Slashdot Mirror
Verizon-Pushed WiFi Bill Becomes Law in PA
Cryofan writes "A Wall Street Journal article (via freepress) tells the sad tale of how legislation barring PA municipalities from offering paid telecom services was signed into law. 'Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell said late Tuesday night that he had signed into law a large telecommunications bill placing severe restrictions on the ability of cities and towns to offer telecommunications services, an item that was heavily lobbied by Verizon Communications Inc. and other big telephone companies in similar legislation across the country.'" (Also mentioned last week.)
I thought the FCC was the only organization that could regulate the airways. Am I missing something?
Oh wait!
what then?
Big government sucks.
How much more obvious can this payola get?
Markets solve these things efficiently. The government can make this available as free infrastructure, but not as a paid service.
with public cat5 ethernet plugs at every street corner.
I'm glad Verizon have done this, public telecoms are an outrage when the free market can handle it. I know the telecoms sector would never engage in monopolistic and unfair practises.
*removes tongue from cheek*
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Just curious, but wouldn't this open up the possibility of anti-trust actions against Verizon if the company gouges for wi-fi access and uses this new law to block city-based wi-fi?
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
I'm looking around the DC area - PA was on my list. I've even been looking in some of the nearer-to-DC towns. Municipality-provided internet (whatever the form) promises to be the only high-speed internet available in a lot of areas because the big businesses deploying broadband do not see enough return on investment.
Since my job requires high-speed internet access, I might have to turn to a municipal-sourced connection at some point, but it looks like that's not a possibility in PA. Since I've got so much free range in places to move, PA's probably now permanently off my list. This is a short-sighted state tax-revenue based decision.
Bummer. I hope no other states follow suite.
How does Governor Ed Rendell spin this bill on behalf of his Pennsylvania constutents? Since he anticipates Verizon waiving its right to stop local competition, and likes a "lucrative provision giving phone companies like Verizon large incentives to promise to modernize their networks", he'll just tell Pennsylvanians that if they bribed him as well as Verizon, they might get him to answer their calls, too.
--
make install -not war
Honestly, if I remember back to all those wonderful classes on what this country was founded on it reads (paraphrasing) "For the people, by the people".
Correct me if I'm wrong but what PA was trying to do was "For the people, by the people" and what Verizon is trying to do is "For Verizon's pocket book, by the money of the people".
Recently a lot of these kinds of laws have really irritated me by the fact that the laws as they were ogriginally intended gave consumers, the people, the ability to actually do innovative and creative things with what they bought. Now adays there is in theory very little that I "own". My XBox is technically on lease, my software almost all of it on "lease" (well the software that isn't linux anyway thank goodness), etc. At the end of the day I can look around at my apartment and wonder what I REALLY own.
The laws are terribly tipped in the wrong direction, this is another example of that un-balance.
I remember reading recently that the City of Philadelphia was planning on building a citywide, free WI-FI network.
Could the purpose of this be specifically to kill that off?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
This is an another example of the best laws that money can buy. The I-CAN-SPAM act is another example -- I wonder how much money was paid to the Washington scum to pass that law.
Fight Spammers!
It's not fair for the gov't to compete with private industry.
That said, I don't think this fits the bill. Telecom services are more like roads--fundamental infrastructure that supports everyone. The government should have a hand in building and maintaining them.
My initial feeling is "THOSE MORONS! I WANT FREE WIFI!"
But once i thought about it, i'd rather verizon (et al.) worked cooporatively with city governments. City governments want city wide wifi, verizon could do it, add a few dollars here and there, wam bam. Less complaints from verizon, and nearly free wifi. I'm a fan.
At least verizon goes to bat against other corporate conglomorates. (even though they lost that whole subpoena thing.)
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Some cities want to operate like businesses, but the primary sale of services should be for real businesses.
Let municipalities wholesale the service and have business actually sell it and support it.
As a PA resident, all I have to say is thank goodness I still can choose Comcast or Verizon. Kind of like choosing colon cancer or prostate cancer.
The title of the article is a little misleading - while the ruling does bar municipalities creating their own networks, this does not stop private groups of citizens from creating municipal networks.
So a motivated group of citizens can still create a city wide wireless network, it's just the local governments that can't. (I wonder if the govt. can give grants to the citizens... that'd be a nice work-around)
It should be noted that Philadelphia made a deal with Verizon that will allow it to go forward with their original city-wide WiFi rollout despite this law.
