how-to block ads
|
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to pnh102
Re: No fiber builds
Yes but the difference is that most CLEC's aren't going out of their way to fight Muni-builds either. SBC (and Comcast too for that matter) would rather spend money on marketing and lawyers rather than just upgrading the damn plants.
I'm all for operating at a profit, but for God's sake, if a muni wants to put in something you won't, get the hell out of the way.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by batageek  :
I'm all for operating at a profit, but for God's sake, if a muni wants to put in something you won't, get the hell out of the way.
I partially agree with you on this one. If a new private company wants to run its own wires and offer service (as Conestoga Communications (nee Telebeam) did in State College, PA) then the government must not allow anything or anyone to interfere with that deployment.
However, if I was a stockholder or a private business owner facing "competition" from a government agency which doesn't have to face the same kind of tax or regulatory scrutiny that I do, then I would fight this tooth and nail, as it would be my business going under.
Of course, if I willingly decided to deep-six my own business by not providing the services my customers want, or by lobbying the government to create a regulatory environment that discourages investment (as the phone companies did with TA1996, the USF, etc.) then I have no one to blame but myself when competitors filled the void.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| pnh102:
Not trying to be argumentative here, but really the muni's have to go through most of the same things the private sector does. If they're offering phone service, they have to be a CLEC and follow all the rules laid out by the FCC. Munis have to play within the "fair market" rules that the Bells and cable cos play. They have to pay pole attachment fees that are in line with what is charged to the incumbents.
As far as tax scrutiny goes, I feel that I have a heck of a lot better chance of seeing true expenditures out of my local government than I do out of the private sector. By law, all the muni books are wide open for inspection. I have the ability to approve or disapprove with my vote. My vote counts for a lot more in the local government, than it does as a SBC or Comcast shareholder.
Speaking from my experience, the private sector also has advantages the public does not. They can spend all the cash they want to fight munis going into business....the munis cannot. If the muni has to go to referendum to get authority to build, the muni can't spend cash to promote the concept...the private sector can and will spend all sorts of cash to obscure the truth. Hate to beat a dead horse (insert graphic here), but look at all the garbage SBC and Comcast pulled just to fight the proposed TriCity munibuild (www.tricitybroadband.com ). They flat out lied and spent a ton of cash doing so.
Again, I'll take the muni. They work for me.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| reply to pnh102
pnh102:
Never mind...In PA's case, you're right....
PA IS ruled by idiots..
See below
»www.pennlive.com/printer/printer···5001.xml
State House panel changes, OKs broadband bill
Friday, November 14, 2003
BY DAVID DeKOK
Of The Patriot-News
The state House Consumer Affairs Committee, by a lopsided vote yesterday, amended and then approved HB 30, the Chapter 30 reauthorization bill favored by Verizon Communications and the Pennsylvania Telephone Association.
It becomes the first of five Chapter 30 reauthorization bills to get out of committee.
Chapter 30 is the 1993 state law that requires the state's telephone companies, notably Verizon, to bring their networks up to modern standards and provide all state residents with access to broadband high-speed Internet service. The law expires on Dec. 31.
"It still needs to be improved," state Consumer Advocate Irwin Popowsky said of HB 30. "There is not enough protection for consumers or advancement of broadband deployment."
The House committee hearing was held in a small Senate hearing room in the upper reaches of the Capitol. Many late arrivals found no space inside and were forced to stand in the hallway outside and try to hear what was going on in the room.
An omnibus amendment introduced by Rep. William Adolph, R-Delaware, the committee chairman, and Rep. Joseph Preston, D-Allegheny, the minority chairman, was approved on a 21-4 vote. All other amendments, which were offered by Rep. Ron Buxton, D-Dauphin, and Rep. T.J. Rooney, D-Lehigh, were defeated on similar lopsided votes.
Buxton wanted a stronger Lifeline program of reduced telephone rates for the poor than the committee was willing to provide. He expressed exasperation at the large number of changes HB 30 would make to the original Chapter 30 law, which he helped to pass in 1993 and which he continues to believe is basically a good law.
Among provisions in the amended HB 30 are the following:
Removal of the inflation offset from rates for noncompetitive services is intact. Popowsky has estimated that this will be worth $2 billion to $3 billion over 13 years to Verizon alone.
This will enable telephone companies to raise residential and small-business rates, subject to some limitations. It is portrayed by the PTA as a fair payoff for improving their networks, although the original Chapter 30 provided billions of dollars in incentives for improvements.
Municipalities and school districts continue to be barred from offering their own broadband Internet or other telecommunications services in competition with a regulated telephone company. The amendment grandfathers Kutztown, the Glendale School District and any other public entities currently offering telecommunications services.
The state Public Utility Commission is banned from requiring local telephone companies to offer wider local calling boundaries, a perennial issue in the state's vast rural areas.
A provision in HB 30 allowing telephone companies wide latitude to escape their network modernization plans on file with the PUC is changed in the amendment to allow the PUC to approve changes to the plans "upon good cause shown." However, the PUC is banned from modifying the plans without the permission of the companies, a perennial Verizon complaint.
HB 30 requires broadband Internet roll-outs to continue, but allows smaller telephone companies to opt for a revised requirement enabling them to escape deployment to the last 20 percent of their customers unless the customers submit a "bonafide retail request," meaning they must persuade as many as 50 neighbors to sign up for the service for a year. The PTA believes many rural residents do not want broadband Internet.
DAVID DeKOK: 255-8173 or ddekok@patriot-news.com
Copyright 2003 PennLive.com. All Rights Reserved.
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
you know after reading all these articles i figure you would have learned a bit more.
The money for the muni does not come from your taxes. Read it they use bonds for it. If you don't want it you don't buy bonds. Your tax dollars do nothing for it. Besides they will be paying the same fee's as the companies they replace. They don't get breaks on anything. Read about the muni services and you see this.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by BosstonesOwn :
you know after reading all these articles i figure you would have learned a bit more.
I've been around long enough to know that when the government is trying to finance something, it will always come out of taxpayer's pocket in some way or another.
said by BosstonesOwn :
The money for the muni does not come from your taxes. Read it they use bonds for it. If you don't want it you don't buy bonds.
I've done all the reading that I need to do. I've seen municipal operations which tax people to pay for services, and I have seen municipal services which are subsidized by non-subscribers through other municipally run utilities. They all try to claim that its "something for nothing" but all the evidence shows that this is not the case. They also try to claim that the rate hikes for the "non-related" services have "nothing to do" with the under-priced network service when that clearly doesn't pass the smell test. Governments all over the USA use and continue to get away with accounting shenanigans that would make Enron and WorldCom blush. They have all sorts of ways to hide the true costs of projects to make them easier sells to the public. The use of "bonds" with "no public risk" is just another rabbit in the hat.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. | |
|
