| Free for all Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by ninjatutle:Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense. |
|
|
|
| Not here in Cali. Most cities also make it madatory for you to have garbage service with Waste Managment. I know someone with an empty house and they are forced to have service. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Matt
That depends on where you live.
Eg. I live in Santa Clarita - 'many' area trash haulers that are located ~ 10 miles from here are not allowed to service this area. Local licenses/agreements.
I think the local governments should have the ability to deploy muni broadband if telco/cableco do not wish to invest. Telco/Cableco has their own agenda at their corporate level, which may not ever meet a local cities wishes - they should not be held hostage, or tied to policies (list AT&T/TWC caps like in parts of Texas) if a municipality wishes to explore better options.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Ya I agree if a city wants to build its own broadband they should be able to
in any city that is underserved and/or has poor service (ie TW) they should not only be allowed to but encoraged to build their own system to properly compete to reach a good level of service |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle:Not here in Cali. Most cities also make it madatory for you to have garbage service with Waste Managment. I know someone with an empty house and they are forced to have service. So take it up with your state legislature. What does that have to do with this article about an anti-muni bill in North Carolina? |
|
| Because this is just the start of the govt trying to take over everything... |
|
gdicus
join:2009-02-15
Los Angeles, CA
1 edit | I have to agree.
The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects.
Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service.
Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service.
Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers.
So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access. |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by ninjatutle:Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense. A more appropriate example would be education.
Sure, you can go send your kid to a private school but you'll still end up paying the school taxes to fund union labor in public schools. |
|
| Vouchers? |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to DarkLogix
Just to make myself clear... I'm not pushing gov't run fiber/wifi over business. I'm stating that if a private run business either does not want to run a modern system, or just wants to provide the bare minimum and charge customers excessive fees, then the city should have the right to wire itself.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to DarkLogix
I agree as well.
I think cities/communities can decide what is best for their citizens better then the big telcos or state and federal governments.
Also, an individual has more sway with the local government then they do with the state/feds, so if something about the service needs to be improved it's more likely to get done. But if all else fails, it's easier to move to a different city then it is out of state or out of country. |
|
| What happens if the network is not profitable? Will they take funding from other sources? Will they even know what they are doing? Verizon a company with decades in the business can't get billing write, you think the govt will do better?
Letting the govt control the interweb? Go to China. Less govt is a good thing. |
|
DolganPremium
join:2005-10-01
Sun Prairie, WI | The reason they do not have the billing right is because the executives are too cheap to get the software fixed by their vendor, and too stupid to have in house software teams/developers. |
|
| reply to en102
The muni, city, and/or state should do it regardless of any reason if it's people vote for it to be done.
If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it. |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
 ·Windstream
| reply to ninjatutle
quote:
...Less govt is a good thing.
Actually that is what got us in the hole we are in now. What is needed is more competition...
Just a thought 
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| reply to en102
said by en102:Just to make myself clear... I'm not pushing gov't run fiber/wifi over business. I'm stating that if a private run business either does not want to run a modern system, or just wants to provide the bare minimum and charge customers excessive fees, then the city should have the right to wire itself. And the highlighted segment is entirely subjective. With a proviso like that the city gov't could decide to go against private companies on any pretext whatever. So, in effect, you say a city can decide to go in to any business it wants to because there would be no practical restrictions.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:The muni, city, and/or state should do it regardless of any reason if it's people vote for it to be done. If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it. You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry. The 5th Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the taking of private property(such as a business) from US citizens without just compensation. And that usually results in multi-year court cases where eminent domain is concerned.
5th Amendment
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to coldmoon
said by coldmoon: quote:
...Less govt is a good thing.
Actually that is what got us in the hole we are in now. What is needed is more competition... Just a thought Ah, so more government must be the answer. Let's nationalize every industry, and let the government run it all. Take all of our paycheck, and give us back what they think we need.
Big government, big business ... it is all the same.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to gdicus
said by gdicus:I have to agree. The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects. Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service. Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service. Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers. So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access. So you are saying the Librarian dictates what you can do from home? or just from the library?
Or if I read your post in a different way, how does providing limited service at a public facility that is (in most places) open for limited hours affecting what I assume was an attempt by you to be an internet provider? Either you provide such poor service each time that it was better to go to the library with the limited hours and time restrictions than to put up with your multiple attempts. I have not seen one library prohibit email, and I have used libraries in California, Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and one in Alberta over the last few years before I got a laptop.
Or the third option which looks more logical, the standard big business troll.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
