 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium join:2004-09-11 Woburn, MA | Why dont people actually vote with their pocket? Create some change? Show that they don't agree? Why do people bitch about it but do nothing to actually stop it show the companies we wont be held hostage by them. -- Ricky Smith
| |
|
 |  ZZink join:2002-06-16 Etobicoke | Re: Why dont Yay for creating more monopolies! Elitist for the win. | |
|
 |  |  RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 | Re: Why dont said by ZZink:Yay for creating more monopolies! Elitist for the win. LOL.
The only broadband Viagra needed is to separate the content from the delivery and make the last mile common carrier. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Why dont said by RadioDoc:said by ZZink:Yay for creating more monopolies! Elitist for the win. LOL. The only broadband Viagra needed is to separate the content from the delivery and make the last mile common carrier. That is a bit of a laugh. -- Reach out and Tap someone! | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  Killa200Premium join:2005-12-02 Southeast TN 1 edit | because bad and inconsistent internet is better than no internet.... and in a lot of these "municipal solution" areas... voting with your pocket would mean exactly that decision... | |
|
 |  | | Because most people are lazy and uninformed. It's so much easier to complain and do nothing. For those who complain AND do something about it. Actually get up and make things happen, so many people just don't want to do that. Not to mention, so many people just are not aware of the power that they posses. | |
|
 |  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Why dont said by tdouglas22:Because most people are lazy and uninformed. It's so much easier to complain and do nothing. For those who complain AND do something about it. Actually get up and make things happen, so many people just don't want to do that. Not to mention, so many people just are not aware of the power that they posses. So what you're saying is.... If I'm not happy about getting screwed by Cox or AT&T I should do something about it!
Ok, I'll switch! To a reseller!! Oh wait, they'll still profit off me, resold service, and I'll pay more. OK I'll switch to a better competitor.... Hmmm what competitor.... hmmm.
OH I know you mean! You mean I should do something like have a hunger strike in front of AT&T's corporate Headquarters? Or maybe you're thinking I should like shoot up the place or firebomb it if I'm into some ultraviolence?
Or maybe you mean legally like .... write a letter ? Wait, that would be complaining and bitching but not doing anything....
Ok, NM.
/sigh -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
 |  | | said by Edrick:people actually vote with their pocket? Create some change? Show that they don't agree? Why do people bitch about it but do nothing to actually stop it show the companies we wont be held hostage by them. Why don't you call your ISP and disconnect your broadband connection and tell them you're going back to dialup?
Yeah, thought so. | |
|
 |  |  EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium join:2004-09-11 Woburn, MA | Re: Why dont said by fifty nine:said by Edrick:people actually vote with their pocket? Create some change? Show that they don't agree? Why do people bitch about it but do nothing to actually stop it show the companies we wont be held hostage by them. Why don't you call your ISP and disconnect your broadband connection and tell them you're going back to dialup? Yeah, thought so. If other people actually joined in like a mass campaign and it would make a change I would. It's useless as a one to do it however people in numbers would make change. -- Ricky Smith
| |
|
 |  |  |  elios join:2005-11-15 Springfield, MO | Re: Why dont no the telcos would just spin it to make it look like people dont want faster internet | |
|
 | | wow cheap broadband wow it cheaper than fios. 59.95 a month for 20-20. it better isp. let root for smaller isp. to win | |
|
 | | Free for all Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? | |
|
 |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Free for all said by ninjatutle:Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Free for all Not here in Cali. Most cities also make it madatory for you to have garbage service with Waste Managment. I know someone with an empty house and they are forced to have service. | |
|
 |  |  |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Free for all said by ninjatutle:Not here in Cali. Most cities also make it madatory for you to have garbage service with Waste Managment. I know someone with an empty house and they are forced to have service. So take it up with your state legislature. What does that have to do with this article about an anti-muni bill in North Carolina? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all Because this is just the start of the govt trying to take over everything... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  gdicus join:2009-02-15 Los Angeles, CA 1 edit | Re: Free for all I have to agree.
The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects.
Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service.
Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service.
Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers.
