Slashdot Mirror


Supreme Court Rules Against Community Telcos

acherrington writes "Today the Supreme Court ruled against a group of Missouri communities offering telecom services where it is prohibited by Missouri law. At least eight other states -- Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- have similar laws. Today's ruling will most likely result in more lobbying by the Baby Bells at the state level to stop community-sponsored telecoms who are fed up with poor service and monopolies."

5 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This is bullshit!!! by AmigaBen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ah, an anti-Bush pro-democratic posting that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. How predictable. Gotta love you party-line political types.

    RTFA. You'll see that the /. headline and summary are completely incorrect, making your post even more irrelevant.

    As has been stated repeatedly in the comments, the ruling was about -government- getting into the telecom business. Take a deep breath, and go find something else to turn into a political debate.

    --
    +5 Insightful, really!
  2. How is this "Insightful"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's totally incorrect!

    The ruling doesn't prevent any "innovative salt of the earth small businesses and entreprenuers" from entering the telecom business. In fact, it actually helps them, because it keeps local governments OUT of the telecom business. The title of the article is misleading, making it sound like small, friendly neighborhood telecom coops are prohibited. The only thing that's prohibited from getting into the telecom business is local government(s).

    Of course, I'm guessing you didn't read the article and instead took the opportunity to Bush-bash.

  3. Re:Good news by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 0, Troll

    because of course everything else involving the government runs so smoothly, cheaply, and efficiently. What the hell planet do you live on...im thinking it sounds nice!

    --
    . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
  4. Re:Thanks to Nepotism In The Federal by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

    well what the hell does G.W. have to do with it? it was a 1996 law (clinton)and the case has been agued for several years before it came to the supream court

    ohh well as off topic as it is, i seem to find humor in your anti bush wackos when you tryu to blame every one bush. thanks for giving me a laugh today.

  5. Re:good for the telco business by Fjandr · · Score: 0, Troll

    Aww, poor you. Can't get cable modem access at more than 1Mb upstream. Forgive me if I don't sympathize.

    They don't do it because there's no money in it.

    If the government does it, it means that they'll force people who don't use the service to pay for it. BTW, it's called taxation. If you don't pay, they put you in jail. If you resist, they shoot you.

    Call me crazy, but I don't want a telco around with the power to shoot me if I choose not to use their service, and then have the audacity to not pay them for a service I don't use.