D-Day for Municipals

this sure is a large amount of people and businesses competing in this. im really glad to see all the support for this and kepp on thinking about the term, Majority Rules. the FCC has put restrictions on us for way to long and its about time some 1 actually beat the fcc.

It always amazes me how legal disputes can turn on the slightest of phrases. To you and I, "any entity" means just that: ANYBODY.

Of course our local bell and cable providers don't see it that way. I sincerely hope the Municipalities win.

Do you all see a particular trend coming into view here? All sorts of people are tired of being lorded over (for lack of a better term) by entrenched political and corporate oligarchs. The Bells vs. Municipalities battle is yet another symptom of us regular folks (in this case, Municipalities and those who want to help them) saying that we aren't taking it anymore.

Good for them!

gp

What's amazing, is that it takes the cumulative centuries of legal expertise between 9 Supreme Court justices, to settle what any child could clearly identify as nothing more than big business buying themselves mercenary legislators, both at the local and national levels. We're sorely in need of a new Teddy Roosevelt.

Does anyone know exactly when the SC is supposed to hear this? I couldn't find that in the article (sorry if I've missed it). Thanks.

You would think "ANY" is clear for most people. Well, it seems not so simple for some.

Note: this is not a bell shill post or anything just a general question

Would they have to play by the same rules the business does already?? Ya know share lines and such.. I would imagine with any communications business(and yes police department radio towers have to still obey the FCC) still have to obey the FCC guidelines in regards to competition?? I would think just because a local goverment provides the service they have to...

Until they start to use tax money for funding either the start up or to keep operations afloat......I really don't want my tax money used for it...who knows it may cause a tax increase locally??????????

What are you talking about? This is all about municipal provided broadband. They normally sell bonds to fund the projects start-up and operating costs for the first few years. I'm not sure when your tax dollars would come into play.

Then they could screw whom they gave access to............hmmm

said by tazman69:

---

I'm not sure when your tax dollars would come into play.

---

Tax Dollars come into play, because that is where the guarantee on the bonds comes from. The Municipal government guarantees that the principal & interest on the bonds will be paid; and the credit rating of the local government is used to get the good interest rate on the bonds. The value of these bonds is also counted against the total credit limit of the municipal government concerned.

said by ravital:

---

Does anyone know exactly when the SC is supposed to hear this? I couldn't find that in the article (sorry if I've missed it). Thanks.

---

The SC is not hearing it! Until one of the parties involved the two referenced court cases (Eighth Circuit and the DC Circuit), appeals to the SC; the SC will not get involved. Also, just because you appeal to the SC; it does not mean the SC will hear the appeal. The SC receives far more appeals than it can ever handle; so they have to pick & choose which cases they will actually hear & rule on. The effect can still be the same. If an appeal is filed with the SC, and it is not accepted for hearing; that effectively affirms the findings of the lower court. All of this is done on the public record and is reported in the public media.

said by woody7:

---

Then they could screw whom they gave access to............hmmm

---

Keep in mind and I have spoke to a few covad techs, they are still allowed in C.O.'s and in thier cages. Just like ASI is. Trust me I talked briefly (about the time I was hired at SBC) to a covad tech and he was in the C.O. before ASI became seperate on the day in may..

At some point when they start to fail as a business.....they just might hit up the general funds (hence tax's). where I am for an example the county runs an amusement park called Playland in Rye NY......This park is not self sufficient they are in fact subsidized by county tax's.

Exactly why the big boys dont want munis. they know their service sucks and is too expensive for what you get. given a choice, anyone with half a brain would go with the muni's.

said by mjcrocket:

---

said by tazman69:

---

I'm not sure when your tax dollars would come into play.

---

Tax Dollars come into play, because that is where the guarantee on the bonds comes from. The Municipal government guarantees that the principal & interest on the bonds will be paid; and the credit rating of the local government is used to get the good interest rate on the bonds. The value of these bonds is also counted against the total credit limit of the municipal government concerned.

---

That is only true with General Obligation bonds. Many municipal governments fund it with Revenue bonds, which cost absolutely not one penny in tax money. Not one red cent.

However, when the project is a success, it means the municipal government can direct money earned from the project to other purposes, like a property tax abatement or a reduction in other fees, which benefits everyone, whether they subscribe to the service or not.

So taxpayers lose nothing, and in many cases, benefit from something without having invested in it.

fortunatly most muni's are profitable and totally self-sufficient.

That is good news then !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before I go any further: do you go to vote? If not, you should can it and take your comments somewhere else! Why? We elect our government (don't start with your retarded illuminati crap and how everything is already predetermined), there for government represents us (at least the ones who voted). What am I leading to? All municipalities should be allowed to start any ventures as long as :
1. Majority of citizens support the venture
2. Profits go back into community to provide additional money to schools and other badly underfunded areas (not mayor's new car or new offices for the government in lucrative properties)
Look at Native Americans, they got their casinos and so on and they pump back all that money into their communities ontop of the fact that things they provide make their own quality of life better. Think about it this way (and I know I will piss off HAMs who majority of I have no love for), communities who are underserved by communications giants should have every right to use every technology to get the services, it should not matter if it is BPL or anything else. It is a fact that kids and young adults have a higher chance to be successful if they are given best communications, education, and other good things that come with strong public/private services.
So, grab your ID an go register to vote. Once you get your voice heard, start bitching or supporting.

Worried that a muni operation might cause a tax increase?
Consider this. A small community with just 5000 phone lines sends $2,400,000/yr out of the local economy to the national telco.

$40/mo * 12 mo * 5000 customers = 2,400,000

This money leaves the local community, never to be seen again. Obviously, a muni operation will keep a portion of that to be used locally.