~Trick
...And I was really looking forward to the proposed wireless broadband that the City of Philadelphia was going to offer. Is this a case of a company bringing a city to its knees?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yes,
Well, before wireless, it was wired. In 1995, the State of Texas passed a bill that prevented the City of Austin from string fiber optic between its high-schools, libraries, fire stations, police stations, and power substations.
Seems that Southwestern Bell though it mighty uncompetitive of the City of Austin to replace old crappy 9600 baud modems with something that would be faster *and* cheaper! Of course, the Texas Leg voted was anti-people back then too.
Is how they plan on enforcing this. It's one thing to pass a corporate backed law that limits the rights of its citizens to use technology, and it's another to enforce it. What can they do? Install scramblers on the wi-fi spectrum??
If PA decides to implement a city wide plan it will cost them a large chunk of change to implement necassary security measures, hardware, support personnel and administrators. I forget where on slashdot I had read this before, but basically it boiled down to large initial costs with low maintenance. However, this COSTS money where leaving connectivity in private hands allows tax money to actually come in to the state through taxes on the communications since telecom is state governed. That coupled with breaks to increase A) corporate spending and B) loopholes to better infiltrate markets the taxes based off of telecom would surely rise. Besides, what does the state really care about it's low income residents anyway?
Following the revelation that politicians may be ignoring the welfare of their constituents in favor of assisting their corporate benefactors, Pennsylvania residents were horrified to learn that a number of local hen houses are missing many chickens. The foxes responsible for guarding those hen houses say that there is no problem but that they'll be upgrading hen house security very soon.
In a message to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Gov. Rendell said that the bill's provision limiting municipal competition was a "problem." However, he pointed to Verizon's agreement to waive its right to stop the Philadelphia Wi-Fi network, and said the state would "work with other municipalities on projects that they have established or propose to establish in order to ensure that, to the extent that they are now viable, they will also have the opportunity to succeed."
I'm sure glad Verizon is calling the shots now! I sure wouldn't want my local government to be able to make the kinds of decisions that would be in the public's interest.
If a municipal wireless ISP were so inefficient compared to the private sector why would Verizon have lobbied so hard to ban it? Discuss among yourselves...
STATUS QUO GOOD FOR VERIZON, ANYTHING NEW BAD.
ME SMASH OTHER PEOPLE WITH HULK FISTS AND DUMB POLITICIANS.
Movie studios and radio were not very happy when TV came around, either.
I bet the guy at Verizon who said "well, what if we come up with a better service to have customers come to us and not the competition?" got fired.
All the other hotspot networks (e.g. T-Mobile in Starbucks) are still operating, so Verizon would have to compete with them.
Ok, before you fly off the handle about why this law was passed....consider this:
Do you really want your government running any kind of telecom infrastructure? I mean, I am all for "services for the people" and all that jazz but on the other side, I am also for smaller government.
WiFi *could* be used as just one more reason to take more of my hard earned money. This bill assures that won't happen.
(p.s. I am against this bill but I am just playing the devil's advocate because issues are rarely black and white. More like lukewarm grey.)
This is typical of Pennsylvania's legislature to bendover backwards in favor of Verizon.
Verizon struck a landmark deal with the state of Pennsylvania to provide 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber to the entire state. Verizon recieved over $2 Billion from Pennsylvania but Verizon did not come close to meeting its agreement - wire 50% of PA with 45MB/s Symmetrical Fiber by the end of 2004. The state allowed Verizon to completely ignore the original agreement and keep all the financial incentives. http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/30544
Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract for hundreds of millions for work in Iraq and the people didn't kick the scoundrels responsible out of office.
Doesn't matter how obvious or how egregious. Not enough people actually care.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
unfortunately most people in this country vote for Republicans and Democrats. These parties are totally inept and corrupt. That is why I will never vote for either of them, and I encourage everyone to not vote for a Republican or Democrat ever again.
I was first introduced to the net via ESR's old free isp, sponsored by Chester County Pennsylvania.
I suppose it's a good thing such things existed from the start before ISPs became so monopolized.. maybe in the future we'll see large ISPs taking a stand against community free internet too.
