| reply to batterup
Re: Big government, I'm here to help you. said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities?
Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law.
Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities? Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law. Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional. The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply. |
|
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by batterup: The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply. They did the same thing with the 55 mph speed limit.
While I don't particularly like the method employed here by Congress, and think it is more than just a bit of a Crisco coated slope, it may be necessary.
All in all, other than the potential for bad future karma, what harm does it cause if because of the bill, munis are able to create their networks in underserved areas? If the telcos or whomever in big-comm aren't willing to deploy then I don't see the harm in a muni project.
I see this as helping level the field a tad, but I do see the point and largely agree that the move has some Constitutional issues.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to batterup
said by batterup:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by batterup:What happened to state rights? Yes, I agree. Unless it is wireless, how do the Feds come in and regulate relations between states and local communities? Usually they do this by cutting off Fed $'s unless the state complies. Meaning the state loses some Federal money for broadband deployments unless they opt-in to the law. Unless that is the way they plan on getting compliance, this law sounds unconstitutional. The Feds wanted .08 as the blood alcohol limit. They did not pass a law but threatened to withhold highway funds if the states did not comply. yes back in the 80's the federal government did this to get states to raise the drinking age to 21. But answer this. How is the federal government withholding FEDERAL dollars encroaching on states rights? The dollars belong to the FEDERAL government they can give out the money or not any way they choose. Show me where in the Constitution that it says the states are entitled to ANY federal dollars. Also if a state takes FEDERAL dollars, show me how it is unconstituional for the federal government to dictate HOW those FEDERAL dollars are spent. It's their money.
If the states want to cry "states rights" then fine, then stop begging for federal money. If state and local governments didn't get federal money they have to raise taxes. This way they can get the money and keep local/state taxes lower and let the citeznes be all mad of the federal government for higher taxes. Nice little scam there. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by BF69:yes back in the 80's the federal government did this to get states to raise the drinking age to 21. But answer this. How is the federal government withholding FEDERAL dollars encroaching on states rights? I never said it was. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to GlobalMind
said by GlobalMind:All in all, other than the potential for bad future karma, what harm does it cause if because of the bill, munis are able to create their networks in underserved areas? If the telcos or whomever in big-comm aren't willing to deploy then I don't see the harm in a muni project. Take Pennsylvania for example. Verizon must provide DSL if 50 people agree to signe up for 1 year. This is any place in the state. Verizon did this because Pennsylvania passed a no municipal broadband except in Philadelphia law. Towns had one year to start broadband before the law took effect. A state should be able to make this type of deal if they chose. Municipalities will not serve the great unwashed and TPC surely won't without an incentive.
Why do you think government controlled, tax supported broadband is better then free enterprise? |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to BF69
it should be an option for states: don't want to be bossed around by the federal government? don't want to accept the money they bring in? then federal taxes collected in that state should be proportionally lower. otherwise, the state is being punished by being taxed at the same level AND not getting any benefit. |
|
GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | reply to batterup
said by batterup:Why do you think government controlled, tax supported broadband is better then free enterprise? I am not sure my point was clear. This isn't about locking out the free enterprise "market controlled" providers from providing service. The point is that if they refuse to, then the municipality should have the right to step up and provide their own. I see nothing wrong with that if the citizenry of that muni is OK with it. I would expect such a thing to go to a town vote before any policy moves forward.
However, the anti-muni contingent seems to think that this is always going to be some power grab by a government. I think such characterization on a broad scale is rather incorrect.
The telcos and other providers simply want to have it all their way, all the time, which is to say they'll decide whether or not to deploy and also they'll lobby for a legal device which makes the municipality entirely dependent on the telco, because they're forbidden from providing access themselves.
In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
|
|
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by GlobalMind:In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well. The DSL is provided by a business not the government. |
|
GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by batterup:said by GlobalMind:In the deal you mention, government interaction did in fact occur if a "deal" was reached by the state to say Verizon must provide service with x-number of guaranteed subs. That constitutes a government action, and government control as well. The DSL is provided by a business not the government. Correct but the "deal" was made such that it requires Verizon to act. Thus eliminating Verizon's "right" to select where it provides service. That is indeed government control of commerce.
The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area. If the aim in the PA deal was to have the state say "fine we won't try to offer any service" but in kind require Verizon to offer service, then the muni offering wouldn't be necessary.
So I say again, in a case where all of the commerical providers do not wish to offer service to a particular area then I see no issue with a muni project. If the project is there to undercut the commercial provider then yes I have an issue with that.
This is all a matter of intentions.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by GlobalMind:The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area. The towns will cherry pick and not provide service to rural areas. Keep up the good work 18th and dropping. |
|
GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by batterup:said by GlobalMind:The idea again, is not to compete with the likes of Verizon but rather to fill the gap left by them deciding to not serve a particular area. The towns will cherry pick and not provide service to rural areas. Keep up the good work 18th and dropping. Well we know Verizon would cherry pick unless forced to do otherwise, and you're saying the towns will too - presumably for the same reason as Verizon, because they can.
So it sounds like we're just all screwed.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Angus the IT Chap |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by GlobalMind: Well we know Verizon would cherry pick unless forced to do otherwise, and you're saying the towns will too - presumably for the same reason as Verizon, because they can. So it sounds like we're just all screwed. Yes, Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch. |
|
