 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to openbox9
Re: Where are the details? 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 | 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 | 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 |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to KrK
What are you talking about? AT&T covers its expenses just fine. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
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. |
|
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
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." |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I just breezed through this legislation and it doesn't appear to have any such provision. Where is your concern coming from? |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
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. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I don't understand what you're trying to argue. What exactly is your concern? |
|
