Slashdot Mirror

Another method is having State Governments pass laws stopping cities and towns from operating their own networks in competition.

NC was one of those states and honestly in my opinion it is, if I am understanding it properly, a violation of article i sec. 34 of the state constitution. Unfortunately anybody who might have standing hasn't brought suit against the state; such as a resident of Wilson, NC perhaps or even the city itself. I also feel this section of the state constitution would apply to our ABC Liquor law which is a state run monopoly, but again nobody has challenged it.

You are on the money about hiring trends with teachers. Just look at this: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/doc... The raises are barely enough to keep up with inflation, at least during normal economic times, and you can't raise a family of four and pay the mortgage on that. I have a B.S. in pure math, and would be eligible to teach lateral entry (initially without certification). Who would actually want to teach for that kind of money, though? They will not consider relevant experience outside of the teaching profession, either. After 25 years of experience, you'd still make less than the starting salary of any job worthy of a math degree in industry.

the Republican party is a wide open to a variety of people and beliefs.

They sure are. Hell, they don't care if you're rich or a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, white, Christian, or just plain don't like Certain Folk. They'll spread their arms wide open for you, if you can spread wide open for their corporate sponsors.

Another difference is that you have Republicans that are fighting this law and under the Democrats it is accept it or else.

You mean this law, HB 129 (2011), that not a single Republican voted against? Does "fighting" mean the same as "deepthroating" where you're from?

North Carolina has outlawed sea level rise since 2012.

It has been ruled unconstitutional for the sea levels to rise.

The ABC article and other articles derived from it are flat out wrong.
What the article says is exactly the opposite of what the law said. The law REQUIRES that peer-reviewed science be used.

Here is the actual law from the state of North Carolina's web site. It is short an easy to read.
http://ncga.state.nc.us/sessio...

Here is the relevant section.
"These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."

Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers.

(Do a search on "North Carolina climate change law" if you don't like ABC News. Plenty of other outlets reported the story as well.)

Here is the actual law:
http://ncga.state.nc.us/sessio...

Here is the relevant section.

What the bill was about was to put a stop to the various localities making up their own numbers and them demanding state funding to support their speculations.
What was happening was the various towns had gotten into a race for how much money they wanted from the state based on individual projections made by, well just anybody.

Note that the bill REQUIRES peer-reviewed science for projections. That is exactly requiring "climate change science" for projections.
Note that section (e) of the bill also specifically encourages academic research into sea-level change.

No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines sea level or a rate of sea-level rise within a coastal-area county shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
(b) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise policy or rates of sea-level rise. The Coastal Resources Commission, in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management, shall have the authority to define sea-level rise and develop rates of sea-level rise for the State.
(c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level rise for regulatory purposes and, if developed, shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management. The Commission and the Division of Coastal Management may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, commissions, other public entities, or institutions when defining sea-level rise or developing rates of sea-level rise. These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For estuarine shorelines, the Commission shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout. In regions that may lack statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant historical geologic and hydrologic processes.
(d) Any State agency, board, commission, or institution that develops a policy addressing sea-level rise that includes a definition or rate of sea-level rise for the coastal-area counties shall use only the definitions and rates of sea-level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Coastal Resources Commission.
(e) The provisions in this

Your post title

But does it report artificially low ink levels?

Made me think of an interesting law my state passed during the 2003 session, codified at N.C.G.S. 75-36, because of the amount of insane abuse by printer manufacturers:

Any provision in any agreement or contract that prohibits the reusing, remanufacturing, or refilling of a toner or inkjet cartridge is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Nothing in this section shall prevent any maintenance contract that warrants the performance of equipment under the contract from requiring the use of new or specified toner or inkjet cartridges in the equipment under contract.

Here is an old Slashdot article covering it.

Of course regardless of state laws I totally expect, if they haven't already, printer companies and perhaps companies like Keurig to incorporate software into their products and use the DMCA's anti-reverse-engineering and anti-circumvention provisions to combat the rights of end users to dictate what they can and cannot do with physical devices they own.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right....

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/ga...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vc...

Basically if the traffic around you is speeding. Keep up.

