Lafayette: $3.5 Million On UnBuilt NetworkMost of which went to fight incumbents in court, says leaders... ( old news - 09:13AM Wednesday Feb 21 2007) tags: Fiber · municipalLafayette, Louisiana, City-Parish President Joey Durel says the city has spent some $3.5 million to deploy a fiber optic network to city residents, but not one strand of actual fiber has been deployed yet. However, Durel notes that the majority of that money was spent paying legal costs in an effort to fend off Cox & BellSouth lawyers; their employers engaged in a dishonest effort to derail the project since day one. While city residents voted yes to the project back in July of 2005, several years of legal battles with major telecom operators (and some locals) have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, where the city will finally get their answer.
Related:- Amsterdam Tests Residential 1Gbps Fiber
- Powell, Wyoming: Population 5,500, Fiber Fed
- Thursday Evening Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Minnesota Town Fights For Right To Fiber
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
|
 Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| why not just build it? the citizens voted over a year ago to build this thing, what right does the court have to overturn that vote to make AT&T happy. a smart judge would force the cable and telcos to pay back all the legal fees.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Re: why not just build it? The courts have the power to overturn any law, voted on by the people or not, that they deem unconstitutional. | |
| | | AJICQ499087
join:2001-12-01
Louisville, KY
| Re: why not just build it? The courts have the right to make up laws and drop laws from the books the people voted on. Is it justice? Of course Not. But foolishly the courts have too much power and often abuse the power.
--
low cost and fast speed is what customers want in broadband | |
| | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| Re: why not just build it? said by AJICQ499087  :The courts have the right to make up laws and drop laws from the books the people voted on. Is it justice? Of course Not. But foolishly the courts have too much power and often abuse the power. Justice or not, determining the constitutionality of a law is exactly what they are there for. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with all of their rulings. I certainly don't.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | 
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
| said by AJICQ499087 :The courts have the right to make up laws... No, they don't. They may strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, but they do not draft new legislation.
said by AJICQ499087 :But foolishly the courts have too much power and often abuse the power. What powers would you remove from the courts?
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com | |
| | | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: why not just build it? said by ff1324 :they [The Courts] do not draft new legislation. They don't draft it, they just make it up.
Things like the Kelo decision, getting rid of the death penalty for minors, requiring the PGA to allow for exceptions for physically unqualified athletes and other such rulings have no basis in the Constitution, but are law now nonetheless.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: why not just build it? said by pnh102 :Things like the Kelo decision, getting rid of the death penalty for minors, requiring the PGA to allow for exceptions for physically unqualified athletes and other such rulings have no basis in the Constitution, but are law now nonetheless. The death penalty ruling is the courts exercising their duty to interpret the Constitution Amendment 8, "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." They can define cruel and unusual punishment however they want. It's subjective and that subjectivity is the burden of the courts. You can agree on the ruling or not, but it's certainly their ball to play.
I know nothing about the basis of the physically unqualified athletes case, but I'm sure if you read the judges rulings they filed it explains that basis of their reasoning for that decision.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: why not just build it? said by Maxo :The death penalty ruling is the courts exercising their duty to interpret the Constitution Amendment 8, "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." They can define cruel and unusual punishment however they want. Except when the Constitution makes very clear that a person may be deprived of life through due process of law. As a result, the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual" punishment. Look at this another way. There are 12 states which do not impose the death penalty for any crime. An activist opinion on the Supreme court say, with full legality, that these bans are illegal and these states must impose the death penalty.
said by Maxo :I know nothing about the basis of the physically unqualified athletes case, but I'm sure if you read the judges rulings they filed it explains that basis of their reasoning for that decision. And its perfectly wrong, because the Constitution does not grant the government the power to regulate the rules of professional sports. Come to think of it, I will go sue the NBA so that I can play even though I am nowhere close to being physically able to play any professional sport 
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: why not just build it? said by pnh102 :Except when the Constitution makes very clear that a person may be deprived of life through due process of law. As a result, the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual" punishment. Look at this another way. There are 12 states which do not impose the death penalty for any crime. An activist opinion on the Supreme court say, with full legality, that these bans are illegal and these states must impose the death penalty. Last time I checked the US still implements the death penalty.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: why not just build it? said by Maxo :Last time I checked the US still implements the death penalty. The US Federal Government, military, and all but 12 states have a death penalty.
»www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article···&scid=11
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Re: why not just build it? So we are in agreement. The Supreme Court has not overruled that a person may be deprived of life through due process of law. | |
| | | | | |
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day
| said by pnh102 :Things like the Kelo decision, getting rid of the death penalty for minors, requiring the PGA to allow for exceptions for physically unqualified athletes and other such rulings have no basis in the Constitution, but are law now nonetheless. Again, they have not written NEW legislation. They have ruled on the interpretation of EXISTING legislation. No NEW law has been created. They do NOT just "make it up."
--
The funny thing about firemen...night and day they're always firemen
»www.stlfire.com | |
| | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by pnh102 :Things like the Kelo decision, getting rid of the death penalty for minors, requiring the PGA to allow for exceptions for physically unqualified athletes and other such rulings have no basis in the Constitution, but are law now nonetheless. Of the three, the death penalty case is probably the best argument that the court "made up law" even though it is based in an interpretation of the 8th amendment.
