how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to ke4pym
Re: Wisdom, Kansas Style said by ke4pym:said by elray:Nothing prevents an overbuilder or cooperative from building their own last-mile network, or for that matter, the local municipality from taking ownership of the copper plant, if they should choose to invoke eminent domain and pay FMV for the franchise.
Good thing this isn't in NC. Because the muni's can't get in that business. Well, they can. After they jump through so many hoops it bankrupts them... Most government agencies don't need any help going bankrupt.
That's only one of many reasons why they should stay out of the broadband business. Lets leave the BK losses to investors and shareholders, thanks.
But if a muni sincerely wants to, they can, indeed, take over the local franchise, providing they pay for it. What you call "hoops" we call checks and balances, protecting the citizens from the errant folly of their elected officials.
What they can't and shouldn't do easily, is set up their own shop in "competition" with the very entities they once gave exclusive license to, then proceed to bankrupt them (or themselves) with a race-to-the-bottom using taxpayer funds.
And lastly, again, there is nothing that prevents a 3rd-party overbuilder, CLEC or cooperative, from entering the fray and wiring the neighborhood. | |
| Follow the money trail. Why are these types of anti municipal fiber bills universally funded by the telephone and cable companies? Because they're trying to protect taxpayer money out of the goodness of their own heart? | | |
|
ke4pymPremium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Broadban..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Northland Cable ..
| reply to elray
said by elray:Most government agencies don't need any help going bankrupt.
That's only one of many reasons why they should stay out of the broadband business. Lets leave the BK losses to investors and shareholders, thanks.
But if a muni sincerely wants to, they can, indeed, take over the local franchise, providing they pay for it. What you call "hoops" we call checks and balances, protecting the citizens from the errant folly of their elected officials.
What they can't and shouldn't do easily, is set up their own shop in "competition" with the very entities they once gave exclusive license to, then proceed to bankrupt them (or themselves) with a race-to-the-bottom using taxpayer funds.
And lastly, again, there is nothing that prevents a 3rd-party overbuilder, CLEC or cooperative, from entering the fray and wiring the neighborhood.
I find this argument funny.
No, you can't use tax payer dollars to back a broadband solution (read: not directly fund).
But it's okay (at least in this city) to:
Use (local and (as proposed) state) tax payer dollars to fund a renovation of a privately owned NFL stadium.
Use tax payer dollars to fund a trolley to no where (that gets stuck in traffic like cheaper-to-run city buses).
Use tax payer dollars to fund our basketball team.
Now, our water and sewer is tax payer backed. But it is funded by revenue collected by those using the system. Why are people not against this? But against this model for broadband? | |
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to elray
Checks and balances should apply to AT&T, as well as the municipalities. | |
|