Why would they write the law this way? Basically what causes many accidents is not the speed. But the differential between speed and other cars. Basically keep up with the flow. If everyone is going 5 mph and you go the speed limit of 55 you can get cited. If everyone is doing 75 and you are doing the limit of 55 you can also get cited. The ticket is NOT because you are going fast its because you are driving dangerous.

The bill itself along with the record of its changes as well as who sponsored and voted for it can be found on the North Carolina General Assembly's website.

Yeah, and RAPE stats always include all "sexual assault"? Notice it only specifies penetration. Much like the UK, being "forced to penetrate" isn't classified as criminal "penetration" as per "sexual act" merely "sexual contact" which is just "sexual battery". The CDC didn't class "forced to penetrate" as not rape for a reason, You pretentious, deluded little shit-stain.

Yeah, and RAPE stats always include all "sexual assault"? Notice it only specifies penetration. Much like the UK, being "forced to penetrate" isn't classified as criminal "penetration" as per "sexual act" merely "sexual contact" which is just "sexual battery". The CDC didn't class "forced to penetrate" as not rape for a reason, You pretentious, deluded little shit-stain.

Again, another case of "info I heard from some guy that made me mad so I'm repeating it here".

North Carolina's rape law The basics? North Carolina does indeed consider only vaginal sexual assault "rape" (first degree or second degree), but immediately below that they list the crime of "sexual assault" (again, first degree or second degree), which covers everything else and has the exact same penalties. So it's just a state legal terminology issue and has no practical consequences.

These things take 10 seconds to look up, is that really that onerous to do before pushing a "women are a bunch of coddled whiners when it comes to rape and men are the real victims" attitude on public forums?

This is the kind of bill that I'm talking about.

I'm not sure what schools you were looking at, but the education budget for North Carolina is very different from the picture you paint. Out of $8.2 billion, about $3 billion goes directly to teacher salaries. $750 million goes to resources for students with "special needs" and $250 million to "at risk" students. Another $500 million to teacher assistants and $300 million to instructional support. $400 million to transportation, $400 million to vocational education. Those are the biggest items in the budget. For administration, $230 million goes to school building administration and $90 million to central administration. Clearly not even close to a majority of the budget.

I wonder what you're counting as administration? If it's "everything but teacher salaries" then you're right but that's a low bar. Teachers need buildings to teach in and textbooks to use and stuff.

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/doc...

Where does this come from and why can't it ever be debunked once and for all?

I would call it a Meta Rule. A rule that is not what copyright says; but was proposed once as a guideline, and took on a life of its own through the power of word of mouth -- with various institutions codifying it. With various degrees of strictness --- if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and use 31 seconds of a media recording; I suppose you might get expelled from some school, because you're over the limit.

Examples:

Halldavidson: This copyright chart form was designed to inform teachers what tehy may do under the law

Music: Up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition may be reproduced, performed and displayed as part of a multimedia program produced by an educator or student for educational purposes. ---- Authorities site a maximum length of 30 seconds. See notes by congressman below.

Temple University: College of Liberal Arts: Fair Use Policy:
Educators May use their projects for teaching, for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class. ....
Music, Lyrics, and Music Video Up to 10% but no more than 30 seconds from any single musical work Any alterations shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. .... Motion Media Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less

WILEY: Permission requirements .... . A single quotation or several shorter quotes from a full-length book, more than 300 words in toto. ..... A single quotation of more than 50 words from a newspaper, magazine, or journal. .... Material which includes all or part of a poem or song lyric (even as little as one line), or the title of a song. ...

The Law of Fair use and the Illusion of Fair use Guidelines

Pikes Peak Community College: Copyright Portion Limits; Rules of the road: Music, lyrics, music video - Up to 10%, but no more than 30 seconds Arlington Independent School District: Copyright: Portion Limitations
CCSJ: Copyright Fair Use: 'Allowable portion for fair use'
Public Schools of North Carolina: Copyright in an Electronic environment:

Up to 10% of a body of sound recording, but no more than 30 seconds

St. Olaf College: Copyright guidelines

Music, lyrics, music video: up to 10% but in no event more than 30 seconds of an individual work

MolStead Library; North Idaho College The amount of work to be copied is based on the “portion limit” set for that “medium.” [....] In general, you should never use more than 30 seconds or 10 percent of a piece of recorded music. Ball State University, guidelines for educational media:

4.2.3: Music, Lyrics and Music Video : Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual work. No alteration(s) of the music and/or lyrics are allowed.