So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  RayWPremium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT kudos:1 | Re: Free for all said by gdicus:I have to agree. The service I provide has, on multiple occasions, been wiped out by city projects. Then, what usually happens is that the Government, or Librarian in this case imposes it's own rules for the service. Think about having a Librarian regulating your internet service. Go to the local library and you will see these rules in play. I haven't for awhile, but in one branch they wouldn't allow people to email from their computers. So, after wiping me out, they in turn provided a substandard service. I couldn't compete with free internet, even with freedom to access any site that you wished to access. So you are saying the Librarian dictates what you can do from home? or just from the library?
Or if I read your post in a different way, how does providing limited service at a public facility that is (in most places) open for limited hours affecting what I assume was an attempt by you to be an internet provider? Either you provide such poor service each time that it was better to go to the library with the limited hours and time restrictions than to put up with your multiple attempts. I have not seen one library prohibit email, and I have used libraries in California, Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and one in Alberta over the last few years before I got a laptop.
Or the third option which looks more logical, the standard big business troll. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
 |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | That depends on where you live. Eg. I live in Santa Clarita - 'many' area trash haulers that are located ~ 10 miles from here are not allowed to service this area. Local licenses/agreements.
I think the local governments should have the ability to deploy muni broadband if telco/cableco do not wish to invest. Telco/Cableco has their own agenda at their corporate level, which may not ever meet a local cities wishes - they should not be held hostage, or tied to policies (list AT&T/TWC caps like in parts of Texas) if a municipality wishes to explore better options. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all Ya I agree if a city wants to build its own broadband they should be able to
in any city that is underserved and/or has poor service (ie TW) they should not only be allowed to but encoraged to build their own system to properly compete to reach a good level of service | |
|
 |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Free for all Just to make myself clear... I'm not pushing gov't run fiber/wifi over business. I'm stating that if a private run business either does not want to run a modern system, or just wants to provide the bare minimum and charge customers excessive fees, then the city should have the right to wire itself. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all The muni, city, and/or state should do it regardless of any reason if it's people vote for it to be done.
If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Free for all said by Skippy25:The muni, city, and/or state should do it regardless of any reason if it's people vote for it to be done. If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it. You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry. The 5th Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the taking of private property(such as a business) from US citizens without just compensation. And that usually results in multi-year court cases where eminent domain is concerned.
5th Amendment "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Free for all said by ThrowDemsOut:So, in effect, you say a city can decide to go in to any business it wants to because there would be no practical restrictions. Absolutely. Citizens, through their elected representatives, have the power decide which services are provided by the city. We seem to have this perverse notion that economics trumps everything else. Capitalism is a means to an end not an end in an of itself.
Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise.
said by ThrowDemsOut: You sound like Obama taking over the auto industry. You know that is not true. The Auto Industry came to the government and asked for assistance. The government in turn set conditions on that assistance. I see no constitutional problem with that. No one is forcing GM to take government money.
/tom | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 1 edit | Re: Free for all said by tschmidt:Power derives from the people. The people collectively decide proper role of government and private enterprise. Not in the United States. The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives. The founding fathers saw the danger of the tyranny of the masses(aka pure democracy) and setup a government that puts limits on the power of the majority to ramrod thru changes. The Constitution delineated rights that can NOT be removed by the will of the majority without going thru the cumbersome, time consuming, and excruciating process of amending the Constitution. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Free for all said by ThrowDemsOut:The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives. What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens?
/tom | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Free for all said by tschmidt:said by ThrowDemsOut:The US is a Republic with a constitution that puts limits on the power of the people exercised thru their elected representatives. What does that have to do with communities deciding which services they choose to deliver to their citizens? /tom This particular msg thread started with this post: »Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over. quote: If the incumbent doesnt want to do it, then strip them of their network and send them packing and bring someone in that will. Even if this means a new company has to be formed to do it.
All the subsequent posts were based on refuting that poor argument. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Free for all said by ThrowDemsOut:This particular msg thread started with this post: » Re: Free for all where the poster decided gov't should just seize a private company and take over. Sorry about that - I'm not following this thread as closely as you are. Missed that little tidbit.
