dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed
« your rewardYa Know... »
This is a sub-selection from Where are the details?


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to Alex J

Re: Where are the details?

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

sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111

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.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock 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


AnonFTW

@rr.com
reply to FFH

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011···arolina/


etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

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.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
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.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
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.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
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!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
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.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
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!


firephoto
We the people
Premium
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.

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

It's about leveling the competitive landscape.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

BS, It's about making sure there *IS* no competitive landscape.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

BS, it's about leveling the competitive landscape.


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

I'm failing to understand what is so awful about ensuring municipalities cover their expenses in an equitable manner.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to openbox9

Yes, Yes, preventing competition fosters competition.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
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



firephoto
We the people
Premium
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

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

What are you talking about? AT&T covers its expenses just fine.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to firephoto

said by firephoto:

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.

I have yet to read proposed legislation that requires municipalities to front 100% of the capital for an infrastructure build.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to openbox9

We'll let the competitors decide on the deadlines and goals and then we'll see. We'll call it "Fairness."


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I just breezed through this legislation and it doesn't appear to have any such provision. Where is your concern coming from?



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Of course it doesn't have any such provision. It's written by Telco/Cable industry lobbyists, to prevent competition.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. What exactly is your concern?