He already has a DWI.

http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Offense.do?submit=submit&case=3102012061874&court=CR

DWI laws in this state are a joke. And when they finally get banned from driving a car (after half a dozen convictions or so), they are still allowed to go and drive a moped on the road.

Don't assume this rollout represents friendliness to municipal internet in North Carolina. The state congress effectively banned it last year; only those existing projects explicitly named in the bill were exempt from the ban hammer. I'm not sure if this project was one of those so named or whether it's simply not covered by the law, but either way North Carolina now officially sucks for public telecom services. It's not actually impossible to start a municipal internet service, but you're required to publish all of your business plans and to hold public meetings at which every private telecom in your municipality or any bordering municipality is entitled to a competing proposal. This is Monticello, MN on steroids: Telecoms don't even have to sue the public project now, they simply wait until someone is actually organized enough to attempt a public option, analyze the completely public business plan for the public option, and at the mandatory meeting pitch a competing proposal that improves their existing service just barely enough to kill that public option.

The best part is, while every single provision in the bill exists to hamper public options in ways that private companies don't deal with and couldn't survive, the bill was called the "Level Playing Field" act. North Carolina House Bill 129. I now live under a telecommunications policy that was literally written by Time Warner.

Sorry, left out my links:

http://stopthecap.com/2011/04/04/fcc-commissioner-mignon-clyburn-calls-north-carolinas-h-129-a-broadband-barrier/

http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/9345628/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/op-ed-north-carolina-broadband-bill-would-eliminate-level-playing-field.ars

The bill as passed

Er, sorry, Ohio was a mistake as far as "required" but there was a line that made me cringe:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=1&Section=07
Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government...

But as far as states that prohibit, I believe there are 7 (or 8?) that specifically have text concerning "God", "higher power" or "supreme being"

Here are two:

Texas:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm
Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

North Carolina:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution_whole.html
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. ...

Now, would these hold up? Not likely. The problem is that nobody has challenged them and nobody likely will. The laws will remain written as they are and not be changed.

For those with interest, the bill is here:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129

There's good analysis and info here: http://www.muninetworks.org/taxonomy/term/564
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/natural-monopoly-north-carolina-need-community-networks-and-competition
http://www.newrules.org/information/news/bill-limit-community-broadband-north-carolina-will-kill-jobs
http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/08/broken-promises-rep-marilyn-avila-r-time-warner-says-one-thing-in-public-another-in-private/

Basically, it's a bill written by Time Warner with the goal of killing municipal broadband and the competition and increased service it brings.
They want to morgage our future competitiveness for a few thousand in campaign contributions, and I'm mad as hell about it.

I think this is the 3rd time a similar bill has come up, and it's more likely to pass with the greater Republican presence this go-around..

The rest of it is misdirection by the embarrassed Civil Eng who filed the complaint.
This is just some arrogant ass saying "Who in the are you to question me, you little unlicensed pissant?"

Maybe Cox "practiced Engineering" without a license. I can't tell--where's the definition of "practiced Engineering"
Did he stamp and sign his work with a fake license? Did he hang out a shingle and say 'I'm an Engineer"? Did he charge money for an "engineering design"? Did he try to pass off his work as something other than what it was?

Are we to believe that the simple exercise of competence beyond some undefined level by an unlicensed individual should be criminal?
Hacking, anybody?

The purpose of professional licensure goal is to protect the public from shoddy work.
Bad engineering, medicine, pharmacy, accounting, nursing, etc. can cost lives and money.
If the work he did was so good that a licensed engineer mistakes it for "engineering", then the argument that an unqualified person is passing off shoddy work as engineering--and thus endangering the public--sorta falls flat.

His petition if valid (and the state's accusation appears to support the quality of work that went into it) will have the effect of rectifying an omission by the Civil Engineer responsible for allocating the traffic signals.
So, again, it is in the state's interest to encourage his activities the state also has an interest in allowing any person to point out their errors and omissions.
In fact, by preventing competent criticism of the work, the state defeats purpose of

BTW, here's the place where it says you can't do eng. work w/out a license:

Ref 89C23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms

Ref: 21 NCAC 56 .1302 UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BY AN UNLICENSED PeRSON

The rest of it is misdirection by the embarrassed Civil Eng who filed the complaint.
This is just some arrogant ass saying "Who in the are you to question me, you little unlicensed pissant?"

