Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | What a crock!
Why can't BellSouth be worried about speed increases and network improvements instead of one town in the middle of LA!!! They could have spent all of the PR money on upgrades. |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
 ·Charter Pipeline
| boy this is sickening
Damn the courts, build it anyway. What are they going to do, arrest the entire city for doing something that they LEGALLY can do?
Not to start a flame war, but I hope BellSouth burns for this...
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.»www.ind-music.com |
|
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK | They will, at least I hope they will. And they can't start on the project, the courts could throw contempt's at the project planners. |
|
Facekhan
join:2002-05-01
Gaithersburg, MD | They should
The City should just argue it can do what it wants it in its own jurisdiction, thats what they'd do if Bell South were having the City take some houses to give away to Bell South for a new collections dept. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Derch
Re: boy this is sickening
The appeals court went on to distinguish between a pledge and an assignment, then stated that the city ordinance fails to provide for a requirement of default before using residual revenues to repay the fiber bonds. That is prohibited, the court ruled.
Another violation of the Fair Competition Act occurs because the bond ordinance calls for five funds to handle money for the fiber project instead of a single fund as required by law, the appeal court ruled. Seems like simply outsourcing to somebodies 'bro-law would fix it eh? |
|
Humored
@204.62.x.x | reply to Derch
Look at the Big Picture
I wonder when SBC/ATT will try and buy BellSouth. Is BellSouth fighting this alone or do they have help? Something to think about. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| Bells wasting our money
Not only are the bells wasting the money we are paying, rather than upgrades they are suing to prevent competition.
This is BULLSHIT! plain and simple.
This is the definitions of monopolistic.
»www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mon···rket.asp
»www.investorwords.com/3111/monop···ion.html
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
»ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Int···omp.html
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mo···e+Search
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···G=Search
--
This is the Curse of Being a college graduate. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| reply to Derch
Re: What a crock!
said by Derch  :Why can't BellSouth be worried about speed increases and network improvements instead of one town in the middle of LA!!! They could have spent all of the PR money on upgrades. Government's fault. They've given these companies so much power and now it's biting them in the ass.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP!
LiveWhois.Net - It's Never Been So Easy!
RR.CX My Blog.. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to King P
Re: boy this is sickening
said by King P :Damn the courts, build it anyway. You don't have to damn the courts. You just need to impeach the judges and have them removed, use a recall election to get rid of them, or vote them out of office. I'm not sure what sort of relief the Louisiana constitution provides for this sort of situation.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
Drex
Beer..It's What's For Dinner
Premium
join:2000-02-24
La Place, LA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin :The appeals court went on to distinguish between a pledge and an assignment, then stated that the city ordinance fails to provide for a requirement of default before using residual revenues to repay the fiber bonds. That is prohibited, the court ruled.
Another violation of the Fair Competition Act occurs because the bond ordinance calls for five funds to handle money for the fiber project instead of a single fund as required by law, the appeal court ruled. Seems like simply outsourcing to somebodies 'bro-law would fix it eh? As long as that bro-in-law was a relative of a BS exec, then I'm sure it would be fine and dandy.
--
Eat My Fear |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Appeals court just protecting utility ratepayers
Not everyone in Lafayette voted to approve this deal. And the Appeals Court is just protecting the electric/water/gas ratepayers from having to subsidize the fiber project if it can't pay the interest on the bonds.
LUS' plans to use residual revenues from its other utilities divisions to repay the fiber bonds violates the cross-subsidization prohibition of the Local Government Fair Competition Act.
The appeals court, in Thursday's ruling, agreed with BellSouth, noting a clause in the state law that says the bonds "shall be secured and paid for solely from the revenues generated by the local government from providing the covered services." In effect the court is just making sure that the fiber project can pay its own way and not depend on income from other utilities to make up for losses.
Of course, Lafayette can change the bond ordinance to comply, but then they may have trouble finding a financial underwriter for the bonds. And that may mean they might not find buyers for the bonds if not cross subsidized.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Of course, Lafayette can change the bond ordinance to comply, but then they may have trouble finding a financial underwriter for the bonds. And that may mean they might not find buyers for the bonds if not cross subsidized.
Exactly.
And the voters democratically CHOOSE to the be cross-subsidized. The majority of individuals who voted, said yes.
BellSouth's continued attempts to subvert the muni-fiber project in the face of a city-wide vote are audacious. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by broadbander :Exactly. And the voters democratically CHOOSE to the be cross-subsidized. The majority of individuals who voted, said yes. Guess what. The courts protect minorities(and thwart democratic voting results all the time. E.G. numerous Calif propositions). I guess that when courts do that to advance civil rights for some minorities(like illegal immigrants) it is OK. But if they do that to protect ratepayers on the losing side of a vote, it isn't OK. Well that sword cuts both ways.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Derch
Re: What a crock!
said by Derch :Why can't BellSouth be worried about speed increases and network improvements instead of one town in the middle of LA!!! They could have spent all of the PR money on upgrades. Nah - the money Bellsouth spent is chump change to them.
Besides, the telcos aren't interested in making things better for their customers, they are more interested in crushing any potential competition.
That's what monopolies do. |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to broadbander
Re: Appeals court just protecting utility ratepayers
BS wanted a vote - they got a vote. The citizens voted YES FOR FIBER. They didn't like the results. One of the the arguments against the muni broadband project in Lafayette had been to let the people vote...They threw up how many lawsuits until they found one that finally stuck?! DISGUSTING!!!
I think Durel and Company should continue to fight against BS and their bs. It is clear BS wants no competition and wants their monopoly to remain unthreatened. It is also clear they could care less about the will of the people....um, their customers. Otherwise they would upgrade their plant, give people fiber, and lower their prices. They are unwilling to do that as well.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
That would be called legislating from the bench and it's a popular pastime of the modern judiciary.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| reply to Octopussy2
Re: Appeals court just protecting utility ratepaye
WE NEED serious reform before this gets any worse.
If 20 people were bribed by 2 guys and you multiply that by how many more people are in the house and senate.
This corruption probe will reach wider then just these folks mentioned so far.
--
This is the Curse of Being a college graduate. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Appeals court just protecting utility ratepayers
We need a loser pays system. Corporations like BS try to outspend their opponents with frivolous lawsuits until they find one that sticks. If they had to pay all court costs and opposing lawyer fees, PLUS penalties they may choose to avoid this tactic.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| reply to TKJunkMail
You must mean how bonding for a muni project is so awful like in Glasgow, KY? Right...that is so awful for those rate payers...they pay the lowest prices in the nation for cable TV service. And I could name muni projects all day that have benefitted the rate payer.
--
It's muni-licious! »www.tricitybroadband.com |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :We need a loser pays system. Corporations like BS try to outspend their opponents with frivolous lawsuits until they find one that sticks. If they had to pay all court costs and opposing lawyer fees, PLUS penalties they may choose to avoid this tactic. Actually a loser pays system favors big business and NOT the little guy. BS can afford to pay all costs if it loses. The little guy(who usually loses anyway) would not be able to risk bringing a case, if they knew they had to pick up the costs of BS as well.
Now a loser pays system would surely reduce the number of court cases, but big business would be the big winner under that system.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
