 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Alex J
Re: Where are the details? said by Alex J :You, the website's resident "screw the little guy" advocate, approves of bills written by phone company lawyers that erode the rights of local communities, keep regional infrastructure in the dark ages, and layer communities with unnecessary restrictions ensuring they fail should they try to improve conditions? Shocking.
You'd think some Conservatives would want local rights protected, instead of being dictated by a large company with no real interest in the community.
I'm not seeing any of the onerous provisions in your reply. Just more accusations.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
|
|
| Accusations that you're blindly supporting anti-competitive practices by companies are supported by years of your own posts.
Dozens of these bills ban community broadband outright (which you also support). These newer bills simply layer on spending restrictions, voting requirements, and in some cases right of first refusal where a town actually has to go get AT&T's permission before they even consider improving their own town.
Their idiotic, and they're supported by people who support anti-competitive behavior and corporate control over the will of the voter (there's many words for that, none of them good). |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Alex J :Dozens of these bills ban community broadband outright
None do that that I have seen. Another poster claims NC does this. I'll have to look in to that.
P.S.>> In NC that wasn't passed in a bill, though one legislator advocated for that.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
| In NC, where I live, TWC practically wrote the legislation that failed 4 times before as Karl pointed out. It pretty much prevents any community from laying their own network. Thankfully Wilson and Salisbury, NC were grandfathered in somewhat.
You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself. If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind, look at all the anti-trust legislation and safety regulations that have come about because of abuses from corporations. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by sandman_1:If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind
When did I ever say that? They have the shareholders best interests in mind. But that is what actually creates jobs - investors create jobs. The government doesn't create jobs - except mostly do-nothing jobs created from taxing those who actually create things.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
| reply to Linklist
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011···arolina/ |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by sandman_1:If you think corporations have the citizen's best interest in mind
When did I ever say that? They have the shareholders best interests in mind. But that is what actually creates jobs - investors create jobs. The government doesn't create jobs - except mostly do-nothing jobs created from taxing those who actually create things. The investors you are talking about do create jobs in China in India in the Philippines in Mexico in Taiwan. Those countries are producing something. We only produce consumers that buy the things they make.
The Government DO create jobs, only jobs your party line doesn't like. Who do you think made the road that you used to drive to your job this morning? Who do you think made that Airport that you use? Who do you think inspected that produce from Mexico to make sure you don't get ecoli? Who protects you and your family?
In this case private industry (AT&T) is blocking job creation. At&t doesn't want to provide a better service to the people of SC but they also don't want others to do it.
»www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
We already gave 300 billion dollars (in tax money) to the 'job creators' (at&t) to deploy fiber to the home and look what happened, they pocketed the money and we got phone line uverse.
Your arguments are not credible. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to sandman_1
said by sandman_1:You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself. Pot meet kettle? I haven't read all of the legislation that's been pushed around in various states, but the pieces that I have read aren't onerous to municipalities. In fact, the legislation tends to be more fiscally conscious to ensure money is spent and accounted for appropriately. Something that all taxpayers should applaud. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to etaadmin
said by etaadmin:The investors you are talking about do create jobs in China in India in the Philippines in Mexico in Taiwan. And the US as well as facilitating job and economic growth in many other places around the world as well. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by sandman_1:You sir need to stop touting the party line and start thinking for yourself. Pot meet kettle? I haven't read all of the legislation that's been pushed around in various states, but the pieces that I have read aren't onerous to municipalities. In fact, the legislation tends to be more fiscally conscious to ensure money is spent and accounted for appropriately. Something that all taxpayers should applaud. Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue.
In Washington State the connection itself was outlawed and can only be provided by a private isp. Now you see all the public utilities here catering to the profits of these private companies instead of their utility customers.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by firephoto:Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue. Wow. Silly me for being thankful for fiscal scrutiny. |
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by openbox9:said by firephoto:Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue. Wow. Silly me for being thankful for fiscal scrutiny. Bull, it's a bunch of crap so the incumbents don't have to LOWER their price to compete. They pass these laws and they maintain their over the top profit margins.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:said by firephoto:Which is an intentional hurdle for municipalities that makes them have to increase their price while gaining no additional revenue. Wow. Silly me for being thankful for fiscal scrutiny. Bull, it's a bunch of crap so the incumbents don't have to LOWER their price to compete. They pass these laws and they maintain their over the top profit margins. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to firephoto
It's about leveling the competitive landscape. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | BS, It's about making sure there *IS* no competitive landscape. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | BS, it's about leveling the competitive landscape. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to firephoto
I'm failing to understand what is so awful about ensuring municipalities cover their expenses in an equitable manner. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to openbox9
Yes, Yes, preventing competition fosters competition. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to openbox9
Pass a law where AT&T's competitors decide what artificial deadlines AT&T must meet on upgrades and rollouts and profit margins--- or else must exit the market/forfeit.
Hey, it's all about the financial responsibility, after all.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:I'm failing to understand what is so awful about ensuring municipalities cover their expenses in an equitable manner.
Because they never do, they subsidize the deployment of large expensive over many years or decades. Dams, power plants, sewer systems, water systems are never paid for up front but instead pay for themselves over a very long time.
If the incumbents NEED money NOW then that's their problem, not the municipality they don't want to compete with.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author |
|