Maybe Cox "practiced Engineering" without a license. I can't tell--where's the definition of "practiced Engineering"
Did he stamp and sign his work with a fake license? Did he hang out a shingle and say 'I'm an Engineer"? Did he charge money for an "engineering design"? Did he try to pass off his work as something other than what it was?

Are we to believe that the simple exercise of competence beyond some undefined level by an unlicensed individual should be criminal?
Hacking, anybody?

The purpose of professional licensure goal is to protect the public from shoddy work.
Bad engineering, medicine, pharmacy, accounting, nursing, etc. can cost lives and money.
If the work he did was so good that a licensed engineer mistakes it for "engineering", then the argument that an unqualified person is passing off shoddy work as engineering--and thus endangering the public--sorta falls flat.

His petition if valid (and the state's accusation appears to support the quality of work that went into it) will have the effect of rectifying an omission by the Civil Engineer responsible for allocating the traffic signals.
So, again, it is in the state's interest to encourage his activities the state also has an interest in allowing any person to point out their errors and omissions.
In fact, by preventing competent criticism of the work, the state defeats purpose of

BTW, here's the place where it says you can't do eng. work w/out a license:

Ref 89C23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms

Ref: 21 NCAC 56 .1302 UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BY AN UNLICENSED PeRSON

Please place a comment to the Office of The Governor at http://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/suggestionBox.aspx The NC Department of transportation also has a comment box at https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/contactus/PostComment.aspx?Unit=PIO You can also contact Kevin Lacy directly at jklacy@dot.state.nc.us (919) 733-3915

Please place a comment to the Office of The Governor at http://www.governor.state.nc.us/eTownhall/suggestionBox.aspx The NC Department of transportation also has a comment box at https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/contactus/PostComment.aspx?Unit=PIO You can also contact Kevin Lacy directly at jklacy@dot.state.nc.us (919) 733-3915

Reviewing North Carolina Law 89C23 which tells you that you aren't supposed to "practice" engineering without a license, along with 89C3 which gives the definitions of the terms used like "practice" you will find that a person has to make the claim to be a "professional engineer" {see section (6)a of 89C3} for their activities to be construed to be the "practice of engineering".

Laws are written this way to point out that while most anyone can technically fill a job title of "engineer" if they have the smarts at your local company making widgets, you are not allowed to provide "engineering services" to the public. What that usually means is that you are not allowed to design things that affect public safety. You are however fully within the law to work as an engineer for IBM, Caterpillar, Boeing, etc. Usually even if a company has engineering services, few engineers are actually licensed, they just work under the direct supervision of the license engineer who takes ultimate responsibility for the design.

With this in mind, unless David N. Cox made the claim that he was a licensed engineer or was providing engineering services, he and others like him are within the letter and spirit of the law. I read nowhere in the article that he made the claim he was an engineer, nor sealed/stamped the report/calculation/designs he provided as part of his petition. Unless he made the claims or sealed/stamped the articles associated with his petition and the article simply failed to state that, I believe Mr. Cox is probably innocent of the allegations made against him.

The chapter of the North Carolina Law relevant to this is found at this web location. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0089C

The NC engineering board will tell, but I am going to guess that they will rule in favor or Mr. Cox.

The relevant statute is here, for those curious.

Note, in particular the part at the end about "It shall be the duty of all duly constituted officers of the State and all political subdivisions of the State to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and to prosecute any persons violating them." The guy may be senior enough to be considered an "officer of the state" and thus essentially be obligated to report anything that appears to be "holding out to the public of any engineering expertise by unlicensed persons."

Disclaimer: I am a licensed engineer in NC and have worked in the transportation field in NC so sort of know what I'm talking about (and though my company has done work for this guy, I never have so can't speak personally or professionally about him). And for those interested, the report by the neighbors is also available on the site. While it certainly looks fairly technical and basically says outright several other licensed engineers got it wrong, it appears to have several errors of its own. [Again, I'm not enough of a specialist in the matters at hand to say conclusively without looking up a few things first.]

