Quote :

"This bill is not only reasonable but I would argue necessary because, I believe, it would be wrong to tax all of us, particularly the poor, to provide subsidised internet access to some, which tend to be wealthier individuals, as the truely poor do not own computers."

Except in the case of Wilson:

http://www.greenlightnc.com/about/faq/

Quote :

"Will my taxes go up because this project is so expensive? No. The funds for constructing the fiber network come from bonds issued by the City of Wilson. Tax revenues are not being used to fund this project in any way."

4/24/2009 3:04:49 PM

so then if the law went into effect wilson wouldn't have to worry about it.

4/24/2009 3:25:04 PM

And the person co-signing your car loan isn't out any money either. Except for what I said:
"If this service goes under and defaults on these bonds, then the city will be forced to raise taxes or cut back on services to pay back the bonds." And poor Wilson gets poorer.

The point of their plot is to rip off the taxpayers of Wilson. If that were not the case then they wouldn't need Wilson, they could borrow the money themselves, leaving only themselves and their lenders liable for their sucess. However, this service will be a ruinous venture and the bond sellers know it, so if they want to get it off the ground they must use the public treasury, which means municipal bonds. The city doesn't pay today, but ten years from now when greelight goes under.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM. Reason : vitriolic]

4/24/2009 3:32:50 PM

A) What happens when GreenLight doesn't go under?

B) Is it fair to make GreenLight increase their rates to include cost of capital of TWC, in addition to subjecting the citizens of Wilson to the looming threat of increased taxes? Wouldn't the proposed legislature just make GreenLight more likely to fail and in the end being worse for the consumer?

4/24/2009 3:55:27 PM

TWC can't match Greenlight's prices without throwing their profits out of the window so they're sponsoring legislation that forces Greenlight to charge more by making them account for phantom costs that government run utility services aren't usually subject to. TWC is basically saying, "Well, we can't win the game as is so let's see if we can change the rules."

4/24/2009 4:06:27 PM

A) I suspect hell would freeze over, but that's just because I've never known a government secured loan to be paid back on time. I confess I have not looked that hard for one, so maybe it happens all the time and the media never reports on it.

B) Maybe. But in the grand scheme of things it would be better for greenlight to crash and burn, taking the city of Wilson with it, than to have erronious reports of cheap fast internet service driving other city to replicate a bad system. But this assumes the optimal outcome is unobtainable: Wilson refuses to give greenlight the bonds, greenlight fails on its own merits, and the citizens of Wilson lose nothing. Then, about a year from now, over-air internet arrives and everyone is happy.

4/24/2009 4:07:18 PM

But if they do let greenlight use tax money then you aren't saving anything over twc. You're just limiting your options because now no one can compete at that price point.

4/24/2009 4:07:51 PM

Not necessarily. It is quite possible that after executing all these rules greenlight still sells internet cheaper. Afterall, all these requirements do is require that Greenlight not operate at a virtual loss, it does not require that Greenlight be profitable.

That said, this is still a requirement not imposed on private industry. I suspect AT&T is losing money hand-over-fist with its current expansion, that is what happens when you are getting started. But the difference is, AT&T is losing its own money (that of its creditors); Greenlight will be losing the taxpayers money whenever it decided to give service away at a loss. So, it is unclear how the formula will be calculated. Does Greenlight need to break even every month? Or does it just need to have a plan that after awhile its current prices will break even? In either case, I would fear the law toothless.

4/24/2009 4:34:31 PM

Isn't GreenLight already active? Do we have any data on the costs, how well it works? I'm interested in knowing why LoneSnark believes it's doomed for failure.

Obviously it must be doing something right if it has TWC lobbying.

4/24/2009 4:35:07 PM

No, TWC would be lobbying regardless of Greenlights sucess or failure. That is what corporations do in this day and age. And this law has not yet passed, as such we really have no good mechanism of reporting to figure out if Greenlight is hemoraging money or not.

However, that TWC is lobbying hard for disclosure requirements instead of outright banning of city based services, I think we can conclude that TWC believes Greenlight is losing money and they just want to have it proven.

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/24/2009 4:58:06 PM

Let's get my fuckin Internet working first before you try metering it kthx

4/24/2009 5:48:16 PM

Quote :

"so then if the law went into effect wilson wouldn't have to worry about it."

if they get told that they have to adjust their rates effective today to turn a profit, then they might have some serious issues. They don't have enough customers currently to float themselves.

I think Wilson should be able to use revenue from electricity, water, gas, and tax sales if they are using their fiber to assist with things such as smart grid technology, SCADA, traffic cameras, etc.