The only argument for such regulation that holds water for me is all the added laws and taxes regarding phone service: net phones shouldn't get a pass on such while traditional phones suffer. frankly, i'd prefer to see such laws rolled back or redesigned than try to fit a new paradigm into old rules.
(-1 pointy hair for using 'paradigm')
Verizon will be telling free internet services to fsck off unless they pay verizon, and verizon will be modernizing the network w/ wiring runs and tearing up water mains in Pensylvania as well? Perfect....
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Unless you live in a major metro area, the chances of you having wired phone access would be even lower than your chances of cell access if it hadn't been for the government putting down the cash to install a phone network.
I don't mind the private sector but i do think that broadband providers should have to do an all or nothing approach. Making sure that all their customers have DSL availability.
The government says monopolies are illegal, but at the same time seem to make every decision in the favor of large companies. It doesn't make sense to me.
- Joe
oil companies fight against alternative energy sources, microsoft fights against the GNU/GPL & Linux & OSS,
mothers against drunk drivers, the pope is against the pill, etc...etc...
You keep voting for people who do this to you then you complain. Grow up and vote for people who won't sell you away.
Competition is absolutely necessary, but competition from the State is *not* competition - it's the free market equivelent of penicillin.
The real need is for deregulation, plus anti-trust law to prevent the incumbents from crushing newcomers.
--
Toby
That way the people who don't use WiFi still have to pay for it through taxes but I get to use it. Ain't government great!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I can hear the conversation now:
..etc...
VZ: Wi-Fi for every citizen, what a great Idea!
PA: Yeah, we're going to give it away to attract
a modern crowd.
VZ: Oh, yeah, the billions in infrastructure that
we put into your state, the jobs, tax revenue,
all that stuff, you still want that don't you?
It's not necessarily 'selling out', or 'paid off politicians', just legit local politics. States and towns have been whoring to business forever, in various incarnations. In the poli minds, it's better to have positive corporate presence than a few towns with wi-fi. Especially since the assets will be trash in 10 years, as wireless high-speed internet supplants it, delivered by none other than VZ.
Although this looks like Verizon just trying to monopolize broadband Internet access it's actually a good thing. The government shouldn't be a commercial enterprise making money that should be going to actual businesses. I work for a WISP in PA which owns licensed band all over the state. If the city of Philadelphia were ot put in city wide unlicensed wireless Internet access not only would it take away customers from Verizon but customers from other smaller mom-and-pop companies too. What the government should be doing is making it easier for entrepenuers to start businesses instead of taking away their potential customers. But just in case you don't know, Pennsylvania has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country so why start creating jobs now.
Governor Ed Rendell is no fool. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds him.
Thank you Gov. Rendell for proving that both Democrats and Republicans can be the Devil incarnate.
Gov. Rendell disagrees with the legislature and the bill but signs it anyway promising to personally help local communities to defy the law with his approval....?
For an encore, Gov. Rendell will legalize the molestation of boys but promises to personally protect young boys from molestation!
Before you've made up your mind about an issue, go read about it for yourself. http://www.anwr.org/
But the bill would seem to give Verizon far too much leverage in any negotiations, because it takes away alternatives from the city. In other words, what does this bill do to ensure Verzon will "work cooperatively"?
To make ana analogy, do you think your car repair bills would increase or decrease if your state government decided that your were no longer allowed to perform basic repairs to your own car?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It might seem like the government will give you a good deal on broadband right now, but that won't always be true. They have a weak or non-existent financial (and thus organizational) incentive to upgrade their network or invest in it the way a corporation would. But they have advantages (they don't have to pay taxes, and have free channels by which to market) that can be used to sour the market for companies which fuel innovation in the long-term.
This kind of interference also fuels urban sprawl, because it helps to mask the true cost of living in rural or low-density areas.
This reminds me of the Alfred P. Sloan and our beloved General Motors's successful sceme to ruin America's public transportation system in the 50s.
http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm
But nearly free is still not free, right? I can imagine Verizon's idea of 'free' WiFi: Ad-bloated, tracked, data mined and generally so cumbersome as to make you want to pay for a service that could be free.
I prefer that my local government, that I have *a teensy* bit of say in control this much more than Verizon.
if it restricts anyone from doing anything, it must be bad!
