rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
1 edit | Who pays for Muni
I object to taxpayer funded muni wi-fi since politicians can screw it up and screw taxpayers for $$$ that never wanted to spend on it in the first place.
I can see a bond issue for a separate non-profit company, but not a gov't operation. Even then it should be commercial.
In fact, I even think sports teams should pay for their own stadiums unless it is proven the city and state will reap a fortune. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Learned What?
What exactly did Verizon learn? When you have an incompetent, ineffective and useless local government which can't even fulfill its existing mandate, all you have to do is nothing and the effort fails on its own?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to rachelsfx
Re: Who pays for Muni
Not all muni-broadband projects are tax based but that doesn't stop them from being treated equally with all other municipal projects.
The end goal for all non-government broadband providers is to make sure there isn't ANY competition, not to eliminate supposed unfair competition. The existence of a true free market would be the beginning of their demise and that means no money to stuff in the pockets of people just waiting to get money and doing nothing else (aka investors).
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00" |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to rachelsfx
said by rachelsfx  :In fact, I even think sports teams should pay for their own stadiums unless it is proven the city and state will reap a fortune. I agree. It should be in the contract: we give you x tax incentives for that new stadium that you must have and the city/state will receive x*2 tax receipts from it. Else, you owe x tax incentives plus 25% interest. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to rachelsfx
You object to a town providing services it's citizens deem appropriate and necessary? If the citizens of the town VOTE for a muni broadband project, then it should happen. Just because YOU don't think it's appropriate, doesn't mean you are in the right, or hell, even in the majority.
The fact that it's NOT commercial is a huge benefit. The town doesn't have to support the fat cat republican stock holders. The town only answers to it's citizens. Verizon is too greedy to recognize that, but the politicians who aren't corrupt realize that muni broadband is a GOOD THING. I pay 35.00/month to my town for 10/10 symmetrical broadband via FTTH via the local power company. And guess what, my broadband experiences are MUCH better than your lame 768/128k DSL. And I pay about the same for 50 times your speed.
That only happens because my TOWN cares about me. Sure, I pay higher taxes, but I pay it to my TOWN instead of the fat cats. And that's a winning strategy EVERYONE should appreciate. |
|
bjack
join:2006-01-30
Reading, MA
| Fat cats? republican stock holders? What chat thread are you on... this has to do with the history of economics. Innovation and future technologies are stronger and more effective when left to the private sector. Stop whining about politicians and stockholders - the private sector is where the majority of tax dollars come from, not your local property tax.
By the way - DSL is 3 megs or 768 k (for less than $20/month) - so your service is about 3 times faster, and 3 meg DSL cost's $25/month in most places these days. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :You object to a town providing services it's citizens deem appropriate and necessary? If the citizens of the town VOTE for a muni broadband project, then it should happen. So if a majority of people vote that taxpayer money should be used to buy everyone in town a Bentley or a Rolls Royce you would also be on board with it?
I'm not sure about Boston, but Philadelphia has experienced a marked increase in overall crime, especially murder in the past 2 years. So much so that some residents are calling for the Mayor to declare a state of emergency to deal with the problem.
But thankfully, the remaining survivors in the city will have free wireless broadband. Come to think of it, how will they be able to use this service? Surely those who cannot afford conventional broadband also cannot afford computers needed to use it. I guess the city will just buy everyone a laptop as well.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by pnh102 :So if a majority of people vote that taxpayer money should be used to buy everyone in town a Bentley or a Rolls Royce you would also be on board with it? Absolutely.
The purpose of a vote is to do as the majority favors and in most places anything that increases taxes requires a 60% of 2/3 majority vote.
Most of you anti-municipal broadband people are essentially saying you don't support a municipality providing or investing in new ways to offset taxes or expenses. I know the thought of wasteful government upsets most but I really can't see how the individual paying more to a business rather than paying that money to the local government benefits the community or the individuals at all. Also you're saying that for some magic reason a business can be successful where the government can't be at doing the _same_exact_thing_.
