<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Great in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19376890</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:52:25 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:52:25 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Great</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19377328</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1236971"><b>amigo_boy</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  KoolMoe <A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Unfortunately these days, there are so many issues voters feel more important, such a thing is likely not a major factor, </div>Worse, most people don't care about anything. Around 50% are registered voters. And, usually half of them turn out to vote. Most people don't care. If they can buy the latest video game, large screen teevee, next year's SUV, etc., they're happy. Issues tend to be resolved by the extremes. <br><br>That's why political polls always crack me up. Why ask someone who doesn't vote what they think?<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19377328</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:34:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Great</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19376890</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : It's actually, IMO, unfortunate it's come to this. IDEALLY, if your state legislature is bought-off as you suggest and the citizens don't like it, vote in representatives who will overturn the ban.<br>Unfortunately these days, there are so many issues voters feel more important, such a thing is likely not a major factor, so such incumbent payoffs go without penalty...so maybe this type of federal legislation is sadly needed.<br>KM]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19376890</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:53:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Great</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19376566</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/908026"><b>PDXPLT</b></A> : State-level muni bans need to be lifted.  Clearly there are instances of what economists call "market failure" in broaband deployment - communities that have none, and where all the local incumbents have stated they have no plans to deploy (e.g., in my county, Verizon has told the two poorest cities that they aren't going to get FIOS).<br><br>In that case, why shouldn't the communities be able to do that themselves, if the majority want to?  It's called democracy, baby.  Why should those people be prevented from doing so, just because the telco can bribe the state legislature, because they think that they may want to deploy in that area in 50-75 years from now?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19376566</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:44:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