Is there even a reason we vote anymore. I think I am about to become a principled non-voter based on the fact that our government is now so corrupt we only help legitimize it by voting. I think I will start a public ad drive next election cycle to encourage people not to vote with the goal of keeping the voting population below 50% and therefore keep our government illegitimate.
Its not so much like this is a bad law so much as corporations really have taken over (in place of the big churches) because they pay almost no taxes (because they know how to work the system) and they are both considered persons under the law regarding free expression but also act as a shield by their owners and executives through which great personal wealth can be created with no personal responsibility.
Lets face it. The BOD of Verizon or Haliburton could order me killed tommorrow and they would probably never even be charged. So much for a system of laws.
Corporations controlling our country and our laws! Who would of thunk it? Fascism? What fascism? Gawd bless Amerika. Now all you little bible-thumping, code-writing, libertarian nimrods can reply.
Has Aquafina tried this anywhere with water?
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
But you won't get nearly free wi-fi. Once the telcos prevent cheaper alternatives they'll do what they've always done: invest your money in marketing schemes like credit card offers and frequent flyer miles while spending as little as possible on R&D.
Judging by the junk mail I get from SBC I figure they could build free wi-fi for an entire city for the price of what they spend on advertising themselves.
"So a motivated group of citizens can still create a city wide wireless network, it's just the local governments that can't. (I wonder if the govt. can give grants to the citizens... that'd be a nice work-around)"
That's quite fair (especially from a libertarian standpoint). Why should a government institution under threat of the gun dictate that my money go to WiFi?
Whose cheek?
I wonder how many suitcases full of money magically appeared in his posession after this bill became a law.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
What a relief, I was worried that with local governments providing free internet access, small startup wireless ISPs would be driven out of business. Its good to see that corporations like Verizon are looking out for the little guy.
Thats what they're doing, right?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
So let me get this straight. Private industry protects itself from government takeover, and everyone is against this?
This is a capitalist nation. People do things to make money in a free market economy. When you are forced to compete against the government, you usually lose.
You can't have it both ways here. Communism (the "people" own everything) vs. capitalism (the private sector owns things).
I'm sure if you were a small mom and pop shop offering wireless services in PA, you'd be very relieved at this bill too. How exactly do you compete against the government?
Here's another thought to go along with this. When was the last time you heard of the government offering new, innovative services? I thought so. The private sector - and the competition in that sector - drive innovation up and costs down. What possible incentive would I have to put out a new product if I had no hopes making a decent profit from it?
that's cute, you're trying to slashdot verizon. next time try to slashdot someone who doesn't have more bandwidth than God.
I think the general business plan of selling Wi-Fi service is flawed. The inevitable is that private parties, organizations, and governments will offer their excess bandwidth over the air for free as long as they can be indemified for doing so. As long as there is excess bandwidth, anyone can give it away.
So to go into the business of selling over the air bandwidth when there are so many willing to give it away, is not too bright.
Verizon and others will spend much money to try and legislate their business plan into reality, but it is doomed to failure.
Before complaining, i'd suggest anyone tempted to whine come and visit austalia and see how nice and expensive our broadband is. Telstra pwns me.
My Web Log
Because when using tax dollars, the government can be as inefficient as it wants. It can run the operation at a loss, and hurt Verizon just because some big govt liberal doesnt like the private sector. Duh.
Why not just have the state government run its own phone company? Its own cable company? Its own satellite service? All of these things can be delivered wirelessly after all...
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Verizon (VZ) shareholder, and loving every minute of it.
By signing this into law, he's just opened the door to a lawsuit. Thanks, Gov!
This isn't such a horrible thing. State-controlled services aren't a good answer to anything.
I live in Tampa, where Verizon is laying down the FIOS line. They're running into all kinds of problems--bursting water and gas pipelines are all over the news. The cause? The city has very outdated maps and Verizon is running into undocumented obstacles.
Competition drives companies to produce better products. Please don't take this away from us.
...please RTFA. This does not affect FREE city-provided WiFi. This only affects PAID city-provided WiFi.
I happen to agree with this move. The government should not be in the business of providing non-essential services. Government-run businesses do not have to make a profit, and actually don't even have to break even. Private companies on the other hand, have to make a profit to survive. It would be unfair competition.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Seriously, shouldn't laws have some purpose? This just seems like a way of giving money to a company.