Let me speed up the linkage...

His name is Kevin Lacy and his email is jklacy@ncdot.gov and his phone number is 919-773-2800. And now they will send someone after me for plagiarism.

Here is where you can send a comment directly: https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/contactus/PostComment.aspx?Unit=PIO

David Hoyle is... a Democrat

Somehow I suspect that if he was a Republican that would have been mentioned once or twice in the /. Story.

Of course it would, a corrupt Republican Party politician is news, a corrupt Democratic Party politician isn't. It's only news when a Democratic Party politician isn't corrupt, at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains why news reports so rarely mention party affiliation when that affiliation is Democrat. Well, it could be that most news organizations are biased in favor of the Democrats, but they keep telling me they aren't, so...

David Hoyle is... a Democrat

Somehow I suspect that if he was a Republican that would have been mentioned once or twice in the /. Story.

Also this... http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/facts/offshore.htm

3-200 miles offshore drilling was already banned in many areas except for existing wells.

Um, nope. You just flunked too, depending upon which state you're in.

Example 1 that took me 2 minutes to find.

As I don't know the state the poster is from, I'll post my own. Most have similar laws, and I believe there's also pertinent federal law. BTW, the courts won't really care that you think it's BS, they'll just give you plenty of structured time to think about it. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_60.html

To be in the violation of the law simply means that there is a law that states it is illegal to do X, and someone did X.

To be proven that someone did X in a court of law, must be done in a court of law.

A legal action, is any action that is legally permissible (any action that does not have a law that states you may NOT do it).

As for an arrest, detention or stopping of criminal action, then NO, you do not need "legally appointed officials", as stated in US law:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_15A/GS_15A-404.html

In which case, this would fall under 15A404(b)4 -- A crime involving theft or destruction of property. Allowing copyrightable material to be downloaded has been proven to be theft of property in the court of law. And such arrest, detention or criminal action may be held until again, stated in 15A-404(d)1 -- The determination that no offense has been committed.

Oddly enough North Carolina had a right to revolution written into their constitution. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html (section 3D).

Their neighbors to the south, not so much.

Kinda sorta - the right to revolution must exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.

Also, section 12 of that link could theoretically be used to support a similar thing in North Carolina, key word being "secret". If the subversive group was really outspoken and not trying to be secret, then it should be gravy.

Oddly enough North Carolina had a right to revolution written into their constitution. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html (section 3D).

Their neighbors to the south, not so much.

In my experience as a landlord, most problems occur as a direct result of actions taken by the tenants. In this case, spilling water and not immediately cleaning it up will cause mold. This happens because the tenants don't "own" the property they are living in. Cleaning up requires effort, and there's no incentive on the part of the tenants to do this.

Doesn't matter; its still your responsiblity to remove the mold, remove the fire hazard, etc. If you want to sue the tenent because they were careless, that's one thing.. but its your responsiblity as landlord to maintain the building. I suspect you also have a lease saying the tennent CANNOT make any major changes to the building.. perhaps even forbidding painting the walls a different color (every lease I've signed has).

Mold is (apparently) completely blown out of proportion by companies that want to be paid to remove it. Yes, toxic mold does occasionally happen and it should be dealt with... but it's extremely rare.

Mold can be much more serious than you seem to think. No one is saying mold is now everywhere, but if it does appear it needs to be removed ASAP, because it very likely can be a health problem... and those problems may not show up for your tennant for YEARS. http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/oii/mold/healtheffects.html

One item in the bill I find especially objectionable is under the accounting section. http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/HTML/S1004v0.html "The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service." It requires that if the Greenlight equivilant utilizes a resource shared with another part of the municipality then Greenlight has to count the annual cost of that resource as a subsidy.

For instance, if Greenlight has a cubicle in a large municipal office building they are sharing the building and have to count the cost of the building as a subsidy. That's the entire building, not just the space and resources that are necessary for that one cubicle but the whole building. It applies to buildings, vehicles, personnel and equipment.

It also applies to any direct subsidies. Such as Federal subsidy money directed at improving infrastructure. Which TWC of course will recieve and not have to count as a business expense. When you combine that with the innocuous sounding bit about pricing "In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service." It's saying that a program like Greenlight would have to price their product as if the subsidies they recieve are a cost of business.

