dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed
« The Big Buysbs »
This is a sub-selection from Free for all


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to Matt3

Re: Free for all

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



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
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



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

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


TheKnossos

join:2003-05-14
Argyle, TX
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.



ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

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.



Dolgan
Premium
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.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
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.



coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·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


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
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


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

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


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

said by FFH:

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.
Absolutely. Citizens, through their elected representatives, have the power decide which services are provided by the city. We seem to have this perverse notion that economics trumps everything else. Capitalism is a means to an end not an end in an of itself.

Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise.

said by FFH:

You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry.
You know that is not true. The Auto Industry came to the government and asked for assistance. The government in turn set conditions on that assistance. I see no constitutional problem with that. No one is forcing GM to take government money.

/tom


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

said by tschmidt:

Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise.
Not in the United States. The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives. The founding fathers saw the danger of the tyranny of the masses(aka pure democracy) and setup a government that puts limits on the power of the majority to ramrod thru changes. The Constitution delineated rights that can NOT be removed by the will of the majority without going thru the cumbersome, time consuming, and excruciating process of amending the Constitution.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

said by FFH:

The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives.
What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens?

/tom


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by tschmidt:

said by FFH:

The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives.
What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens?

/tom
This particular msg thread started with this post:
»Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over.
quote:
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.

All the subsequent posts were based on refuting that poor argument.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting

1 recommendation

said by FFH:

This particular msg thread started with this post:
»Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over.
Sorry about that - I'm not following this thread as closely as you are. Missed that little tidbit.

Government has power of eminent domain but one hopes that power is used sparingly. As you posted the 5th amendment requires just compensation of confiscated property.

My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise. That private companies and only private companies are the one to decide how society operates. I reject that premise. Business operates at the pleasure of the people and is subservient to common good.

/tom


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to FFH

I have lived in places where the 'town' runs water (no charge for use - part of taxes), local landfill (again no charge for use, part of taxes), sports complex, dentist office, library, medical clinic and firehall.

As no individual or corporation has invested in these, and they are deemed necessary for the most part (corporations did give donations for the sports complex), does that mean that none of them should exist for lack of private investment ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North



ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

En Canadian eh?


buccaneere

join:2009-03-31
Snow Hill, NC

1 edit
reply to tschmidt

quote:
My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise.
Government (.gov) is NOT supposed to be in business (.com[mercial) .

Same as 'religion', which it is NOT to 'establish'.


ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

They're in everyone's business..



en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to ninjatutle

You bet, eh.



tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
reply to buccaneere

said by buccaneere:

Government is NOT supposed to be in business .
What does that mean?

If I understand you correctly Government should not be involved in Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, roads etc. All those services were once provided by private business. At some point people decided it was best to manage those activities for public good.

For years phone service was a highly regulated monopoly. Is it your opinion that was improper?

Who gets to set the rules of the game, private companies or elected officials?

/tom