I work for a FTTH company that develops a data/voice/video product, selling mainly to municipals and the like (mostly because telephone and cable companies feign disinterest). We've run into many situations where the telephone and cable companies file lawsuits against the municipals to cease the deployment of our product. Who loses? The consumer, because they're stuck with high-priced cable or DSL. The municipal, because they lose the revenue generated by serving up high-speed acceess. And the biggest losers are probably the technology innovators who can't get their product out in the field.
I'm so sock of dealing with it all that I'm just about ready to go open a used book store or something.
Big donors power governor's big dance
By John Sullivan and Rose Ciotta
Inquirer Staff Writers
Gov. Rendell raised more than $2.5 million from about 200 private donors for his inaugural bash, with much of the money flowing from corporations, trade unions, lawyers and professional associations.
Contributors to the big party included many who gave heavily to Rendell's campaign for governor, some who supported his opponents, and others who have earned millions of dollars from state contracts.
There were five categories of donors, with the highest, an elite list of 15, paying $50,000 each to earn "benefactor" status.
Some of the top corporate donors included Comcast, Unisys, Verizon and SAP Public Services.
Organizers of the event, which was estimated to cost more than $3 million, said donors did not earn special access to Rendell. [HAHAHA! yeah, right.]
...lobby the government to outlaw competition!
Hmmm Good Point.
Except that anyone who had read the previous news story would know that Verizion already took a crack and it, and did a horrible and inefficient job. Yea... Damn those "big govt liberals" who think that people in the country shouldn't have to use dial-up.
Maybe because inefficiency doesn't matter when you can use armed robbery (i.e., taxes) to collect your fees, rather than having to provide a valuable service that people are willing pay for?
Maybe it's because with the municipal wireless ISP doing a crappy-but-nearly-adequate job, there just won't be enough demand to induce Verizon to enter the market? Especially since Verizon is known for crappy-but-really-inadequate service, so couldn't win many customers from the local service?
Maybe it's because Verizon figures that even if they did change their company policy and give good service, they couldn't win many customers from the ``free'' service that the taxpayers would be stuck paying through the nose for?
See what I've been reading.
Excellent.
As long as Democrats keep acting like Republican light, the people will keep voting for Republicans.
The next time anyone meets Gov. Rendell, ask him where his testicles are.
[o]_O
Okay, so it'll never happen but consider this:
Private/Public companies lobby the government to pass law against the government offering competing services giving the argument that it could ruin or harm their businesses. I can see a certain level of logic and how this might even protect jobs...but...
What does that say about UPS/FedEX and others lobbying for similar law for the purpose of having the USPS shut down... after all, it's a direct competitor with these commercial enterprises.
I agree it ain't gonna happen, but do you see where this would seem rather inconsistant? I think this law should be repealed and quick.
I guess the PA governor is working hard to insure that other information-oriented TCOM companies with money to spend looking for a place to build will be inclined pass PA over because of its trend towards limiting and restricting such businesses from operating there. "Why would I want to build there when states like Texas are so much more open and welcoming?"
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
What does it fucking matter?
I mean, the trend is leaning more and more corporate every year. When is voting going to become a show when what really matters is corporate backing? Oh wait, its half way there already.
Don't like what your customers are doing with your products? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced to stop doing what you don't like.
Don't like another business? Write a law against them, push it through the court. Soon, your opposition is arrested or forced out of business.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
How hard would it be to do private little city-wide networks with directional antennas? I could see there eventually being enough wireless coverage to hit (almost) anywhere on the continent without having to go through a traditional land based network.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The city of Philadelphia made a deal with Verizon to let them break new PA communication laws?
Can I make a deal with Smith & Wesson to legally shoot the people who made those laws?
More seriously - if this is a law generally governing how the government can (or can't) compete with commercial wireless services, how the hell can one company give the city the OK to break the law? If the law is actually written to prevent competition with Verizon specifically, how can PA citizens not be rebelling?
So if GM builds crappy cars... the govt should step in and "make good ones" so that people don't have to drive a crappy car?
Bottom line; if Verizon did such a terrible job, and there was actual *demand* for the service, competitors like Cingular, SBC, etc would simply step in and compete.