Kelo: Ruled that there was not existing law forbidding what happened in Kelo and that the redevelopment project did not compose a takings under the 5th amendment. No existing law made such a project a "takings" (and it is actually common for laws to elevate certain types of permissable public use to a takings, like Measure 37 in Oregon). Overturning the actions in Kelo would have been much close to "made up law". Still, the "public purpose" test used in Kelo is akin to "made up law", but since there was no existing law to create a test between public and private use, something had to be implemented either way.
Death Penalty: The ruling focused on the death penalty for minors. At the time of the ruling, the United States was the only country in the world that still legally allowed the execution of minors and carried out such executions (Somalia was the only other country not to ratify the Rights of the Child treaty, but still outlaws child executions, Bangladesh allows the practice, but has not executed a minor in 20 years and did ratify the Rights of the Child treaty). The big disagreement in the Supreme Court was whether the cruel and unusual standard applies under modern standards, or whether it has to be applied to standards that existed when the bill of rights was ratified. Otherwise, O'Connor was the only justice who argued that under current standards execution of a minor is not cruel and unusual punishment. Scalia believed that only the legislature could change the standards of cruel and unusual from those that existed when the bill of rights was ratified.
PGA (Casey Martin): Ruled that the PGA was required to allow Martin to use a golf cart as an accomodation for his handicap in order to perform his job as walking between holes was not as essential component of the athletic competition. The PGA is cleary engaging in interstate commerce and subject to ADA. Unlike you playing in the NBA, Martin qualifed for the PGA tour and thus clearly demonstrated he had the physical skills to play professional golf, (and even the physical skills to walk between holes0 He just could not walk between holes without taking a significantly higher risk of death than other golfers. In other words, Martin was not a "physically unqualified athlete". He proved his qualifications in tour qualifying. The existing law (ADA) was applied.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
| | | | | | | | 
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL | I hate to ruin your ideals BUT Court is NOT a search for Justice at all but a Search for the most palatable truth. | |
| | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: why not just build it? said by nixen :said by Maxo :The courts have the power to overturn any law, voted on by the people or not, that they deem unconstitutional. True... But where is the law that would be deemed (unconstitutional), here? On top of determining the constitutionality of laws, it also rules on the legality of anything that someone brings before it. In this case the ISPs are bringing the city to court. It's up to the courts to determine the legality of a municipal ISP, based on the current laws.
I am not defending incumbents or municipalities here. I am saying that statements such as what right does the court have to overturn that vote The courts have the right to make up laws and drop laws from the books the people voted on. Is it justice? Of course Not. But foolishly the courts have too much power and often abuse the power. and ...and other such rulings have no basis in the Constitution, but are law now nonetheless. are statements of ignorance, not fact. It is a fact that nobody agrees with all of the decisions courts make. It is not a fact that the courts are systematically filling the role of the legislative branch.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| however the SC might rule a person can be deprived on broadband because a corperation doesnt see their county as profitable while prohibiting the town from solving that problem.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |
ff1324
Everybody Goes Home
Premium
join:2002-08-24
On Four Day | Re: why not just build it? Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of 10 Gbps fiber connections? | |
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
February 21st, @11:19AM
|  Parish President Durel lies for effect
Durel says the city has spent some $3.5 million ...
Durel notes that the majority of that money was spent paying legal costs in an effort to fend off Cox & BellSouth lawyers Not true. $1.18 million went to all legal fees and an unknown part of that would have been incurred lawsuits or not.
See the following from the news item:
Thirty-four percent or $1.2 million of the $3.5 million spent thus far went to R.W. Beck, an engineering consultant ...
The city spent $1.18 million for six law firms to steer the project through a legal and judicial maze that included several appeals court appearances and a Louisiana State Supreme Court battle. How much of the $1.18 million is the result of lawsuits rather than unrelated legal matters - such as writing ordinances and an election referendum - has not been computed, said City-Parish Attorney Pat Ottinger.
"If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, it won't be that it cost us $1.1 million in legal fees. It's that the lawsuit saved us $6.9 million because the cost of the technology and hardware dropped," he said. --
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | 
komodo7d
join:2006-10-17
Lafayette, LA
| Re: Parish President Durel lies for effect said by T1 Rocky :The telcos were awarded the contract by the US government via the Telecom Act of 1996 to build out fiber to homes in America. They have already collected the funding to build out this network. However, they have not built out the network (AT&T has not even started and says dsl is sufficient for consumers!) interesting info...
nope, sure not reading this post from a fiber connection....not dsl either since Bellsouth/AT&T's dsl "up to" 3 mbps deteriorated to a steady avg of 485 kbps when the connection wasn't dropping (Bellsouth/AT&T have/had "network issues" here) that kind of dsl isn't "sufficient" for me...not holding my breath for fiber, (I should live so long )
one would have to know the whole story of this LUS fiber issue to appreciate just how crazy the whole thing has been | |
| | | 
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
| I think you misread his post, the 1.2 million didn't go to an engineer it went to a engineering consultant. My guess is that 1.2 mil bought them a recommendation on what sort of optical equipment to implement and a very snappy report on why that equipment was recommended. | |
| Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| AT&T Double Standards While I understand that this was origianlly done by Bellsouth, if AT&T is still part of this legal wrangling, then they are truely setting a double standard.
AT&T offers internet service through Utopia in Utah. If they did not nor would not offer this service in that area except for the Utopia network, then it should be easy for the Supreme Court to site them for double standards and through the case out, or at least their part of it. | |
| | | |
|
|
·