Print 75 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Apr 8 at 7:09 AM

FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn   (Source:

North Carolina is considering a proposal that would allow a state panel to kill a voter-approved municipal internet service.  (Source: Reuters)
Clyburn is no fan of H.129

As Bill H.129 [PDF] continues to roll on to North Carolina's State Senate Judiciary Committee, having passed the house, controversy surrounding the measure is growing.  

Ostensibly the bill is designed to provide a "level playing field" between local government municipal service projects and local private sector.  However, the bill contains redundant language and sneaks in some provisions that could be the death of municipal services.  

Namely, it makes it much harder to fund such services.  And it hands complete control of whether to ban or approve new voter-ratified services to a state board -- at a time when reportedly state officials have been accepting campaign donations from local telecom monopolists.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn on Monday weighed in [PDF] to the debate, blasting the measure.  Similar to our analysis, she asserts that the bill's provisions first seem worthwhile/innocuous, but the actual language allows for disturbing possibilities.  She states, "This piece of legislation certainly sounds goal-worthy, an innocuous proposition, but do not let the title fool you."

She goes on to write:

This measure, if enacted, will not only fail to level the playing field; it will discourage municipal governments from addressing deployment in communities where the private sector has failed to meet broadband service needs. In other words, it will be a significant barrier to broadband deployment and may impede local efforts to promote economic development.

I remain concerned that when cities and local governments are prohibited from investing directly in their own broadband networks, citizens may be denied the opportunity to connect with their nation and improve their lives. Local economies will suffer as a result, and the communities' ability to effectively address education, health, public safety, and other social issues will be severely hampered.

At this point, the FCC is still trying to scrounge up spectrum for an auction tentatively slotted for 2012.  That auction might allow for the creation of a national broadband offering.  However, even the FCC seemingly concedes that a national offering could be less efficient than a local-based one, backed by the community.

At the root of the issue is the lack of competition in the market.  High costs are certainly one barrier to entry.  And the tendency of state legislators/courts to cast a blind eye on anticompetitive tactics from their local telecom only worsens the matter.

Arkansas and South Carolina are reportedly considering measures similar to North Carolina's.

Some provisions of the NC bill certainly seem valid -- for example that the projects need to be approved by local voters in a special election and that town hall meetings must be held before hand.

However, other provisions are baffling.  For example, the services are banned from exercising the same pricing methodology as their corporate "competitors".  In that regard, if anything the bill creates an unlevel playing field.

Further, even if voters approve of it, cities are disallowed from using much of their funds to finance the project.  And there are restrictions on their ability to seek loans from the private sector.  To make matters worse, they have to pay themselves a tax on the service, which they cannot reinvest into improving the service.

And then there's the issue of the state panel created by NC's pending legislation.  That panel would be granted the power to override voters in a municipality and kill outright or otherwise stall to death broadband projects.  At a time when telecoms are pouring thousands in campaign donations to state senators and representatives in an effort to preserve their monopolies/duopolies, this certainly seems like a dangerous allowance.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: It should be legal
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2011 10:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sure just as soon as they start allowing executions of child molesters, rapists, murderers, long time repeat offenders, and the host of other people society has no use for that are far more dangerous.

Do you have anything worth saying?

RE: It should be legal
By cknobman on 4/5/2011 10:43:22 AM , Rating: 1
I think those people should be executed as well.

I have yet to see you make any worthwhile contribution in these articles. In fact all I see is you going from article to article replying to peoples comments with something snide and often illogical.

RE: It should be legal
By sorry dog on 4/5/2011 11:25:43 AM , Rating: 1
I thought that's what we all do. I mean I sure don't come here for the quality of the reporting.

RE: It should be legal
By Jeffk464 on 4/5/2011 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong they are not more dangerous, Government/corporate corruption messes up the entire system. I think they should outsource CEO punishment to China. :)

RE: It should be legal
By rdawise on 4/5/2011 7:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sure just as soon as they start allowing executions of child molesters, rapists, murderers, long time repeat offenders, and the host of other people society has no use for that are far more dangerous. Do you have anything worth saying?

Ummm...Isn't that what the Death Penalty is for (in the case of murders anyway)? Did I miss when they abolished that?

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

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