 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA
| Bull Crap Another wonderful law brought to you buy the private industry owned politicians.
Once this law passes, the HR29913 is up for review. The HR29913 law bars anybody from considering changing from a larger to smaller service providers.
I wonder how much it costs to own your very own politician?
[text was edited by author 2003-06-23 13:14:09] | |
|  | 
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth | Re: Bull Crap What are you talking about? This law makes it illegal for people to go to small time ISP's? Where do you see that? | |
| | |
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: Bull Crap Sarcasm buddy =), if they can pass a law like this, they could pass a law like that.
--
AMD 2500, 1024 MEG PC 3200, 180 GIG HDD, MSI KT4 Ultra Board, MSI GEFORCE 4 TI 4600 | |
| | | | Try this9
Premium
join:2002-05-05
Infinity
| If the phone companies want to build a case for barring munis from constructing fiber networks, then lets see those phone company construction crews installing fiber in those same cities!  | |
| 
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| My dog does this too... If the toy is lying on the other side of the room untouched it's no big deal. But if I go pick it up, even if she really doesn't want to play with it, it's the end of the world. She needs it back, just so she can go put it back in the corner from where I took it, but not play with it.
Anyhow, I can see both sides of the argument on this one, but I just find it annoying that as soon as a state law would be passed restricting municipal networks, those rural or small municipalities would again be forgotten by the bad boys.
The municipalities are taking action because they just want broadband.
The bad boys are taking action because they just don't want a scary precedent set -- not because they give a rat's booty about providing broadband to those municipalities.
Oh well. It does make me thankful for the things I have.
--
Cable Cable Cable...keep that cable rolling. | |
| 
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| Note to lobbyists: Please wait in the lobby. From the article - - “Solicitor General Theodore Olson asked the high court to hear the case, arguing that states have the right to pass such laws [that prevent municipal governments from competing with the private sector in providing telecommunications and Internet services]. SBC Communications has intervened in the case on the side of the government.” - - Some surprise there, huh? LOL Let the bashing begin…
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Note to lobbyists: Please wait in the lobby. 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! | |
| | |
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| Re: Note to lobbyists: Please wait in the lobby. Exactly...which is why SBC has intervened on behalf of of the federal government's case rather than Missouri's (or any other state's) side.
"Television - a medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done." -- Ernie Kovacs | |
| | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| I guess I don't understand Would someone please explain the reason we would want to ban municipal broadband? Not saying you have to believe it, I just can't even see how a reasonable argument could be made. From what I have read, the majority of cities/counties/townships who have started their own service have done so due to poor or non-existant service from local providers. So, if they are offering a better product, the only one hurt is the big telcom.......so is that the extent of the argument? They are better than us, but we should be making the money?
--
AMD XP2100+ @2300mhz/ Asus A7N8X Deluxe/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC3500/ WD 800JB 80Gb on serial/ Gainward GF4 4600/ Enermax 465P-VE/Air cooled | |
| | 
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| Re: I guess I don't understand The heart of the argument is this: "Any competition in which I stand any chance at all of losing, is unfair and therefore should be forbidden."
Sorry, you ask a very rational, logical question about an area where money and muscle rule and not logic or the public interest, so sarcasm (directed at the telecoms and not at you, I hope you understand) is the only way to talk about it without screaming and going nuts. However, sarcastic as the statement above might seem to you, that is exactly the attitude of the telecoms, and you don't need to look past FCC commissioner Michael Powell's brilliant comments of two weeks or so ago to see that the above is quite accurate. | |
| | | 
wacky tacky
@insightBB.com | Re: I guess I don't understand So much for free enterprise, and the pursuit of happiness (read: pursuit of commerce).
Idiots. | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | it just plain suks! the state of broadband in the U.S. is really fvkd up. telecoms buying big government to beat up on little government. I still can only get cable internet. monopolies suk. | |
| 
JAJ1138
Rev. John
Premium
join:2001-04-18
RiverAcheron |  hmmmm....
Errr... I... ahhhh.... choose...... ahhh..... hmmmm.... Ahhhh.. Yeah... ahhhh... hmmmm.... | |
| Y2KickIT
join:2003-06-29
Mcminnville, OR
| Municipal Power Next? If the courts decide telecommunications, cable, and Internet are not services that municipalities could provide, what about power?
Imagine five years ago Enron lobbied to make municipal electric utilities illegal.
What next? Will Bechtel lobby to eliminate municipal water systems?
Groups of citizens (cities) have in the past joined together to provide infrastructure and services for themselves. There is a long historical precedent for this.
America - By the Corporation, For the Corporation. | |
| | | |
|
|
Top Court Thinks Muni
·