Government has power of eminent domain but one hopes that power is used sparingly. As you posted the 5th amendment requires just compensation of confiscated property.
My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise. That private companies and only private companies are the one to decide how society operates. I reject that premise. Business operates at the pleasure of the people and is subservient to common good.
/tom | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: Free for all quote: My post was about notion government should not compete with private enterprise.
Government (.gov) is NOT supposed to be in business (.com[mercial) .
Same as 'religion', which it is NOT to 'establish'. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all They're in everyone's business..  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| said by buccaneere:Government is NOT supposed to be in business . What does that mean?
If I understand you correctly Government should not be involved in Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, roads etc. All those services were once provided by private business. At some point people decided it was best to manage those activities for public good.
For years phone service was a highly regulated monopoly. Is it your opinion that was improper?
Who gets to set the rules of the game, private companies or elected officials?
/tom | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | said by en102:Just to make myself clear... I'm not pushing gov't run fiber/wifi over business. I'm stating that if a private run business either does not want to run a modern system, or just wants to provide the bare minimum and charge customers excessive fees, then the city should have the right to wire itself. And the highlighted segment is entirely subjective. With a proviso like that the city gov't could decide to go against private companies on any pretext whatever. So, in effect, you say a city can decide to go in to any business it wants to because there would be no practical restrictions. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Free for all I have lived in places where the 'town' runs water (no charge for use - part of taxes), local landfill (again no charge for use, part of taxes), sports complex, dentist office, library, medical clinic and firehall.
As no individual or corporation has invested in these, and they are deemed necessary for the most part (corporations did give donations for the sports complex), does that mean that none of them should exist for lack of private investment ? -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all En Canadian eh? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Free for all You bet, eh. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | I agree as well.
I think cities/communities can decide what is best for their citizens better then the big telcos or state and federal governments.
Also, an individual has more sway with the local government then they do with the state/feds, so if something about the service needs to be improved it's more likely to get done. But if all else fails, it's easier to move to a different city then it is out of state or out of country. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all What happens if the network is not profitable? Will they take funding from other sources? Will they even know what they are doing? Verizon a company with decades in the business can't get billing write, you think the govt will do better?
Letting the govt control the interweb? Go to China. Less govt is a good thing. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  DolganPremium join:2005-10-01 Sun Prairie, WI | Re: Free for all The reason they do not have the billing right is because the executives are too cheap to get the software fixed by their vendor, and too stupid to have in house software teams/developers. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  NormanSPremium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | Re: Free for all said by coldmoon: quote: ...Less govt is a good thing.
Actually that is what got us in the hole we are in now. What is needed is more competition... Just a thought Ah, so more government must be the answer. Let's nationalize every industry, and let the government run it all. Take all of our paycheck, and give us back what they think we need.
Big government, big business ... it is all the same. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
 |  |  | | said by Matt:said by ninjatutle:Everything should be this way. Are these the same cities that only allow one garbage hauling outfit in the city? You are free to purchase your own garbage collection if you want. You still pay taxes for city collection, but you can get an alternative service from whomever you want at your own expense. A more appropriate example would be education.
Sure, you can go send your kid to a private school but you'll still end up paying the school taxes to fund union labor in public schools. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Free for all Vouchers? | |
|
 |  | | quote: What does that mean?
If I understand you correctly Government should not be involved in Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, roads etc. All those services were once provided by private business. At some point people decided it was best to manage those activities for public good.
For years phone service was a highly regulated monopoly. Is it your opinion that was improper?
Who gets to set the rules of the game, private companies or elected officials?
/tom
It means that government is NOT supposed to be in business.
If it was, and it was profitable, then taxes would not be necessary.
I disagree that your examples were once provided by the private sector. Nor are they now. They were always public services, funded by taxation of the service recipients.
