| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Maine should takeover.. 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? |
|
|
|
| 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
|
|
| 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
 rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | reply to AMDUSER
Verizon, with ancient roots including General Telephone Company, also knows how to run rural telephone service. But Verizon decided to dump rural Maine. Why would AT&T be interested in trying to do what Verizon did not want to do?
--
In reality, there is no such thing as a clean human being. |
|
 mobModerhatedPremium
join:2000-10-07
 ·SureWest Internet
 ·Vonage
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: Fairpoint has the lawyers to fight the state in court for years to make sure they aren't robbed by the state. The purpose of the state is to defend the citizens...This is a good case of when to do it too.. Failpoint has proved with stunning clarity that they are incapable of living up to standards that they (Failpoint) set in negotiations.
Breach of contract is a good start..
Do you swallow everything that they feed you?
Why is it perfectly OK for a company to rip anyone off, do whatever they want, and if anyone questions the actions, they are wrong for doing so?
--
If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure - J. Danforth Quayle
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me |
|
| said by mob:said by fAcEtIOUs: Fairpoint has the lawyers to fight the state in court for years to make sure they aren't robbed by the state. The purpose of the state is to defend the citizens...This is a good case of when to do it too.. Failpoint has proved with stunning clarity that they are incapable of living up to standards that they (Failpoint) set in negotiations. Breach of contract is a good start.. Do you swallow everything that they feed you? Why is it perfectly OK for a company to rip anyone off, do whatever they want, and if anyone questions the actions, they are wrong for doing so? I never said what you accuse me of. Just stating a little REALITY(something BBR users are often in short supply of).
And the purpose of the state is not to protect its citizens; it is to CONTROL them. Something most people realize by the time they pay taxes and earn their own way in life.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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. Put a Lien on them for every cent they owe. If they don't pay up, they forfeit the rights to it. |
|
