calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to bistro777
A little focus on the issue might help this discussion along.
Federal law generally prohibits the states from inhibiting competition in telecommunications. (It doesn't always work, but the law is there.) This allows competitors to get necessary licenses, etc.
On the other hand, under long standing principles of federalism, cities are, legally, essentially the creation of state government. Cities in one state may have the power to collect garbage and supply electricity, while in another they might not. State legislatures can dissolve, reform, and change cities and their government at will, so long as it doesn't disturb things like contract rights of individuals (bonds issued or franchises granted, for example.)
While the anti-restriction folks argue the Telecom Act of '96, the pro-restriction folks argue that cities are ALWAYS beholden to state legislatures, just as they are beholden to their own city councils--and that either of those bodies may freely make the decision for a city to go into the telecom business, or not.
I'm not trying to argue one side or the other here (though I favor muni telecoms)--just trying to explain the legal background on this fight.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
