how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
424 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Read the D*MN DECISION!!! Boy, it's be really nice if anyone would read the decision before ripping it apart.
First, we are a nation of laws--and that means (thank God) that courts don't decide every issue based just on what they think might be the best result, but on what is required by existing law and past decision. This both allows the significant decisions to be made by elected, not appointed, officials and provides some consistency of decisions.
Second, the logic of the Supreme Court makes sense. It says that states can prohibit munis from entering telecom because the munis are subdivisions of the state, which they are. (A state can dissolve, reform, merge, or otherwise modify its own municipalities. States control all factors of municipal life, from taxing authority to the means a muni uses to select its officials. Telling a state it couldn't control its cities would be like telling a corporation that it couldn't control its own subsidiaries--a bit of a stretch.)
I agree that it's a better result when munis are allowed to compete--but I'm not willing to throw out state control over political subdivisions just to get there. (Here in California, we have many situations where cities or school districts spend themselves blind, for example, and the state has to step in and take over.)
What's next if we say that States have no more control over cities and towns than they do corporations? Cities that decide to make money by publishing pornography (because the Federal government otherwise prevents states from interfering with a free press?)
Yes, some state legislatures are making poor decisions--and that's an indication that they are out of touch. Learn who your state legislator is, and contact them on this issue!
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Second, the logic of the Supreme Court makes sense. It says that states can prohibit munis from entering telecom because the munis are subdivisions of the state, which they are.
A group of people in Podunk, Nebraska, who get together and vote to wire their small town of 100 with fixed wireless because their bell won't touch them - probably would wonder why you, or the state, have any right to limit that decision whatsoever.
The problem I think is when these municipal operations grow out of the scale of regional small-town politics...then I think there's some serious questions to be raised about unfair leverage.
Until that happens the only thing I see is industry buying out government in a pre-emptive move to prevent competition which ALWAYS forces improvements and rate reduction. That can be painted with whatever color you like. | |
 mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
4 edits | said by Karl Bode:
A group of people in Podunk, Nebraska, who get together and vote to wire their small town of 100 with fixed wireless because their bell won't touch them - probably would wonder why you, or the state, have any right to limit that decision whatsoever.
That might be OK if the dollars were limited to the 100 people in Podunk, but no project like this operates in a total vacuum. The government bonds that are typically used to pay for these operations are issued and backed by state and Federal governments or are at least indirectly supported by them...so as soon as you leave town for your money, all those other entities will want (and should have) a vote. You can't have it both ways: Don't ask an outside source to support your cause and then crab when that outside source demands a say in what you do.
Furthermore, Kaltes is right: The states have authority over municipalities. Like it or not, that is the law.
And here I go, banging the official "mocycler libertarian drum": If you kept government money out of the loop in the first place, none of this would be an issue. The good people of our hypothetical town of Podunk who actually want broadband could all open their collective wallets, build a private network, and tell outsiders to buzz off. And I doubt the state or the Big Bad Bell would even notice, much less care. The less you ask the government to help, the less likely it is the government will interfere.
Heck, they could string fiber along their fence posts and not tell anyone! 
Peace,
mocycler
--
communism & socialism: the true "miserable failure!"
»:www.lp.org »www.archives.gov/national_archiv···ers.html »www.ama-cycle.org | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to Karl Bode
Karl,
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, is stopping the 100 people in Podunk from "getting together" and deciding to wire their town with fixed wireless.
What is being stopped is their ability to use local government (and its taxing power) as a vehicle to do it. Heck, let them set it up as a cooperative non-profit.
Some state legislatures have decided that municipal government should focus on other things (presumably like police, fire, garbage collection, etc.) I don't agree with those legislatures, especially since I think they have all made that determination for the wrong reason and since they let local government waste far more money on other things I consider to be less worthwhile.
However, that said, I am not willing to strip states of their ability to control their political subdivisions just because I don't agree with some of the decisions they've made.
If this issue (using local government to run broadband businesses) is so important to the citizens of Podunk, let them take it up with their state legislature. (Since Nebraska has the only unicameral legislature in America, this should be easier for them than most others.)
Of course, for all those people who are sure that they know how to govern Nebraskans better than the elected representatives in Nebraska, you're free to try to convince Nebraskans to accept you as their dictator.
We live in a democratic republic, and that doesn't mean always doing things your way, or always doing things the way you think is "clearly right." It means doing things the way our elected representatives decide. It particularly means letting other states do things the way they want to, not the way you think they should be done. Accepting that fact, and working politically to change outcomes you don't like, is part of growing up.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | | |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | quote:
We live in a democratic republic
Ironic you should say that and yet support a bell lobbied concept that supports throwing the vote of an entire community and all of their elected representatives in the toilet. The state has no interest truly in banning these podunk operations. The push comes from industry! If the Republic puts private industry at the head of the totem pole, you'd have a point.
Click Network! WORKS. It has brought AMPLE competition that would have otherwise never appeared throughout Washington.
I see your point, I simply don't agree. I think small governments, particularly those looking to liven up their local economies and lure industry, should have every opportunity to get into the broadband business if the community VOTES FOR IT, just like every other local improvement the state could care less about.
This isn't some noble attempt to preserve Democratic process, it's a calculated push by big business to eliminate a potental future competitor while they're still in the larval stage. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | I understand you don't agree, but I don't see any irony in my position.
The decision to prohibit Nebraska munis from competing WAS made by a democratically elected representative body--the Nebraska legislature.
If you find it "ironic" that smaller units of government often differ from their larger companions, whether it be local/state or state/federal, you see a lot more irony in life than I do.
Fundamentally, the base unit of American Government is the state. 13 of them got together and created a federal government of limited powers, so there is a frequent degree of tension there.
On the other hand, Podunk, Nebraska is a creation of the Nebraska government, and exists only because Nebraska allows it to. Saying that the Federal government should bestow rights on Podunk directly really tangles with the way government works.
I know Click Network works, and I have said several times I think Nebraska is wrong--but just because a business model works or because some large number of us self-appointed broadband experts think that something is a great idea is no reason to say that the feds should run state government.
If there's any irony here, it's in you saying that one level of government (state) shouldn't tell a smaller level of government (local) what to do, and the way to prevent that is to have one level of government (federal) tell a smaller level of government (state) what to do.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