"Who gets to set the rules of the game?" That's a good word that you used - game. Because the politicians do NOT make the rules. They sign rules formulated by their compaign contributors. Like the phone company. That operates under the GUISE of 'regulation' (but which more likely is UNfriendly toward competition). | |
|
 |  |  tschmidtPremium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH kudos:4 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Free for all said by buccaneere:I disagree that your examples were once provided by the private sector. Nor are they now. They were always public services, funded by taxation of the service recipients. quote: "insurance companies formed private fire brigades to protect their clients property. Insurance brigades would only fight fires at buildings the company insured. These buildings were identified by fire insurance marks." »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of···fighting
quote: Modern police in Europe has a precedent in the Hermandad, literally "brotherhood" in Spanish, a peacekeeping association of armed individuals, a characteristic of municipal life in medieval Spain, especially in Castile. As medieval Spanish kings were often unable to offer adequate protection, protective municipal leagues began to emerge in the 12th century against bandits and other rural criminals, as well as against the lawless nobility or to support a one or another claimant to the crown. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police
quote: The notion of private highways, which would seem fantastic to our parents, was commonplace to our great-great-grandparents. Initiated in the 1790s in the growing Republic, these roads stimulated commerce, settlement, and population. During the nineteenth century more than 2,000 private companies financed, built, and operated toll roads. States turned to private initiative for much the same reason they are doing so today: fiscal constraints and insufficient administrative manpower. Knowledge of our toll-road heritage may help encourage todays budding toll-road movement. »www.thefreemanonline.org/columns···92-1916/
I could go on but you get the point. Services often start out as private entities. Over time some services transition from private to public ownership.
said by buccaneere:Because the politicians do NOT make the rules. They sign rules formulated by their compaign contributors. So what is your solution to corruption? Do nothing or tackle the problem. Seems to me the way we finance public officials is inherently corrupting. They have to serve two masters, their constituents and campaign contributors. But that is a discussion for another thread.
/tom | |
|
 |  | |
quote: I could go on but you get the point. Services often start out as private entities. Over time some services transition from private to public ownership.
Over time? I'd say immediately when [a] government is formed do the public services (of the type you mention) get absorbed by hostile takeover.
quote: So what is your solution to corruption? Do nothing or tackle the problem.
There is no solution. NONE. Those who govern us are beyond reproach, and getting worse. The taxpayers and their concerns are in stark contrast to the interests of government. | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Won't pass
It's no wonder why he's pressing this, the large majority of his donations came from AT&T ($4,000), Time Warner ($2,250), NC Cable PAC ($1,000), and Sprint/Nextel ($3,000): »www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/cf_pdf/···2309.pdf | |
|
 |  BitPremium join:2009-02-19 00000 | Re: Won't pass Thing is, if you slipped a politician $4K in exchange for a favor you would go to jail on bribery charges. AT&T does it and it's called a contribution. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Won't pass Businesses are very good at hiding bribes. They can, for example make contributions to 'charities' which are actually fonts for the politician. If you know how to do it, bribery is easy, especally when it's so widespread. | |
|
 coldmoonPremium join:2002-02-04 Broadway, NC Reviews:
·Windstream
| Let lawmakers know your opinion To get this stopped, citizens need to write to their representatives to express their opposition to this type of legislation. I have sent in mine and hope that others in North Carolina do the same. To that end, here is the link to the NCGA:
»www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/···r=Senate
Contact links for e-mail are available from the individual Senator's name link  -- Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
|
 woody7Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA | hmmmmm.... Where are the usual suspects (cable/telco) anti muni fan boyz, you know who you are..... -- BlooMe | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: hmmmmm.... I'm not sure..I'm actually surprised, and expected to see a blood bath between Telco/CableCo fan boyz and big gov't pro muni fan boyz. -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 | | obama + biden = FORBIDEN haha | |
|
 |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: obama + biden = FORBIDEN So where did you get the "F" and the "R"? Ah, ok. nm. | |
|
 BitPremium join:2009-02-19 00000 | UPS and Fedex have no problem competing with USPS Private schools compete with public ones every day. Same goes for hospitals and taxi services.
To say that it is "unfair" to face municipal competition is bullshit. Private industries do it with success every day. | |
|
 axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| private internet vs. government internet quote: Industry advocates say its unfair that governments can borrow money more cheaply, through bonds, than private companies can. So the bill would require local governments to tack on to the fees they charge consumers the difference in the amount it would cost a private company to borrow start-up funds.
