that it (the government) creates the laws that the business has to abide by.Both sides do have a valid argument in this though. I think they should look at why there is so little competition rather than creating a new bureaucracy to oversee municipal broadband since it always ends up mismanaged, hemorrhaging cash, and corrupt
quote: What is that, some sort of new law of physics that you have to be all or nothing on what you agree or disagree with?
quote: How is that inconsistent or me "pick[ing] and choos[ing] what utilities/public services the government provides"!?
quote: Public roads is authorized as a governmental obligation.
quote: Water services I don't have a big problem with teh government providing it because of the vast logistics of installing water lines.
quote: Government internet service has a higher risk of not being updated/upgraded to meet the changing market.
quote: Though I bet most of the lack of competition was caused by the regulations/beaurcracy/ of these local governments.
quote: Internet lines on the other than hand is not essential for life. It can be easily laid to provide services. Internet technology changes constantly and it requires cotinual reinvestment to ensure an upto date service.
quote: That you are fortunate enough to do all your work online does not make it a right or "essential". Essential things are those required to stay alive. Not ones that make your life and job easier.
quote: Beware making sweeping judgements, my friend.
quote: What happens when the municipality drives out the competition and becomes the monopoly?
quote: And most importantly, what happens when they decide that people should not have access to certain things on the internet for their own good?
quote: Internet technology changes constantly and it requires cotinual reinvestment to ensure an upto date service.
quote: My personal feelings on the topic (which I tried to keep out of the piece and provide objective coverage with both sides' claims) is that citizens should have the right to self governance. If there's a monopoly on a service, they should have the right to band together get private sector loans and create a competitive service, which is what was done here. Some sort of state level officials shouldn't get to come and tell them they can't do that.
quote: If we cut off the water and power tomorrow, millions would die. If we cut off the internet tomorrow, people would be merely inconvenienced.
quote: If the internet goes out, no one goes hungry as a result of the internet going out. No one goes thirsty from it either. You can live without the internet. Maybe your occupation changes. But you can live. You can't live without food and water. And power is required to get that food and water to people today.
quote: You're essentially making a case in support of anarchy, if you say all government is inefficient and any government service (protection/police, education, roads, water, internet) would be better provided by private entities.
quote: Hmm, we must define anarchy differently. Saying the government, in general, cannot profitably run a business is way different than saying there should be no laws and/or no government.
quote: since it always ends up mismanaged, hemorrhaging cash, and corrupt
quote: Absolutely. If a private entity can come in and do any of those things better and/or cheaper, it should absolutely be privatized.
quote: The local council or the population basically voted on the issue.
quote: I would recommend checking out the writings of Hans Hermann Hoppe on the matter he makes a really good arguement for it.
quote: I guess you would be ardently opposed to projects like municipal Wi-Fi.
quote: Not really, this is done on a local level this is exactly what some of his philosophy is advocating. If people in the City of Wilson don't like it they can either vote out the people in their local office whom created it or simply move to Raleigh.This is completely different from the entire state deciding for everyone or for that matter the Federal Govt deciding.While yes the standard anarcho-capitalist does prefer the freedom of choice that is provided by a true free market, but here you have a system that has been engineered to protect big corporate monopolies like TWC and Embarq, therefore it is almost impossible to have that in this system.However in this case it only makes sense that the local city Govt came in through a loophole left in their by the State and Federal govt. This is simply the people taking back what is deprived to them by the larger Federal and State govt.
quote: something else i was wondering about. i wonder if some at the state level are worried that while some local governments are making this work well, if all of them try to do it, the results may not be the same, leading to budget issues down the road. I'm not convinced that's a good argument against letting the local groups decide, but it could be a reason.
quote: This is why the US has lousy speeds and the highest prices for connectivity.
quote: Why not? Have laws in place to keep the businesses under control of course. As a result everyone would be paid their true value according to the market, and there wouldn't be cushy state jobs full of lazy people doing almost nothing and reaping massive benefits for it.And the states wouldn't have to deal with the current school/public service discontent/strike. Noneffective people would simply be laid off, it would make it far easier to get rid of them.
quote: Sure, jump to that conclusion when it's plainly obviuos that government run schools failed long ago to keep up with the times. Teaching unions keep bad teachers in their jobs because to do otherwise would weaken their grip on controlling their base. Unions should be abolished across the board. They are nothing more than money making machines for the Union itself, and the Union provides little of actual value that the employees themselves could do on their own.
quote: Schools is
quote: I agree with the premise that government should not compete with private business since it does have a huge advantage in the that it (the government) creates the laws that the business has to abide by.
quote: The pragmatist says, if we the people can do it better than that a corporate entity, then let's do it. And of course, in some situations we definitely can
quote: you just summed up the economic policy of the Democratic Party of the United States of America in just two sentences
quote: he Democratic Party's economic policy would mandate the use of the city internet service, and declare competition to be illegal, or impose a penalty that was so high that it would make competition impractical.
quote: GOP Rep. Marilyn Avila of Raleigh, a chief sponsor of Bill H129 states, "We have our local governments in direct competition with private industry."