Let's see...corporate america seems to be running the country now, not the people. Such a sad sight. Flame away.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
The thing is, the government is not supposed to be in the business of providing broadband internet access for a number of reasons, not the least of which are the reasons Verizon is citing...i.e. that the government has unfair advantages over private businesses. The question, in the long term, becomes whether you want companies to have viable business motives for bringing competitively priced broadband to an area or whether you would rather pay twice as much for a bloated government system which, in the end, provides substandard service and extremely questionable privacy anyway. It doesn't seem like this is a law that needed to be made, and certainly the process of buying the law is sketchy, but the ends do justify the means. There is a lot of debate over the role of government, but I am 100% certain that that role does not include providing free internet access to everyone. These kinds of socialistic policies have been proven over and over again not to work, regardless of whatever short sighted reasoning provides a jusification for doing it.
People here are excited about Verizon's move to FTTP, but do you honestly think that Verizon is going to have the money to build out the infratructure in areas where the government is already providing free internet access? Be honest, how many novice users are going to pay for internet access when the government provides it for free (and why should they)? Once again, this is an issue where private industry will drive innovation and cost reduction whereas the government will promote stagnation and bloat.
There is more to this issue than whether or not Verizon bought the law, or whether or not companies should be able to buy legislation. I heard a Verizon executive talking about how they're ready to jump into the pool of having to provide internet access to (traditionally unprofitable) rural areas, but that they just want to make sure there is some water in the pool first...and he is absolutely correct.
Maybe you should read up on info.
Halliburton has been under contract with the US G since the 30's.
Sending them to Iraq was an open option in their current contract. sooooo STFU!
It costs you billions to go over verizon/comcast/charter/whoever's head and buy bandwidth directly from a bandwidth wholesaler, and connect it to an access point? Cogent will sell you 100Mb/s of bandwidth for $1000 per month, and voila, you're competing with Verizon without stealing your fellow man's tax dollars.
Would they also have to monitor and filter the connections? I mean publicly funded porno access sounds a little too good to me. And thus begins the slide down the slippery slope.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Problem is, it isn't cost effective to run fast internet out to Rural PA, we have the same problem here in Minnesota.
Verizon had the chance to give them decent internet, but they blew it, so whats wrong with the government taking a stab at it?
This bill would stop municipalties from getting into the wireless internet access business with tax dollars. It does not mean only Verizon can step in to provide the services. If the community wants it, nothing is stopping them from starting a business and doing it. Lots of cities give out small business loans and so forth, if they believe the city needs such a business, nothing is stopping them. Wireless equipment is not that expensive, and there are lots of small isps across the country, so with a cooperative government it should not be difficult. They could then collect fees from people who actually use the service, instead of charging everyone whether they like it or not. Verizon is in the right when they say a private company (who can only charge their users) can not compete with a tax supported utility that charges everyone through taxes. If verizon can not manage it, someone else will.
Philadelphia has enough problems with the public services it already provides (water, sewer, trash, schools, police, fire, etc) http://student-voices.org/news/index.php3?NewsID=1 5805
I really don't see any advantage in having the city (or other local governments) branching out into new lines of taxpayer supported businesses. Where would it end? Should cities control TV? Radio? Telephones? Newspapers?
Here's an intro for it without the socialistic slant:
Today the governor of Pennsylvania signed a law barring municipalities from taxing their citizens and forcing them to pay for telecom access regardless of whether they want it or use it.
It was hailed as a victory for taxpayers, because the planned system in Philladelphia was expected to cost far more per "customer" than the same level of service would cost from a private firm.
Given the wonderful job government does delivering the mail, collecting taxes, collecting intelligence about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, running AmTrak, etc. do you really want them to be in charge of your internet service? Personally I'd rather pay less, get better service, and have the loss of customers to the competition hanging over Cox's head like the Sword of Damacles.
You are missing the fact that there are NO negative consequences for our elected representatives when they sell us out to the corporations.
We need to have BAD THINGS happen to politicians and other government officials when they sell us out to the corporations. If nothing bad happens to them, and there is so much to gain for these politicians/bureaucrats (bribes, "donations", ultra-lucrative lobbying positions, "grants",etc) and no negative consequences, why not do it?
There is a reason why you or I do not walk into a bank and start grabbing wads of cash. Bad thing will happen to us if we do that.