Wow, what a crock. The fees would just go back to the government, minus the administrative costs of the proposed bill. I do feel concern about government being an unfair competitor, but this bill wouldn't do anything intelligent about it.
A better bill would put "open access" requirements on government funded internet access. The phone and cable companies should be able to offer their branded service using the infrastructure. | |
|
 | | Any private company that is so badly run that it can't compete with a government run operation doesn't deserve to survive.
Don't grant legal monopolies to anyone, public or private.
If governments do build FTTH networks, it would be wise to offer to lease dark fiber last mile connections to any carrier that wants them for a set fee. At a profit of course. | |
|
 fiber_manThings Happen For A ReasonPremium join:2001-01-27 Port Saint Lucie, FL Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| connection to the web?? Same point made several times before. I do not care who builds their own network at some point they have to connect to the incumbent phone or cable company to give access to the web and/or content providers. This will cost either the new company's customers or the taxpayers in the end. -- GO NOLES!! | |
|
 | | Muni isp.... Why are North Carolina cities talking about their own networks? Because they missed the part where they have failed everywhere else in the nation. Why ? Their independence allows them to build a network that is constructed with no regard for the carrier system that connects it to the world. When they can't get the telco obligated to to make their setup work -it is abandoned . The taxpayer looses again. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Muni isp.... I would like to point out that competition is what has us hobbled with so many systems that do not work. It is NOT all about consumer free choice and the economics of the free market. It IS about building a broadband system that works , is reliable -and has the capacity to carry everyone at the highest speeds. When this is done at the lowest cost the benefits are shared by everyone. Competition takes the money out of communications. You cannot force the companies to provide broadband at a price lower than the cost. All service ,construction and upgrades would stop. This has already happened with the competition in telephone service. The Government should stop using public money to force an ineffective political solution on a situation that is at the core a technological problem. To Legislate broadband as a non profit business is to kill it. | |
|
 | | NC, broadband, etc Hopefully our legislature in Raleigh which is controlled by democrats and also we have a democratic governor will not fall for this stupid republican style nonsense. Anti government at the expense of the public but to the benefit of the telcos that sit on their laurels and refuse to provide solutions to towns that they don't deem "profitable". If the incumbents are not interested in wiring those areas to begin with then why in the hell can't the towns and citizens themselves do it. This is nothing but welfare for corporations who either can't afford to do it or simply don't want to.
All of you who posted all of your resentment for public schools and taxes. You guys were the ones that screwed us all for the last 8 years. Yes, I am in NC and I am telling all of you that speak this way keep your greedy hands off and leave the rest of society alone. You always have a beef with anyone thats not white, who has more than an 8th grade education, and wants to use public dollars for the benefit of citizens. I am sick of it. Your the ones who are "anti-american" | |
|
 |  | | Re: NC, broadband, etc Hopefully our legislature in Raleigh which is controlled by democrats and also we have a democratic governor will not fall for this stupid republican style nonsense. Anti government at the expense of the public but to the benefit of the telcos that sit on their laurels and refuse to provide solutions to towns that they don't deem "profitable". Guess you missed this part:
Last week, N.C. Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston) introduced SB1004 to "level the playing field" That D stands for Democrat, in case your public school education didn't explain that to you...  | |
|
 | | The Big Buys
I don't get it. If these damn politicians want to level the playing field, then lets force the Incumbents (AT&T's, Verizon's, Cox, Charter, Comcast) to allow other ISP's besides their own on their infrastructure (particularly Nextgen like FIOS, Uverse, LTE, Wifi).
I'm so sick of this crap. It should all be about consumer choice and competition. Letting the municipalities in forces these incumbents to get off their dead asses and compete to provide true broadband services at a reasonable price. Not some damn monopoly where all you get are two choices...the local cable company or the local telephone company. | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| bs with cable companies introducting caps, we need all the 3rd party competition we can get.. be it muni, minority provider... or tier-1 building last mile. telecom is a majorly consolidated industry (both cable and telco). there is NO reason anymore for protectionist legislation.. if you can't stand the heat... close your doors and go out of business. imo, cable is taking its customer base for granted, these days. | |
|
 |
|