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00" |
|
paulkruger
join:2006-07-27
Interlachen, FL
·Comcast
| reply to firephoto
As an agent I submitted a proposal to my city for Wi-Fi. The city made it clear they did NOT want to be in the wi-fi business but they did want wi-fi to enhance their down town. Their proposal was to provide up front cash to us as incentive to install the network. We would bill customer for use. The city did not want anything in return other than the availability of the wi-fi and some free accounts for city officials and police to use. City owned the power company and poles so they were even providing free electricity.
This is the way it should be because the tax payer basically pays very little ( seed money and a few watts of electricity. ) Wi_Fi is there for those who want to pay for it and the city gets braging rights for a one-time modest chunk of change. In this case all of $25,000. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto :Most of you anti-municipal broadband people are essentially saying you don't support a municipality providing or investing in new ways to offset taxes or expenses. But the fact remains that no government provided broadband service is cost-free. In just about every situation, tax money is used, or user fees from other government provided services are used to pay for part of the cost. Governments also do not have to pay taxes the way private entities do. This then allows the government to "sell" the service at a cost that is less than what a private company could offer. If anything, this could end up discouraging private investment.
said by firephoto :Also you're saying that for some magic reason a business can be successful where the government can't be at doing the _same_exact_thing_. In the case of Philadelphia, we have a city government that cannot even keep its citizens safe from crime, provide good schools, or keep fire stations open. Even if government-provided broadband was a good thing, is this the kind of government that should be running it?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Leod
join:2005-11-07
Baton Rouge, LA
| reply to pnh102
Crime isn't a simple problem to combat and yes, broadband access could very well help in a 2nd/3rd/4th-hand fashion. It may or may not be as important as providing good education and opportunity for people but it does improve quality of living and could attract new opportunities which can blah blah blah blah etc. etc.
I'm sure you get the line of thought and I would have imagine that they would have done something as simple as a cost benefit ratio (among other things) and the people there determined that it is something that would help the community overall. Crime isn't as easily solved as hire more cops or place better teachers into schools or whatever you were trying to imply by bringing violent crimes into a disccusion about broadband. You can disagree all you like about the effectiveness of munibroadband but I'd imagine we should stick to the subject instead of dissecting the social problem of crime. |
|
disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC
| How about free enterprise as a barrier to entry?
So the issue is around carriers using public sector laws as a barrier to entry to keep the public sector out. Wouldn’t it be more emphatic if the carriers did things the free-enterprise way, which is to invest, offer service, and leverage their assets as a barrier to entry? For example, use their brand, marketing, infrastructure, efficiencies, etc, and thereby make it plainly obvious to the munis that there’s no need for them to do the same?
Munis should be able to fill in gaps that private sector doesn’t want to. It’s up to the citizens (not just tax payers) to decide which gaps make most sense to fill in.
Personally, I wouldn’t have broadband access at the top of that list. I want my “muni” focusing on ol’ fashion things like schools, the safety net for the poor, and other things that keep us in each other's welfare. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Leod
Re: Who pays for Muni
said by Leod :You can disagree all you like about the effectiveness of munibroadband but I'd imagine we should stick to the subject instead of dissecting the social problem of crime. Crime, and every other social problem that a city government is supposed deal with, is fully pertinent to this discussion because it is that same government that has decided to become a broadband ISP. It is undisputed that the city of Philadelphia is in no way, shape or form performing the job that a municipal government should be doing. How is it logical then for that city to be involved in any sort of fashion with broadband?
That would be like seeing a worker in an auto factory who doesn't use the tools right, damages product and never gets anything done correctly and putting that individual in charge of HR.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | reply to paulkruger
So the tax payer takes the risk (seed money) and cedes the profits? Nice way to fund your business, if you can get it. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to pnh102
"That would be like seeing a worker in an auto factory who doesn't use the tools right, damages product and never gets anything done correctly and putting that individual in charge of HR."
What exactly are you trying to say. Are you saying BECAUSE it's the government, they can't do it right? I dispute your assertation. My local town (taunton, MA) provides muni electricy, and muni broadband (10/10) for 35.00/month. That's like having an auto worker who does his job right, and makes 25.00/hr, and makes the cars perfectly and cost effectively. And no, the auto worker isn't in charge of HR, because he's not an HR person.
