cbrigante2
Cubs 20??
Premium
join:2002-11-22
North Aurora, IL
| Taxes for Services
Those against the city broadband seem to think that the 60% that voted it down were doing so because they didnt want broadband. They voted it down because they didnt want higher tax rates. If we vote down a school referendum, does that mean we are saying that we want our children to be undereducated? Answer: no. I vote school referendums down because I think the money is not being put to efficient use. I hope (and from the sound of it, this will happen) that the cities keep putting this sucker up on every ballot until it passes like a school referendum. Any guess who would roll out the service real quick if some competition was going up? 2 money grubbing monopolies come to mind. Also to the Naperville resident, my point wasnt to say you were wrong, but that Naperville, itself as big a Republican town as Geneva or Batavia, had it's own public movement to get broadband rolled out. www.napervillebroadband.com comes to mind. Read some of the posts in there to understand what the majority of web-surfing republicans want in your town. |
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Exactly...They (voters) missed the point due to misinfo spread by the incumbents and the lack of ability (by the proponents) to go buck for buck in a PR battle....
There were no higher tax rates because it's paid for by user fees...backed by property tax? yes. Paid for by tax..no! But the disinfo convinced many otherwise.
Even a republican can see a good deal (no slag to repubs) on the homefront....cheaper rates, better and more services, etc.
Look at it this way, why would the Cities waste their time fighting for this if it wasn't in the best interest of the towns? Why put up with the battle? The local governments could easily throw up their hands and say, "Sorry, we can't help you...Call Comcast and SBC." A lot less skin off their noses.
In regards to Naperville, they do have competition to some extent: Comcast, Wide Open West, and SBC. At least more than the TriCities.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-04 20:07:11] |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to cbrigante2
cbrigante2...
Yes, I am aware that there was talk of municipal broadband in Naperville. Lately though, that has died out since basically anyone (with a few exceptions) who wants broadband in Naperville can get it in one form or another from independent providers.
As for what the "web-surfing Republicans" want, well, they're entitled to their opinion. I don't care as long as they keep their grubby hands off of my checkbook. By the way, I'm not a Republican so you will not see me defend their double-standard.
As I've stated over and over in my other posts...it is not the government's place to get into the internet biz, even if there is little or no financial risk. TCBB has been pablum puking about how their plan will be virtually risk-free and even turn a profit. But if it's so great, why can't they find enough rich Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and fund it privately...for that matter, why couldn't they get enough rich Republicans off their asses and into the voting booth?
Probably because they were all at work surfing the net...on a T1 that someone else paid for. Hmmmmmm.
peace,
mocyler
|
|
Octopussy2
Premium
join:2003-03-30
Batavia, IL
| If the cities can offer the service, why not? It serves everyone's best interest. People who don't even use the service because they are opposed to the govt. being involved STILL benefit. In the Tri-Cities case specifically, the very same fiber optic network that would provide cable, Internet and phone service to all residents and businesses that wanted it, would also provide for municipal services currently in place (electric and water departments). It would also allow the city to provide (remember the govts. job is to provide) alarm services, both police and fire, directly to the 911 dispatch center in Geneva.
Even those that took no services from the Cities would still benefit. It would give all citizens a choice. That choice would force Comcast and SBC to compete....something they don't do now. If even one new business was attracted to the towns and built a new facility, all residents would benefit because of the tax dollars that company and it's new building would bring to town.
Stop thinking about just internet and look to the BIG picture. What's good for local business is good for local taxpayers. More money in the taxpayer's pocket means more money spent in the local economies. This is good for everyone, not just those that use the city services. |
|
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| reply to mocycler
Mocycler,
I have to respect your opposition to this on philosophical grounds.
said by mocycler  :
As I've stated over and over in my other posts...it is not the government's place to get into the internet biz, even if there is little or no financial risk. TCBB has been pablum puking about how their plan will be virtually risk-free and even turn a profit. But if it's so great, why can't they find enough rich Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and fund it privately
Although I do not completely agree with it, it is the one and only argument that I can accept from someone in opposition to this initiative.
I do have to say this; American history is replete with examples of the government stepping in where the the public sector has either failed or left a void, and we as a country are all the better for it.
I would be more than happy to choose from any number of private sector entities who would provide this type of service to my community in a world of true competition. Unfortunately, the telecom landscape being what it is, does not allow for almost any type of competition. |
|
