| Unfair competition ?? Of course it is unfair. All the taxpayers pay for/subsidize this service. Quest cannot subsidize their offering from the tax base. Now if the ALL the costs of the deployment do not come from any taxpayer funds or bonds I have no issue. As I have said many times, if this makes such good business sense and is a slam dunk for these communities, why don't the leaders quit and start their own business based on this model and not force taypayers (at the point of their freedom) to fund this. That is my basic concern is the forced nature of a government body funding anything. They get to use force to get their funding. Not to even mention the next obvious step is content control based on political whims of a government controlled service. I know many are "desperate" for better and higher speed services, but I for one am tired of my tax money being sent down a rat hole. Give me private company where I can fire them anytime. I think though that I am alone with this opinion. |
|
| Where do you get your information from? Municipal broadband is paid for by investors and NOT taxpayer money. The only time taxes would fall into if... and only if... the contract with the investors state that if the enterprise does is not able to pay back the investors within a set timeframe (5-10 years normally) then there is an OPTION to use taxpayer money to fit the bill IF such an action is voted on. |
|
| You know this to be true in all cases? I'm a doubting thomas and I doubt this is the case, in all cases. And since you cannot predict the future and I be confident in your prediction, and since there are no rules, bills, or laws to prevent this kind of operation, I doubt it will never happen. |
|
| It's true in all of the cases so far. Your right though. That doesn't mean someone will come in with a messed up way of doing it later. However I'm sure the Bells and Cablecos will have a heyday with their propaganda machine when that happens. Wow... telling the truth for once. |
|