CLUE: POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS ARE GRABBING THESE WADS OF CASH. RIGHT NOW. Rendell just grabbed a wad of cash.
And you and I aint gonna do JACKSHIT about it. Isn't that right?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
And the poor techies. You want to get a job at a network provider in your town 'cause thats your trade skill. Hmm, will you be working for a nice internet cafe startup with stock options and nerf guns, OR will you be working for THE STATE, looking forward to failing pensions and monthly U/A screening.... DUH DUH DUH people!!!
However, the legislation signed by Gov. Rendell gives phone companies the right to deny municipalities the ability to deploy their own networks, which could hinder the deployment of Wi-Fi networks elsewhere.
Most states have "home-rule" regulations for cities regulating just how far the state may exercise its authorities, much as the federal government has precedence but not unlimited authority over the states. I wonder if giving the veto power to the companies, rather than vesting it in the state or a state agency, might run afoul of this?
IANAL, but it was just something that came to mind.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Cities CAN offer services if the local telcom refuses and then doesn't offer their own within 14 months. http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/11/30/ap1 683445.html
Anywhere I have lived it has taken well more than 14 months for a local telcom to go from drawing board to actually offering a service. This provision sounds like it's to prevent municipalities from undercutting an already in-progress project. Besides, I don't want to pay taxes for this service, I want to pay a company who I can complain to. (Not that they'll listen, but they'll listen a whole lot more than some local government.)
It probably isn't cost efficient to run a strip club in B.F.E. Kansas or run an anime shop in B.F.E. Oklahoma either...
So should the government step in and provide these services with govt employees and offices? (undoubtedly we could find people who would appreciate them)
It would be a much better solution to let the market sort things out; when demand reaches a certain level, innovation comes in. Like using lasers to transmit data far away and on the cheap.
So the moral of the story is, don't cry, get to work! Build a space-based laser platform ISP and become rich!
I hope they give out free cell phones, satellite dishes and televisions to access these services as well.
I don't know what part of this bill bothers me most - that the Gov signed it without a vote from the people (since it affects the public common it should go to a vote), or that this bill aides corporate coffers while blocking public access to information. And those are to say nothing about furthering the digital/economic divides splitting this nation.
While it is generally a good idea for the government to not be in competition with private enterprise, if that private enterprise is not providing a [level of] service for the public then I don't see any problem with the government acting to provide the service.
Considering this bill, was an article produced for this bill that would require [within a specified time] the services that the government was going to provide? Is, for example, Verizon going to provide large area WiFi services covering certain municipalities and allowing free access to those members of the public (on welfare, disability, students, social security, etc) as was the government? I somehow doubt that was written into the bill and that should be a reason for the bill to be dropped.
All in all, a very poor bill that will only serve to improve corporate coffers and futher reduce the public common.
Unfortunately, these are the steps that are not necessary to prevent government from completely overstepping it's bounds. Government run businesses are (at best) a necessary evil, and when they're not necessary, they're just plain evil.
I don't want my local city (or state or national) government both participating in, and regulating the activites of, commerce and trade. To do both would be a conflict of interest...and since once of the rights that governments get to enjoy exclusively is the right to regulate, I choose option number 2.
So I know all the dot.communists out there see this as a tragic blow for the free people of the world, but I agree with Verizon...I don't want the government selling me anything, because if they rip me off, who am I going to complain to?
...these are the steps that are necessary...
dammit!
Which gives one pause: how much bandwidth does God have, actually? Probably a fair amount, but yeah, I'd bet Verizon has more...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
And Americans wonder why the reset of the world think they're stupid.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
You can get PUC approval withough too much expense. Then with unbundling and fixed wholesale prices, you can steal the ILEC's customers for next to nothing while still letting them run the network. T-1's can be had for $50 a month.
I do agree with the rest of your comments, and I am realy dissapointed with VZ.
AFAIK a NPO can *purchase* service from municipalities. If a small group of citizens formed a foundation, and made a deal with the city (for 1$ a month or so) they could bypass this illegal restriction.
Seriously. The best way to combat this problem is to actually get a law degree and/or get elected and do something about it. There is way way too much of this cr*p going on. This isn't the prettiest part of capitalism, it's the ugliest part of socialism and needs to get cleaned up by people who are more interested in doing the right thing than their paycheck at the end of the quarter.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
By staying in the position he is, he is effectively condoning all actions his company takes.