In the case of using city workers to install fiber this makes sense, when you prorate it. But it makes no sense whatsoever when talking about federal subsidies for infrastructure improvements that private companies like TWC also recieve.

Read the senate bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v1.pdf [state.nc.us] I hate the telcos as much as anyone, but this bill says that when the city enters into the communications business, it should have to pay all the same taxes and fees as private business would, and be burdened with the same oversight. They also say that other fees the citizens pay (trash, water etc) cannot be used to fund the communications business. I don't see how this bill is unfair at all. The telcos are essentially saying "If we didn't have to pay any fees to the city to provide service, we could be competetive." If government wants to set up a business, they should have go compete with other businesses on a level playing field. If municipalities want to open up their own ISP, I am all for that, but then they should stop collecting fees and taxing the other ISPs they are competing with.

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. The government is not running a business; it is providing the best service it can to the citizenry. If that prices out some private ISPs, fuck 'em. If they want to establish taxes specific to the ISPs, fuck 'em. If the people _vote to make private ISPs illegal in their community_ (perhaps because they have a history of gouging, monopoly, and privacy-breaking practices), then they can do that too!

Municipal government should not be using taxes and fees to provide a commercial advantage for themselves. I think the "level playing field" is actually a good title for this bill, and not an unreasonable request. We're all hopped up on this because it's something that's near and dear to us, but imagine if the city set up a taxi service, but then did not have to pay gasoline tax or hackney licenses. Obviously it benefits the public who uses taxis, but is it fair to the taxi drivers and cab companies that they now have to charge more than the city taxis.

Awesome, sign me up for that taxi service. Democracy comes first, capitalism comes second.

Has anyone actually bothered to read the bill in question? All it's doing is making sure the city-owned ISP isn't---or doesn't in the future---engage in the kind of abuses I just posted about. It's specifically to make sure they can't lower their rates by subsidizing themselves with tax dollars, exempt themselves from paying telco taxes, and similar. Here are the relevant pieces:---

(1) Comply with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements that would apply to the communications services if provided by a private communications service provider.

(2) Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and source of investment dollars associated with the provision of communications service.

(3) Shall not subsidize the cost of providing 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. In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service.

(4) Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications services, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality; and (ii) an amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and other assessments that would apply to a private communications service provider including federal, state, and local taxes; rightsofway, franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.

(5) Shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider.

(6) Shall prepare and publish an independent annual audit in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that reflect the fully allocated cost of providing the communications service, including all direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs shall include amounts for rightsofway, franchise, consent, or administrative fees, regulatory fees, occupation taxes, pole attachment fees, and ad valorem taxes. The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service. The North Carolina Utilities Commission may adopt rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, and all records demonstrating compliance shall be filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and made available for public inspection and copying.

Anyone opposing this is basically saying, "I want cheap Internets by making you pay for it."

If you really feel passionate about this, and you live in North Carolina, please contact your state representatives here (look them up by county):

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate ...and let them know how you feel. Here is something -like- what you could say:

(Representative or Senator) XXXXXX,

I'm a voter in XXXXXXX county, and I am deeply troubled by a bill introduced in the house to stop the Internet service being offered in the City of Wilson. Internet service providers have failed to offer adequate services to Wilson for years, and now want to restrict the choice of citizens in the name of a "level playing field".

I ask you to please vote against this bill, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. As a professional who depends fast, reliable, and inexpensive internet to compete, this matter is very important to me.

Thank you, regards,

XXXXXXX

The bills in question are H1252 and S1004.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H1252

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1004

Especially critical are the sponsors of the bill (i.e. the people you should vote against in the next election):

House
Primary: Harrell; Jones; Avila; Tillis;
Co: Bell; Cole; Crawford; Current; Dollar; Earle; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holliman; Johnson; Justus; Lucas; Neumann; Sager; Steen;

Senate
Primary: David W. Hoyle;
Co: Debbie A. Clary;

If you really feel passionate about this, and you live in North Carolina, please contact your state representatives here (look them up by county):

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate ...and let them know how you feel. Here is something -like- what you could say:

(Representative or Senator) XXXXXX,

I'm a voter in XXXXXXX county, and I am deeply troubled by a bill introduced in the house to stop the Internet service being offered in the City of Wilson. Internet service providers have failed to offer adequate services to Wilson for years, and now want to restrict the choice of citizens in the name of a "level playing field".

