The Winston-Salem Journal weighs in on House Bill 129, which would place restrictions on municipal broadband:
The private providers are trying to make a big-government argument here, one that includes clichés about unfairness and Big Brother. But that is not the case. In this situation, residents and businesses are tired of waiting for Internet-service providers to arrive, so they’ve exercised their democratic rights to seek an alternative solution through their local governments.
If Wilson, Salisbury, Davidson and Mooresville hold referendums before building their broadband systems? If they did, I missed it. In fact, that was the point of Sen. David Hoyle’s bill that died in committee last year —to keep cities from going into debt to build broadband systems without voters’ consent.
The N&O has an op-ed from technology advocate Mark Turner opposing the bill. Interesting that Turner compares broadband to electricity, considering the fact that Wilson used $4 million from its electric utility fund to set up its Greenlight system, and more than likely will have to do so again to support the system.
So I guess the question is whether or not it is “unreasonable (and some say unconstitutional)” for the state to mandate that cities not pull from funds from core services to finance broadband systems?
Whatever you think the answer is, take three minutes to watch JLF’s Michael Sanera explain the boondoggle that is Wilson’s broadband system.
