Time Warner Cable Won't Compete, Seeks Legislation

narramissic writes "The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business. Apparently they're having some success, as the NC State Senate has proposed bills that would do TWC's bidding.'"

Comments

Convert?

[arizwebfoot]

Would it just be easier to convert Greenlight to a citizen run corporation or make it a utility?

I am not a legal eagle on NC law, but I would think it wouldn't be that difficult to convert to a citizen run profit/nonprofit corporation and then TWC is effectively screwed.

Re:Convert?

[Chabil Ha']

The idea is to use tax dollars for the initial costs of infrastructure and then convert to a private entity once established for operational costs and maintenance. Not a terrible idea at all. Makes me wish I lived in a smaller town, actually.

Re:Convert?

[printman]

You make it a co-op that is owned by the customers...

Re:Convert?

[NormalVisual]

Time-Warner had their chance to provide the service, and refused to do so. I personally think that communications/data connectivity needs to become a utility, just like power/water/sewer especially in light of the ridiculous amount of subsidies the phone companies/cable companies receive in the form of rights-of-way, easements, exclusive franchise agreements, etc.

Perhaps a more efficient way of doing things would be for the city to maintain the physical infrastructure, whereas smaller ISPs like yourself would lease bandwidth on the public lines.

Re:Convert?

[smartr]

Becuase it is government that is acting, there is coercion involved

Is a small town that much different from a company? Because an executive makes a decision, there is coercion involved. Anyone dissenting is forced to suck it up, or quit their job. Chances are the executive wasn't even elected. Of course, nothing is stopping the people in that town from moving to some other town. Changing jobs often requires moving - so which is a "free"er market - a small town or a corporation?

Re:Convert?

[HeronBlademaster]

I live in Provo, UT (for the next week, anyway). Provo used tax money to build a fiber infrastructure, then leased it out to two companies who provided tv/internet/phone.

Provo lost money every month. Know why? Provo wasn't legally allowed to advertise service on their own network, precisely because it was city-owned; the majority of Provo-dwellers I've spoken with didn't even know about it. (For unknown reasons, the companies who the city leased the networks to weren't advertising either. I heard about it from my neighbor who had service from them. I have no idea how he found out about them.)

Eventually, Provo simply sold the fiber network to some company in Salt Lake City at a huge loss.

This is why Sandy (where my parents live) refused to join Utopia (a loose coalition of cities in Salt Lake Valley building fiber networks) - they felt it would be a waste of taxpayer money, since they felt they would inevitably lose a lot of money on the project in the long run.

They need to be put in check

[Erie Ed]

This is why TWC needs to be investigated for their practices. It seems to me that the NC government just wants to roll over to TWC wishes. I for one applaude that community that actually went out and did something to improve their service. Also I believe 10/10Mbps for $99 is a fair price as long as the quality is there.

So... publicly owned infrastructe do work, eh?

[alexandre]

It does seems like it from the few working experiences that we have around the world [1,2]. I hope this is realized that we do need to guarentee a public network, maybe along the private one but nonetheless a good public network!

We need ISP agnostic fiber to the homes, now!

For those in Canada (note the "eh" in the title :P), give your voice below, the CRTC is asking for advise (for what it's worth...):

http://isppractices.econsultation.ca/ (english)

http://pratiquesfsi.econsultation.ca/ (franÃais)

[1]. http://cis471.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-is-connectivty-in-stockholm-so-much.html

[2]. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/shocker-aussies-to-build-own-open-access-fiber-backbone.ars

Re:So they have two Cables running in parallel?

[UnknowingFool]

Probably not. I'm guessing with a $28 million initial cost, the city wanted to run fiber. TWC and Embarq refused saying it would cost them too much. By the way, federal taxes since 1995 have paid something on the order of $202 billion to these companies to put in fiber but they have taken the money and have never installed it. So the city took it upon themselves to run fiber. So TWC and Embarq cannot compete since they are most likely using copper. What TWC and Embarq would like to do is put Greenlight out of business then take over their lines. Then they could offer higher speeds. Of course they will charge their customers double the price Greenlight was charging even though they paid nothing for the infrastructure.

Re:Government should not be a competitor to indust

[TinBromide]

I think people have forgotten the difference between government at the township level and government at the state/federal level. The local government is mostly residents who are ignored by lobbyists and do their best to make the town thrive. Yes, I am saying that if it is the people wish that the government should make their lives better, they should be able to use government to make their lives better. (Provided, of course, that they are educated and not being hoodwinked into giving up rights). Also, however, the township should not enforce the monopoly and if a small ISP wants to use the lines to compete with the township, they should have access to the lines. (Perhaps they want to offer 2mbit for $20 a month?)

This situation is similar to the people forming a co-op to provide themselves with network connectivity, only corporations are crying foul because instead of forming a co-op to get things done, the citizens (not subjects in this case) went through existing channels (local government).

This is precisely the kind of grassroots involvement that I LIKE to see because if people believe they can change the local government, they might believe that they don't have to lie down when corporations make their state and federal government steamroll them.

A government should, ideally, stand back and let private citizens do their own thing, but thats not happening, not at the state level, not at the federal level. TWC has lobbyists, the township citizens did not. Until the township has the same pull as TWC, the local government needs to step up and fight fire with fire.

We are well beyond a free market economy, and while its nice to think about what government would look like without the past 233 years of corporate influence, that's not the world we live in. The only way to get a free market economy would be to abolish corporations, abolish the current government, demolish the infrastructure, and start from scratch. Why? Because for every email, vote, and action taken by a citizen, a corporation will pay X dollars to a lobbyist to drip honey in senator's ears. To get a free market economy, you'd have to get rid of lobbying, all of the laws influenced by lobbying, the lobbyists, and all of the senators who were put in place by campaign contributions from corporations.

Besides, as long as there is a system to game, people will game it, why shouldn't the local government game it for the direct benefit of its citizens?