I ask you to please vote against this bill, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. As a professional who depends fast, reliable, and inexpensive internet to compete, this matter is very important to me.

Thank you, regards,

XXXXXXX

The bills in question are H1252 and S1004.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H1252

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1004

Especially critical are the sponsors of the bill (i.e. the people you should vote against in the next election):

House
Primary: Harrell; Jones; Avila; Tillis;
Co: Bell; Cole; Crawford; Current; Dollar; Earle; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holliman; Johnson; Justus; Lucas; Neumann; Sager; Steen;

Senate
Primary: David W. Hoyle;
Co: Debbie A. Clary;

If you really feel passionate about this, and you live in North Carolina, please contact your state representatives here (look them up by county):

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate ...and let them know how you feel. Here is something -like- what you could say:

(Representative or Senator) XXXXXX,

I'm a voter in XXXXXXX county, and I am deeply troubled by a bill introduced in the house to stop the Internet service being offered in the City of Wilson. Internet service providers have failed to offer adequate services to Wilson for years, and now want to restrict the choice of citizens in the name of a "level playing field".

I ask you to please vote against this bill, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. As a professional who depends fast, reliable, and inexpensive internet to compete, this matter is very important to me.

Thank you, regards,

XXXXXXX

The bills in question are H1252 and S1004.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H1252

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1004

Especially critical are the sponsors of the bill (i.e. the people you should vote against in the next election):

House
Primary: Harrell; Jones; Avila; Tillis;
Co: Bell; Cole; Crawford; Current; Dollar; Earle; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holliman; Johnson; Justus; Lucas; Neumann; Sager; Steen;

Senate
Primary: David W. Hoyle;
Co: Debbie A. Clary;

If you really feel passionate about this, and you live in North Carolina, please contact your state representatives here (look them up by county):

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate ...and let them know how you feel. Here is something -like- what you could say:

(Representative or Senator) XXXXXX,

I'm a voter in XXXXXXX county, and I am deeply troubled by a bill introduced in the house to stop the Internet service being offered in the City of Wilson. Internet service providers have failed to offer adequate services to Wilson for years, and now want to restrict the choice of citizens in the name of a "level playing field".

I ask you to please vote against this bill, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. As a professional who depends fast, reliable, and inexpensive internet to compete, this matter is very important to me.

Thank you, regards,

XXXXXXX

The bills in question are H1252 and S1004.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H1252

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1004

Especially critical are the sponsors of the bill (i.e. the people you should vote against in the next election):

House
Primary: Harrell; Jones; Avila; Tillis;
Co: Bell; Cole; Crawford; Current; Dollar; Earle; Guice; Gulley; Hilton; Holliman; Johnson; Justus; Lucas; Neumann; Sager; Steen;

Senate
Primary: David W. Hoyle;
Co: Debbie A. Clary;

Read the senate bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v1.pdf I hate the telcos as much as anyone, but this bill says that when the city enters into the communications business, it should have to pay all the same taxes and fees as private business would, and be burdened with the same oversight. They also say that other fees the citizens pay (trash, water etc) cannot be used to fund the communications business. I don't see how this bill is unfair at all. The telcos are essentially saying "If we didn't have to pay any fees to the city to provide service, we could be competetive." If government wants to set up a business, they should have go compete with other businesses on a level playing field. If municipalities want to open up their own ISP, I am all for that, but then they should stop collecting fees and taxing the other ISPs they are competing with. Municipal government should not be using taxes and fees to provide a commercial advantage for themselves. I think the "level playing field" is actually a good title for this bill, and not an unreasonable request. We're all hopped up on this because it's something that's near and dear to us, but imagine if the city set up a taxi service, but then did not have to pay gasoline tax or hackney licenses. Obviously it benefits the public who uses taxis, but is it fair to the taxi drivers and cab companies that they now have to charge more than the city taxis.

Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications services, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like price fixing to me. The city has to charge at least what the other guys' cost is. If the state's cost is less, why can't they charge less?

here is the link to the actual bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v0.pdf

In essence, what the bill is saying is that a govt provided internet service should be self-sufficient, unsubsidized and be applicable to all costs and taxes that a private organization is. It is not trying to establish a monoply but instead trying to take the unfair advantage away from a govt sponsored organization.

Here is the text from actual bill:

Requirements. â" A city that operates a public enterprise under G.S. 160A-311 that provides communications services to the public for a fee over a communications network that is directly or indirectly owned or operated by or provides a financial benefit to the city or another city shall meet the following conditions with respect to the provision of communications service:
  (1) Comply with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements that would apply to the communications services if provided by a private communications service provider.
(2) Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and source of investment dollars associated with the provision of communications service.
(3) Shall not subsidize the cost of providing 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. In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service.
(4) Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications services, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality; and (ii) an amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and other assessments that would apply to a private communications service provider including federal, state, and local taxes; rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.
(5) Shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider.
(6) Shall prepare and publish an independent annual audit in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that reflect the fully allocated cost of providing the communications service, including all direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs shall include amounts for rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees, regulatory fees, occupation taxes, pole attachment fees, and ad valorem taxes. The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that
32 are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service. The North Carolina Utilities Commission may adopt rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, and all records demonstrating compliance shall be filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and made available for public inspection and copying.

(1) This isn't a legal proceeding, it's an administrative one. The board does have some limited powers to sanction offenders but it's not a court. There is therefore no notion of standing -- the board can hear anyone whose testimony it finds probative. The enforcement mechanism is laid out in 74C17 and requires the board to initiate legal proceedings in a state court against violators.

(2) Again, any attempt by him to lie or misdirect should be answered by having the board find his testimony not-credible or refuse to let him change the subject. These risks should emphatically not be dealt with by refusing him the right to speak at all.

(3) The board has broad powers to subpoena documents and compel witnesses [ 74C5(5)]. That makes them ideally suited to get to the bottom of who did what prior to trial. Just don't forget -- they are an investigative, not judicial, body.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_74C.html

That sounds like how I voted. In North Carolina, we use paper ballots, a pen, and an optical scanner (for speed; the paper trail is what's used for a recount). Remember that in the US, most of the details of how the election is run are decided at the state level (and sometimes at the local level). Why some states feel a need to change, I don't know, but NC at least seems to get this right. Many other states do it similarly.

Here is the (sample) ballot I voted on (pdf).

The information was actually passed onto me via a local D.A. (friends/coworkers with her son).

However, here is the statute for it. GS_14-208.6(4) is the portion of particular interest. They consider contributing to the delinquency of a minor on the same grounds as indecent liberties with a minor. This, brings the charges under the above mentioned statue, therefore making it an offense which would cause one to register.

While, yes I personally believe it to be a bit extreme, it does make sense (to a point at least. It all depends on how broadly the D.A. wants to define an offense against a minor. I'll ask her about it when next I get a chance and see if I can get a specific statute for it.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_74C.html

Section 74C-12: Denial, suspension, or revocation of license, registration, or permit; duty to report criminal arrests.

(a) The Board may, after compliance with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes, deny, suspend or revoke a license, registration, or permit issued under this Chapter if it is determined that the applicant, licensee, registrant, or permit holder has done any of the following acts:

(1) Made any false statement or given any false information in connection with any application for a license, registration, or permit or for the renewal or reinstatement of a license, registration, or permit.

(6) Engaged in or permitted any employee to engage in a private protective services profession when not lawfully in possession of a valid license issued under the provisions of this Chapter.

(8) Knowingly made any false report to the employer or client for whom information is being obtained.

(12) Undertaken to give legal advice or counsel or to in any way falsely represent that he or she is representing any attorney or he or she is appearing or will appear as an attorney in any legal proceeding.

(13) Issued, delivered, or uttered any simulation of process of any nature which might lead a person or persons to believe that such simulation, written, printed, or typed, may be a summons, warrant, writ or court process, or any pleading in any court proceeding.

(17) Failed to notify the Director by a business entity other than a sole proprietorship licensed pursuant to this Chapter of the cessation of employment of the business entity's qualifying agent within the time set forth in this Chapter.

Many of the plates belong to proud members of the National Wild Turkey Federation. These plates are offered by several states, including North Carolina where they are perfectly legal.