Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r9804029 en Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:33:09 EDT Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:33:09 EDT Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9806737 boogie74 :
said by calvoiper See Profile:
(Boogie, maybe we finally agree on something....)

Actually, I'm just sitting here being amused at everyone getting in high dudgeon over a decision allowing a government to prohibit its subdivisions from doing something.

Apparently, everyone thinks that the Feds should tell the states that they can't do that, which would be a government prohibiting its subdivisions from doing something....

Calvoiper


Exactly! It's getting to the point around here where people are wishing for a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and when he gets there and does something that they don't agree with, "Mr. Smith" became a "bribed, career politician"

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9806737 Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:38:14 EDT Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9804029 calvoiper : (Boogie, maybe we finally agree on something....)

Actually, I'm just sitting here being amused at everyone getting in high dudgeon over a decision allowing a government to prohibit its subdivisions from doing something.

Apparently, everyone thinks that the Feds should tell the states that they can't do that, which would be a government prohibiting its subdivisions from doing something....

Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9804029 Sun, 28 Mar 2004 02:09:58 EDT Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9799465 boogie74 :
said by bonnyman See Profile:
The Court handled this as a states' rights decision, not a telecom policy decision.

The Court explicitly stated that they were not ruling on the merits of municipal broadband but whether the language in the 1996 Telecom Act met the legal requirements (as determined by previous court rulings on the U.S. Constitution) for a federal law to preempt state control over their own cities and counties (cities and counties are legally considered to be subdivisions of the state). The majority determined that the Act did not.

Here's the link to the decision -- it can be skimmed pretty quickly by a layman:

»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···1238.pdf


How dare you post something true like this? Can't you see that this type of argument is detrimental to the "fundamental right" to complain that when something happens that you don't like or agree with, the only rational reason for it is because the "Corporate Pigs of the World" bought the decision under the table somehow??

Boogie]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9799465 Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:17:35 EDT Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9790102 bonnyman : The Court handled this as a states' rights decision, not a telecom policy decision.


The Court explicitly stated that they were not ruling on the merits of municipal broadband but whether the language in the 1996 Telecom Act met the legal requirements (as determined by previous court rulings on the U.S. Constitution) for a federal law to preempt state control over their own cities and counties (cities and counties are legally considered to be subdivisions of the state). The majority determined that the Act did not.


Here's the link to the decision -- it can be skimmed pretty quickly by a layman:


»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···1238.pdf
--
Al Bonnyman
Fiber Planners Inc.
See my weblog at:
Community Broadband Networks for FTTH, municipal broadband and powerline broadband news]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9790102 Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:40:38 EDT