dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed
« Bad?City/county profit? »
This is a sub-selection from What's So Bad?

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to openbox9

Re: What's So Bad?

said by openbox9:

So, for those who've actually read the bill, what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?

I believe Centurylink is out of line asking its employees to to take political action.

Are you serious? Stopthecap has covered this extensively: »stopthecap.com/2011/02/17/anothe···arolina/

It doesn't anyone on "even footing". There is no way to be on even footing with an incumbent provider in an infrastructure industry, which tends towards a monopoly.

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

Whether you're a libertarian or conservative, allowing a corporation to control a government is beyond pathetic- it's against the "values" of a conservative.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Gov't's have already ENOUGH to worry about paying for let alone creating an FTTH network for public use. They need to worry about keeping their citizens safe with the most modern equipment they can afford before spending money on this. You do realize how much a fire truck costs right? Instead of taking out a bond to pay for this network they should be taking out a bond to pay for that fire truck and maybe add a new EMS and a few new police cars to that. And a few new educational classes for the crews? A few new bullet proof vests for the police officers? I can think a MILLION things that they should be taking the bonds out on and paying for out of the tax money then spending it on Fiber.


Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Firetrucks are a huge scam--responding to car accidents in Lamborghinis would be faster and cheaper. The country has at least 50% too many police because of the government's meddling in the narcotics business. And maybe if cops weren't being bribed into buying overpriced cattle prods off Taser International, they could afford vests...oh, wait, even police in towns where the government has taken away most of the guns have vests, also bought at 3x market rate. FTTH would pretty much be the only useful thing the government would have provided in the last 50 years, which is why they object because a devotion to corruption requires absolute uselessness.



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

Are you serious? Stopthecap has covered this extensively: »stopthecap.com/2011/02/17/anothe···arolina/

It doesn't anyone on "even footing". There is no way to be on even footing with an incumbent provider in an infrastructure industry, which tends towards a monopoly.

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

Whether you're a libertarian or conservative, allowing a corporation to control a government is beyond pathetic- it's against the "values" of a conservative.

Dont try and drag Stop The Cap into a disagreement. There warped one sided "stories" they write are good for nothing but comic value.

You are looking at it the wrong way to. A corporation does not control the government...the government allows itself to be controlled and THAT is the problem here.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

reply to Wilsdom

fire trucks scam LMAO! I'm gonna leave your post alone because you are totally clueless on emergency safety and response. Go work in the actual field for a few years and you'll see that they're in need of the money MORE than a FTTH network that is totally not needed when the city has choices and just refuses to use them because the other company is not rock bottom free.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to swintec

Totally true. But Stop the Cap is the next best thing.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to sonicmerlin

said by sonicmerlin:

I can only smirk at your not having trouble with a private corporation writing laws that effectively prevent individual cities from building their own infrastructure. Oh but the law doesn't outright *ban* municipal networks. Well no problem there then right? You're incredibly hypocritical.

So how am I incredibly hypocritical? And you're correct, this law doesn't ban municipal communications projects at all. That's why I don't understand the great consternation over this legislation.

Since you're response was to regurgitate an article from three months ago that was written prior to several adopted changes by both the House and Senate, I'll assume you haven't read the law either. So, I'll respond to Phillip Dampier's main points in his oped and ask again, "what exactly is so horrific with this legislation?"

said by Phillip Dampier :

First, Avila's demand for an open accounting of community broadband projects provides a treasure trove of business intelligence for any competitor.

I don't see this explicitly in the legislation. At least any more than any other government accounting should be open to the public.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Second, if banning mandatory service for renters and condo owners is such a great idea, why does Avila only limit it to community-owned networks?

I didn't read any such stipulation in the legislation.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Third, Avila bends over backwards for her cable and phone friends by tying the hands of municipal providers who want their networks to be commercially successful. Time Warner has no problem injecting endless promotions for its own services not just on a handful of channels, but on virtually every channel on the lineup, often during nearly every commercial break. Can municipal networks ban advertising from AT&T and Time Warner? Of course not.

The only stipulation regarding advertising in this legislation is that cities may not advertise on public, educational, or government access channels if the channels are required to be carried by other communications service providers.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila's ban on setting pricing below cost is another giveaway to Time Warner and AT&T, who routinely deliver retention and new customer promotions that could be temporarily priced below cost to secure or maintain a customer relationship for a limited period of time.

Temporary pricing. The legislation does not prevent a municipality from offering similar incentives. Do you honestly believe that private providers' temporary and limited incentives or retention offers are priced below cost in the end?

said by Phillip Dampier :

Rep. Avila can certainly no longer claim to be for low taxes, because her bill would effectively raise them for community-owned networks.

The legislation requires city provided telecommunications services to remit to the city general fund "an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city-owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city-owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider."

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila’s support for smaller, less regulatory-minded government must also be called into question with this bill’s ridiculously complicated regulations for serving unserved areas of the state (which also grants a special window to private providers to protest, which they will certainly do in just about any area of the state even partially suitable for a future project).

Ridiculously complicated? More like mostly irrelevant. The "unserved" issue only matters if/when a city wishes to have the provisions of G.S. 160A-340.1, 160A-340.4, and 160A-340.5 be non-applicable. The legislation doesn't prevent a city-owned telecommunications project just because an area is "served" or not.

said by Phillip Dampier :

Avila destroys her own “level playing field” argument in language within her own bill:

“The city or joint agency making the application to the Commission shall bear the burden of persuasion.”

That paragraph is in respect to for other paragraphs in that section of the legislation. It's not as big of a deal as what Dampier implies. Read the legislation