My town is GREAT. I pay LESS for electricity than 1 town over (which uses NSTAR, which has rates 25-40% higher. I pay LESS than 65.00/month for 4/384 which comcast charges. All in all, the benefits my town provides me makes it a GREAT place to live, and the FTTH has dramatically increaased property values (average home sales was 445,000 last year). |
|
senatedon
join:2002-03-18
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
·Comcast
| I'll keep posting this...
As long as Karl keeps posting disinformation:
This statement is simply not true and I have explained to Karl and to this forum many times that the provision in HB30 for a ROFR on muni broadband was advanced by Sprint, and not Verizon.
Because Philadelphia is in VZ's territory, VZ got the bulk of negative publicity. But make no mistake, as one who was central to writing this legislation, I can tell you without hesitation that the section on muni projects was advanced by Sprint and not VZ.
I hope that Karl will once and for all accept this and quit the revisionist history making and speculation that could only come from someone who wasn't there when it was being done in the first place. |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
| Who is going to do the work?
I doubt that the mayor and city council are going to put on a toolbelt to install the service themselves. They are going to contract with another provider to do the work. That's why earthlink and sprint are such big proponents of muni-wifi projects.
The easiest way to 'attract' new customers is to pass a law law mandating that everyone in an area pay for the service. Companies like Earthlink and Sprint can even forego the investment risk by negotiating that the city pay installation costs up-front. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to rachelsfx
Re: Who pays for Muni
said by rachelsfx :In fact, I even think sports teams should pay for their own stadiums unless it is proven the city and state will reap a fortune. This sounds good, but having the sports team own the stadium can be a very bad thing and nearly impossible to do legally. The legal problems arise because stadiums need to be built on public land for a range of reasons, and in many states this means that the stadium must be open to use by anyone who pays the appropriate fee. As well, the stadium must be used in the public interest, which normally legally precludes selling the stadium to a sports team.
Sports stadiums spawned a wide range of lawsuits through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Non-profit wi-fi is not seeing the same types of lawsuits, but the arguments could be fairly similar. Given the relatively small percentage of the population that owns computers with wi-fi access, it would probably be an easy case to shutdown a city sanction non-profit owned wi-fi if push came to shove. Shutting down a city owned wi-fi would be much more difficult.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
4 edits | reply to karlmarx
Well with a screen name like karlmarx, your remarkx (pun intended) are hardly surprising.
I won't try to convince our resident socialist, but for the benefit of others, the "people want it so it should be so" argument has been used in the past to justify slavery, displacing American Indians, genocide, military takeovers of governments (cous), and a lot of other nasty things. So just because "the people want it" doesn't make it right and good.
I'm sure Mr. karlmarx would change his tune if a majority of his neighbors voted to make him paint his house purple with pink polka dots and walk around town in drag with a cowbell around his neck and a "Kick me I'm a commie" sign on his rear end.
As for ethics, does anyone besides karl really believe the average politician is more honest than the average business CEO? Rich people invest in new ventures. Rich people build factories and shopping malls. Factories and shopping malls need employees. No poor man ever gave me a job. Furthermore, I never met a poor man who would turn down the opportunity to be rich. I work for a multi-multi-billion dollar international corporation and am grateful for the chance to collect a paycheck. I also own stock in this company and have done very well with it. I hope to be rich someday myself so people like karl don't have to support me or my family.
Muni-broadband is just a lazy, state-run communist entity. Unlike the private sector, public projects have no incentive to be efficient and fiscally responsible because they have an income no matter what. Private business does not enjoy this luxury. They must turn a profit or go out of business.
mocycler |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| reply to marigolds
Miami seemed to have no problems with the private stadium for the Dolphins. 
If the city or state funds a stadium, teams should be locked in a 20+ year deal and be on the hook for failure (including crippling strikes because rich owners and rich players bitch over making $15 million a year vs. $16.5 million a year).
Now, since the Yankees can pay $20 mil for Jeter and $225 mil for Arod and $16 mil for Mussina and $13 mil for Joe Torre, why can't Georgie S. build a stadium and quit griping about parking?
By the way, the Yanks lost due to lousy pitching not ARod's failures. Personally, I think firing George S. would be better for the Yanks than anything else. |
|
