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

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

<channel>
<title>Re: Dumb Government in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20358628</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:03:04 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:03:04 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Dumb Government</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20359751</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  TKJunkMail <A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Politicians are incredibly deceptive. </div>I think you're being way too kind.  People in this country are conditioned to expect government to do just about everything.  Look at anyone running for public office.  All they do is make promises about what they are going to give to people.  Elections haven't been about electing people to get the government to do things that need to be done, but rather, deciding who can be the best at playing Santa Claus all year long.<br><br>If someone tries running on a platform of cutting most government spending to the bare, absolute minimum, he or she would get my vote, but that person would be creamed in any election against anyone else.<br><small>--<br>This isn't fair!  I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20359751</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:50:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Dumb Government</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20359354</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/594412"><b>TKJunkMail</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><small>said by  pnh102 <A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</small><br><br>Another day, another story about yet another failed municipal wireless venture that will require yet another taxpayer bailout.  It'd be nice to see states step in and ban local governments from getting into these sorts of agreements in the first place.<br> </div>Politicians are incredibly deceptive. They know that Metrofi can't go forward as is, but they make the demand so that their idiot voters think they are actually doing something. Populism at its finest.<br>&raquo;<A HREF="/shownews/MetroFi-Wireless-Network-Disappoints-Portland-93725#20358506">MetroFi Wireless Network Disappoints Portland</A><br><div class="bquote">Portland&#146;s current stance is that MetroFi should stick with its initial agreement and complete the network but there&#146;s no firm answer yet as to how the city will proceed.</div>And how can they expect a company to stick to an agreement that would bankrupt the company and end up with NO SERVICE at all. Did Metrofi screw up with their muni bids - no question about it. But making unreasonable, unenforceable demands does nothing for the city and its taxpayers.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20359354</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:56:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Dumb Government</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358775</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : The concept itself is sound... I just don't see why government should be involved in any way at all in terms of building and running the network.  If a company wants to risk its own assets to run such a network, then I say have at it.  But the government should not and must not be expected to bail out a failed project, especially when it has a proven track record of failure.<br><br>Come to think of it, I wonder what would happen if Bear Stearns decided to get into the municipal wifi racket.<br><small>--<br>This isn't fair!  I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358775</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:13:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: Dumb Government</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358628</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/639017"><b>halfband</b></A> : Ad supported wifi was one of those heavily hyped ideas that sounds really good on paper.  Who wouldn't like free build-outs and free internet access in a city.  The reality is  if the model makes sense at all, it requires a very smart and efficient company to execute it.  The government entities that  made the decision on who to go with didn't look for efficient companies, they looked for the ones that made the most promises. <br><small>--<br>Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358628</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:33:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Dumb Government</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358506</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/625141"><b>pnh102</b></A> : Another day, another story about yet another failed municipal wireless venture that will require yet another taxpayer bailout.  It'd be nice to see states step in and ban local governments from getting into these sorts of agreements in the first place.<br><small>--<br>This isn't fair!  I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20358506</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:56:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