So the question is do you want to contribute to angry Ed's obscene bonus or keep the money local?

said by ravital:

---

said by mjcrocket:

---

said by tazman69:

---

I'm not sure when your tax dollars would come into play.

---

Tax Dollars come into play, because that is where the guarantee on the bonds comes from. The Municipal government guarantees that the principal & interest on the bonds will be paid; and the credit rating of the local government is used to get the good interest rate on the bonds. The value of these bonds is also counted against the total credit limit of the municipal government concerned.

---

blah, blah, blah...However, when the project is a success, it means the municipal government can direct money earned from the project to other purposes, like a property tax abatement or a reduction in other fees, which benefits everyone, whether they subscribe to the service or not.

---

Nice spin. Not only will they not "re-direct" profits, you can be damn sure that eventually it will be a source adding to the coffers.

Way back when, when I lived up in Northern California, they told us that the 15 cent toll to cross the Bay Bridge would go away after 5 years....Today they charge $2.00 and there's 6 Billion in new bonds for the new bridge. What do you think the new toll will be?

On the surface, Muni-Networks have a grass-roots sort of appeal. I just don't think that muni's understand the continual costs and technological risks associated with building/running/maintaining a fiber network.

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I say let private investment build it.

HJ

Why should those who regulate the MSO's and Telco's be allowed to compete with them?

Unfair playing field isn't it? We already have city run utilities where I am (Water/sewer/electricity) so they own the poles. Would the city than be able to bypass the pole hanging fee's?

I'm not totally against the idea of municipalities operating a cable/broadband network, however I'm not sure if the playing field is level. If their is not cable operator in a town, by all means...go to it.

I would think if the city owned the poles the city would be able to bypass the fees-they pay already for pole maintance, right?

I'm sure the city would have to pay if they had to use other poles they don't pay for and some other entity does-just like that other entity would pay the city for usage of city owned poles.

I'm sure if a municipal system used city poles they would probably use part of the municipal systems budget to charge a small fee-to go into another account for pole maintance.

said by pit_viper:

---

Why should those who regulate the MSO's and Telco's be allowed to compete with them?

Unfair playing field isn't it? We already have city run utilities where I am (Water/sewer/electricity) so they own the poles. Would the city than be able to bypass the pole hanging fee's?

I'm not totally against the idea of municipalities operating a cable/broadband network, however I'm not sure if the playing field is level. If their is not cable operator in a town, by all means...go to it.

---

As I understand it, very few munis are doing their own installs, and they are, in general, doing so because they are not served by any incumbent service provider. It does not seem to me in this case that there is any concern over a "level playing field", since there is no existing service against which the muni would compete, fairly or otherwise. Have I missed something?

said by highjinx:

---

Until someone convinces me otherwise, I say let private investment build it.

HJ

---

Nice spin, but that is exactly what Revenue Bonds are, private investment. Private investors take all the risk. Really.

said by David:

---

Would they have to play by the same rules the business does already?? Ya know share lines and such.. I would imagine with any communications business(and yes police department radio towers have to still obey the FCC) still have to obey the FCC guidelines in regards to competition?? I would think just because a local goverment provides the service they have to...

---

Right now, telcos mostly have to share lines, while cablecos mostly don't have to share lines.

I would expect muni operations would have to obey the rules for cablecos. In terms of network architecture and the types of services offered, a muni operation is likely to be more similar to a cableco than a telco. Legally, a muni operation is very much like a cableco. A cableco operates under a franchise agreement with the local government, and therefore a cableco is, in a sense, a creation of the local government. A muni operation is also a creation of the local government, just with a different ownership structure.

As a practical matter, I think muni operations are much more likely to permit sharing than any of the cablecos. A muni operator doesn't own any television channels, production companies, music labels, and such; and therefore it has no economic incentive to steer customers to its own offerings and block out others.

said by ravital:

---

That is only true with General Obligation bonds. Many municipal governments fund it with Revenue bonds, which cost absolutely not one penny in tax money. Not one red cent.

---

Simply not true. There's no way to fund a municipally-owned broadband system from revenues that don't yet exist, & for which there is no history upon which to project a ramp-up in revenues to support debt issued.

Earlier comment was correct. Only way bond issue can be floated is by municipality or other agency such as a municipally-owned power utility to secure bond issue with revenues from other sources that presently exist & can be relied upon w/reasonable certainty over time to pay debt service until revenues from broadband project materialize.

said by lml2000:

---

Simply not true. There's no way to fund a municipally-owned broadband system from revenues that don't yet exist, & for which there is no history upon which to project a ramp-up in revenues to support debt issued.

---

Simply yes true, and I'm not going to waste my time here explaining what Revenue Bonds are and how they work. The fact is that they are issued by municipalities to private investors without the guarantee of tax revenues, as "General Obligation" or "GO" bonds would be. I'm not going to waste my time explaining that, when a simple google search will give you plenty of sources for better information. And I'm not going to waste my time attempting to convince anyone who refuses to be convinced, that these municipal networks always turn up the reveue they need to come up with, when more than 500 municipaliities have done it with great success. I'm not wasting my time pointing to facts that are well documented elsewhere. If you don't want to be presueaded, that's your business.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the case; the briefs referred to in the article were a result of that. Oral arguments by the actual parties (State of MO arguing against, Missouri Muni League arguing in favor of preempting state law to permit muni telecom) are scheduled for January. Decision likely will be released next summer. It's an odd picture, in that the State is arguing against its own citizens being provided service in order to protect its sovereignty vis-a-vis the federal government. Meanwhile, in order to protect its prior decision, the FCC has to argue against its own authority to preempt state law -- which is why it hasn't been too active in the case.

ciad, that's good info, thanks, and welcome