| reply to AMDUSER
Re: Maine should takeover.. said by AMDUSER:Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint violated the states conditions for approval of the sale. Also, pay have another company [ie TDS Telecom] take over the phone systems run by Fairpoint. LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. And what makes you think TDS Telecom could afford to buy them?
Even if they could buy them with loans from investment firms, what makes you think that TDS Telecom would do any better in running the service than Fairpoint has? They are even a smaller outfit than Fairpoint.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AMDUSER:Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint violated the states conditions for approval of the sale. Also, pay have another company [ie TDS Telecom] take over the phone systems run by Fairpoint. LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. And what makes you think TDS Telecom could afford to buy them? Even if they could buy them with loans from investment firms, what makes you think that TDS Telecom would do any better in running the service than Fairpoint has? They are even a smaller outfit than Fairpoint. Illegal? Guess you haven't heard of eminent domain. States have taken people's house/land away, you think they can't take away some wires if they decide to? |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Ok then as soon as fairpoi t leaves bankruptcy the PUC needs to mandate extremely cheap open access and agressive network upgrades. Screw fairpoint.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. That's pretty much what happened with Chrysler.
--
The goggles! They do nothing! - McBain |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Interesting you should say that. "The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues". IF I read that correctly, the state of maine has EVERY RIGHT to seize the assets for $1.00/year, sumply because the purpose would be to increase revenues.
So, NO, it's NOT ILLEGAL to just take over fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. AND, YES, TDS telelcom COULD afford to buy them for $1.00/year
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
| reply to ualdayan
said by ualdayan:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AMDUSER:Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint violated the states conditions for approval of the sale. Also, pay have another company [ie TDS Telecom] take over the phone systems run by Fairpoint. LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. And what makes you think TDS Telecom could afford to buy them? Even if they could buy them with loans from investment firms, what makes you think that TDS Telecom would do any better in running the service than Fairpoint has? They are even a smaller outfit than Fairpoint. Illegal? Guess you haven't heard of eminent domain. States have taken people's house/land away, you think they can't take away some wires if they decide to? Yes. I've heard of it. But the state has to pay market cost to do that. And unlike some homeowner who can't afford the lawyers to fight them, Fairpoint has the lawyers to fight the state in court for years to make sure they aren't robbed by the state.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Interesting you should say that. "The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues". But the private property owners GOT PAID, and it wasn't at a $1 price. The state's taxpayers picked up the tab when the state gave the BOUGHT & PAID for private property to the developer.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
As I just posted, the supreme court CLEARLY RULED that $1.00 a year is 'ample compensation'. So, pray, tell me, what legal grounds would fairpoint have to contest? You are the one who always argues that a corporation has the same rights as a person. Well, a person has a RIGHT to have their PRIVATE PROPERTY seized for a pittance. So Fairpoint would have no case? Oh, wait, if it's a CORPORATION that is giving up the assets, then it's different than if it's a person? So, which is it then. Does a corporation HAVE the rights of a person or not? You can't have it both ways.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
 AMDUSERPremium
join:2003-05-28
Earth
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to ualdayan
Eminent domain could work to take the network away. The state of Maine could just give it to *AT&T at no cost if they will agree to run the phone system.. [I was just using TDS as an example..]
AT&T does know how to run rural phone service, they also have the expertise to fix the problems with the phone system.. I'm not saying that they would, just that company is financially sound and could accommodate a few million more customers without much problem. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
This is precisely why large corporations need to be redefined. There is no one at the helm that can be personally charged, and since the company is in bankruptcy, it has nothing to lose. |
|
| reply to karlmarx
Come on guys. TK's point is reasonable and correct here.
We don't want the government essentially confiscating assets in situations like this, whether under the guise of eminent domain or anything else. That would open up a cascade of abuses and precedent and we couldn't begin to predict where it would end.
I don't like the BS these companies pull any more than any of you do but there is a normal bankruptcy process for these situations.
Saying that the little guy gets screwed with eminent domain may be true but the solution to that is to end such abuses, not to screw companies as well as some perverse compensation.
"Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint "
Now there is probably some legitimate, legal way to do something along the lines not of revoking a right to operate but of reclassifying them and their regulatory situation but this is a separate issue from taking the assets whether with compensation or without. If nothing else it would create a legal quagmire as TK points up, though it should also be philosophically unacceptable in any but the most dire economic calamities and this doesn't begin to rise to that level. |
|
| said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
Come on guys. TK's point is reasonable and correct here.
We don't want the government essentially confiscating assets in situations like this, whether under the guise of eminent domain or anything else. That would open up a cascade of abuses and precedent and we couldn't begin to predict where it would end.
I don't like the BS these companies pull any more than any of you do but there is a normal bankruptcy process for these situations.
Saying that the little guy gets screwed with eminent domain may be true but the solution to that is to end such abuses, not to screw companies as well as some perverse compensation.
"Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint "
Now there is probably some legitimate, legal way to do something along the lines not of revoking a right to operate but of reclassifying them and their regulatory situation but this is a separate issue from taking the assets whether with compensation or without. If nothing else it would create a legal quagmire as TK points up, though it should also be philosophically unacceptable in any but the most dire economic calamities and this doesn't begin to rise to that level.
And they are also wrong about eminent domain being able to just pay $1 for Fairpoint's assets. That is just a wet dream by advocates of state supremacy in the economy.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to karlmarx
Don't always agree with TkJunkmail, but if not mistaken, sometime in the past not sure but "Corporations" were granted status such as that as an individual,(a supreme court case) when I find it, will post.Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AMDUSER:Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint violated the states conditions for approval of the sale. Also, pay have another company [ie TDS Telecom] take over the phone systems run by Fairpoint. LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. And what makes you think TDS Telecom could afford to buy them? Even if they could buy them with loans from investment firms, what makes you think that TDS Telecom would do any better in running the service than Fairpoint has? They are even a smaller outfit than Fairpoint. It's also illegal to completely ignore the rulings of local government. |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to SLD
If not mistaken, a comptroller or cfo can a lot of time be held liable.
--
BlooMe |
|
1 edit | reply to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by AMDUSER:Why doesn't the state of Maine just revoke Fairpoints right to operate after Fairpoint violated the states conditions for approval of the sale. Also, pay have another company [ie TDS Telecom] take over the phone systems run by Fairpoint. LOL. 1st it is illegal to just takeover Fairpoints assets and give them to someone else. And what makes you think TDS Telecom could afford to buy them? Even if they could buy them with loans from investment firms, what makes you think that TDS Telecom would do any better in running the service than Fairpoint has? They are even a smaller outfit than Fairpoint. It's also illegal to completely ignore the rulings of local government. Well that is what court hearings and fines are for. And if they can't pay the fines, that is what bankruptcy court is for.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to SLD
said by SLD:This is precisely why large corporations need to be redefined. There is no one at the helm that can be personally charged, and since the company is in bankruptcy, it has nothing to lose. Redefine the law so that if people in corporations break the law using the corporations, they go to prison. If Fairpoint ignores local government, the executives making those decisions need jail time. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Well that is what court hearings and fines are for. And if they can't pay the fines, that is what bankruptcy court is for. Court hearings and fines are a slap on the wrist for stuff like this. And it doesn't even fit the crime. |
|
PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Metatron2008
The PUC should be able to get relief from the court and the sheriffs can go in and seize money and property.
Ultimately, shame on the PUC for not following due dilligence and allowing this fiasco to happen in the first is.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ |
|
| reply to AMDUSER
Dont go there with AT&T I have them in a rural area and most of there rural area's are one step above two cans and a string. |
|
|
|