4/24/2009 7:41:35 PM

Rofl, these boobs are clueless

Quote :

"=DJ Time Warner Cable Subscriber Growth Weakened In Recent Weeks . By Nat Worden Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES Rob Marcus, chief financial officer with Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), said Wednesday that the company's subscriber net additions tailed off in recent weeks after the company's first-quarter performance showed a pick-up in subscriber growth after a slowdown at the end of last year. On a conference call with analysts following the company's first-quarter earnings release, Marcus said its subscriber performance in recent weeks looked more like its disappointing fourth-quarter performance. He said the company could not predict whether the weakness will continue or provide a reason for the slowdown."

4/29/2009 8:58:23 AM

I am glad to say that I had a minuscule part in diminishing TWC subscriber base. Though I am sure they will blame it on the economy and not their pure suck.

...

How can anyone be defending TWC? This company, and other cable companies, have basically regulated the industry into regional monopolies. Greenlight wouldn't have been necessary if we had the ability to choose cable providers, which we don't.

4/30/2009 8:55:45 AM

TWC negotiated us into staying. For one year at $85 a month we now get HD digital cable w/DVR, plus showtime, plus RR Turbo. They also replaced our modem, which had been limiting us to 3.6mbps; now we have a full 10mbps and are happy!

TWC was simply the cheaper option, it seems. Although, in hindsight, even at $121 a month u-verse would have been cheaper if we decided to take their $250 cashback in three months and then promptly switched back to TWC after the check cleared. But that would not have seemed right to us.

4/30/2009 10:14:50 AM

New numbers out from TWC..

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/time-warner-cable-earnings-refute-download-cap-economics-again/

4/30/2009 12:25:19 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090430/ap_on_en_tv/us_disney_hulu;_ylt=AhP9gVXs236aagO.U0OPaEgjtBAF

so with all the networks coming to hulu, doesnt this put more pressure on time warner to meter since people will be viewing more gb of data than ever?

5/1/2009 2:09:56 AM

^ You would think, but considering that they aren't anywhere near their cap for bandwidth right now, and they don't seem to be moving that way with any speed, then I would think if they simply kept a good infrastructure upgrade schedule (which they apparently really don't want to do) then they would be able to stay ahead of a growth of online viewing.

5/1/2009 9:12:25 AM

Quote :

"if they simply kept a good infrastructure upgrade schedule (which they apparently really don't want to do) then they would be able to stay ahead of a growth of online viewing"

nail

head

hit

Quote :

"TWC negotiated us into staying. For one year at $85 a month we now get HD digital cable w/DVR, plus showtime, plus RR Turbo. They also replaced our modem, which had been limiting us to 3.6mbps; now we have a full 10mbps and are happy!"

how did you pull this off again?

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : s]

5/1/2009 12:34:09 PM

hah Yay I got one right.... World 27 Me 1

[Edited on May 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : ..]

5/1/2009 2:15:47 PM

not so much. twc doesn't give a shit about their infrastructure hitting capacity. they care about people canceling their cable in favor of just using streaming services.

5/1/2009 4:25:38 PM

True also, but I thought the last 9 pages of banter had made that much clear already. In the end it's always about profits and monopolies. They will only upgrade when they have too, they will charge you to death until then so they can upgrade without losing profit. Then they will tell you, well we wouldn't have had to if you didn't use it so much.

world keeps on spinning...

5/1/2009 4:38:57 PM

Quote :

"how did you pull this off again?"

It seems the trick is to schedule a disconnect and termination of service for a few days later while refusing whatever offer the low-paid peon offers that day. Then, a day or so latter someone will call asking to make a deal. I suspect it worked so well because we sincerely wanted to switch to U-Verse, so we kept refusing good deals until, finally, she made this one. Go figure. I'm sure it also depends on what the corporate managers deem willing to offer. It took here an hour playing with various corporate decrees to coble together this offer.

5/2/2009 11:10:28 AM

lol

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/TWC/630077980x0xS950144-09-3639/1377013/filing.pdf
http://www.consumersunion.org/blogs/hun/2009/04/now_hear_this_newsletter_april_3.html

Quote :

"• TWC’s revenues from broadband during the first three months of this year rose 11% percent over the first quarter of 2008, climbing from $994 million to $1.1 billion. • At the same time, TWC’s costs to provide broadband service to its customers dropped 18%, from $40 million to $33 million. That dramatic drop in costs came even though its number of subscribers grew from 7.9 million to 8.6 million. • Overall, TWC’s profits were down for the quarter, falling from $242 million to $164 million. But the company says the drop in profits was due mostly to restructuring costs rung up when it was spun off in March from its parent company, Time Warner."

"survive and prosper" my ass

5/10/2009 8:39:54 AM