openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Dominokat
Re: Playing field
It levels the field in the sense that semi-bottomless government treasuries will now have to compete equally with for-profit corporations. Seems fair to me.instead of setting a four-year time table for being cash-flow positive for a project, the bill now says it must be in “such time to be consistent with commercial practices for similar projects.” |
|
Dominokat
"Hi"
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
clubs:
1 edit | Who wins if everyone sues their competitor?
Not the consumer. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | This isn't about suing. It's about a law that should minimize the need of the corporations to sue the munis. Besides, don't make the mistake that this has ever been about the consumer. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | You are saying community broadband isn't about the consumer? If not, WTF is?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to openbox9
There is nothing more absurd than an incumbent preaching about fairness and level playing fields. Fairness has squat to do with the economy anyway, as we are constantly reminded by the defenders of the status quo.
There is no reason why a government provided service should have to compete on the terms of a for profit corporation. The corporation's agenda is to maximize profit for the owners. It has no sense of social obligations, the needs of the larger community or its effects on those outside itself. The government's agenda is not private and for profit and it has no obligation to play by the rules of for profit corporate operation. A key concern, in cases like this, is to fill in the gaps in infrastructure that result from the operations of the market. It is silly to demand that it do this by replicating the logic of corporate market behavior. |
|
Kakalaky
Premium
join:2003-04-04
Broken Arrow, OK | reply to openbox9
NC has to have a balanced budget since the balanced budget act of 1997. We don't have semi-bottomless government treasuries. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to ieolus
No, I was referring to Domino's comment about the consumer winning if everyone sues their competitors. As to WTF is? Very little. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Kakalaky
The point is the government has less (no?) tax implication, can take on debt easier, and generally has no fear of going bankrupt. |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to asdfdfdfdf
For those who say this is unfair consider this: A profit seeking enterprise has every incentive to subvert and destroy competition and attain market control to maximize and sustain it's advantage. A government service, driven by a different logic, has no such agenda and can happily coexist with others. The more you drive government to abide by the logic of the for profits, the more you motivate them to destroy what then become their competitors.
Munis do not view verizon and ATT as competitors to be attacked. It is the incumbents that view munis as competitors. Forcing all operations to abide by the same conditions will force all operations to behave in the same aggressive way towards others. This not only undermines the very purpose of government intervention with respect to the public and consumer, but also makes them a GREATER threat to the incumbents because they then have no choice but to view the existence of the incumbents as a danger to be aggressively contained. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9  :It levels the field in the sense that semi-bottomless government treasuries will now have to compete equally with for-profit corporations. Seems fair to me. Excuse me, town 'X' of say, 5,000, has more money for broadband deployment (and the lawsuits) than the big telcos/cable?  |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :The point is the government has less (no?) tax implication, can take on debt easier, and generally has no fear of going bankrupt. And that matters because.......?
Let's keep one thing straight here as you continue to try to defend a monopolistic anticonsumer industry. The muni project, wouldn't be a muni project if the industry you are trying to defend was doing their job in the first place. If they arent providing the services wanted/needed in an area in a timely fashion of those there because of their own greedy reasons, then it is every citizens right there to bring it there themselves using government intervention if they so choose. If the incumbents are worried about it then they can A.) Bring the services wanted before the muni does B.) Compete with the muni the best they can for failing to come to market whne they should of or finally C.) Pack up shop and get the hell out.
I personally would say C. as they have had plenty of time to bring the services. They have choose not to so screw em, make them go. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by Skippy25 :Let's keep one thing straight here as you continue to try to defend a monopolistic anticonsumer industry. Lets keep another thing straight here as well. I'm not defending monopolistic or anti-consumer industries.said by Skippy25 :Compete with the muni the best they can for failing to come to market whne they should of And therein lies the rub for this whole conversation. Potentially unfair competition between public and private entities. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jslik
The town does if they want to. If a town wants to bring another industry into their municipality, they will raise taxes, float bonds (which most likely will lead to raised taxes), transfer funding from another line item, etc. While private industry can do some of that, they will eventually have to turn a profit or they will cease to exist. A municipality on the other, may never have to be profitable, or even break even. They'll cover the loss by raising taxes. |
|
jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
clubs:
| There are quite definite and very finite limits for most cities in raising taxes to cover these ventures, especially for small towns. You honestly think the AT&Ts of the world couldn't handle, say a $1,000,000 loss better than a town of 5,000? I guarantee you a loss like that would bankrupt most small towns. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| I have no doubt that AT&T could absorb a $1M loss a lot easier than a town of 5K, but that's not the real issue. Just because AT&T is a multi-billion dollar corporation doesn't mean they should eat a loss or have to try to unfairly compete against a competitor that is able to conduct business. If municipalities want to get into business, then they should compete on equal footing with other businesses. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :It levels the field in the sense that semi-bottomless government treasuries will now have to compete equally with for-profit corporations. Seems fair to me. instead of setting a four-year time table for being cash-flow positive for a project, the bill now says it must be in “such time to be consistent with commercial practices for similar projects.” The irony being that similar commerical projects seem to come nowhere close to cash-flow positive within four years. 
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :The town does if they want to. If a town wants to bring another industry into their municipality, they will raise taxes, float bonds (which most likely will lead to raised taxes), transfer funding from another line item, etc. While private industry can do some of that, they will eventually have to turn a profit or they will cease to exist. A municipality on the other, may never have to be profitable, or even break even. They'll cover the loss by raising taxes. Municipal bond issues are far from limitless. They are actually more restricted then commercial bonds.
As well, a town cannot raise taxes at will; only the state (normally the office of the secretary of state) can approve such an increase and the increase still has to go to a vote. There is a very real cap on how much tax a city can raise.
Same thing with the line item transfering. You can transfer between line items in the same fund, but you cannot transfer from line items in a different fund. Which means, as far as funding something like a broadband utility, there would be no way to gain funding by transferring line items.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to marigolds
Maybe that's why the verbiage in the proposed law was changed from "four-year time table" to "consistent with commercial practices". |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to openbox9
Yes you are, or are you denying that the telco and cable companies are monopolistic and anti-consumer?
No rub, they have had enough time to bring it to market and have chosen not to. Therefore, their competition is only competition (fairly or not) because of their own poor choice. If they don't think they can compete, then they should beat them to market and not have to worry about it. But instead of bringing it to market they choose to whine, complain, sue, and do nothing. So as I said, C above: Screw em, they can leave and let another company or the government (at the citizens choice) provide the service they dont want to provide. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by Skippy25 :Yes you are, or are you denying that the telco and cable companies are monopolistic and anti-consumer? Even if I had said that I supported the cable companies and telcos (which I didn't, I support equality in competition between private and public if private really wants to enter a marketplace), calling them monopolistic in today's world is off-base and a stretch in a lot of markets. As for anti-consumer, show me a profit-based industry that is pro-consumer. Or maybe that is your stance, that the only pro-consumer force out there is government and their municipalities. |
|