Whether you like it or not, he can be held to a standard too, it's called honor. Something most people don't have anymore. I don't care how much "power" I wield, you put me in a position of responsibility for something that I have no control over, yet is doing all sorts of fucked up things, and i'm out of there faster than a bank robber.
Either do something or get out of the way, is how it should be, unfortunately people like him have no honor, just the dollar.
All your base are belong to Google.
I have no love for monopolies, but fear of government competition will keep more companies out of the industry and only slow deployment of high speed unwired internet.
I honestly believe that our democracy is an illusion, and we're taught to vote in our schools in order to make us complacent. Voting makes people feel as if they have "ownership" of the system, though our government is evidently owned by corporations.
We're all taught to legitimize the government. That way, when our government commits atrocities, it's with the implicit agreement of the American people. The myth that every man (or woman) can become president is taught to children, whether the sons of the wealthy (who do stand a chance of being president), and the child in the inner city (who basically has a tiny chance of even escaping poverty). Our Congress is made of millionaires, to a lesser extent our judiciary. Don't even think about getting a good executive branch political appointment without having donated a fortune to whomever is in power at the time.
We do have a system of laws, however. Those laws exist primarily to protect private property. At times I think our freedoms - what remain after four years of Bush II - exist only to let us vent of steam, and never get angry enought to overthrow those who control our destinies.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
... Frankly, I would rather _not_ see my net access be controlled by my government. Nor do I think that the government should be blowing my tax dollars on something that ranks, quite frankly, far below reliable sanitation and pothole filling, let alone education, fire and police in the scale of municipal necessity.
OTOH, a private non-profit foundation setup to provide universal service at lowest cost would be fine. In concert with state funding for community development and perhaps some preferential treatment for universal-serving incorporated nonprofits when it comes to pricing and availability of public infrastructure, I can't see why such things can't be done without the government meddling with access to communications.
These are matters for local (or, at largest, state) areas, and tech equipment is so cheap that pricing advantage from collective scale is not terribly advantageous; That is to say, with competent planning and implementation, just about any metro area could be wireless'd by a smallish nonprofit assuming that the local government and population are not innately hostile.
being the ones who side with big business...
.55%, we got that new occupation tax that went from $10 a year to $52 (just in pittsburgh for now, was written so other cities could do the same.) I believe they raised the parking tax or are trying to (even without the increase it's the highest in the nation). Not to mention some of the highest property taxes in the country as well. Why the hell would any buisness or person want to live and/or operate in this state? And some people wonder why the economy sucks around here.
Ed Rendell is a fucking asshole. Let's see what we got going on in PA right now (I live there). There's the $8 - $15 dollar per gallon gas tax that they want to pass, they just raised corporate income tax to
Good point, but if you are not paying taxes in the first place and don't do what you agreed to do, then thier argumnet sounds a little hollow
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
and other areas like it.
,government managed X means...
Why?
Simple, because they are not looking to serve people. They are looking to buy votes and a place to put cronies who need good jobs.
People here seem to think its evil to allow a corporate interest to make a buck. For some stupid reason they blithely believe the government agency will be better.
FACT IS: IT WILL NOT.
They are rarely accountable to the public in any meaningful way. Investigations get stifled, polios turn the other way, and when pressed they scream racism or "its for the children".
Sure Verizon is getting something they want and I am glad. We already have to deal with city managed airports (jobs programs, places to put bad cops, crony ville), rotten public schools, and overstaffed agencies AND YA'LL WANT THEM TO DO WHAT?
Oh great
it starts out being "Y"
it ends up be "Z"
as we get stories that group A needs it free or discounted. We then need to insure "kids" have it, and then, oh yeah, all government employess must have access for nothing. That gets tabled and the weasel in teachers or something they can tug heart strings with. Suddenly it morphs into adminstrators, then police, then fire, then suddenly everyone in government gets it free.
Well it isn't free for you. Your taxes are being wasted to pay for things that are only being used to buy votes. If the service is shitty do you think a government agency is going to care? Obviously if you do you haven't dealt with many of them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's the reality of it. We're supplying these companies with their own blood money, and we CONTINUE to supply these companies with their own blood money, and then we wonder why they try to screw us every chance they get. They do it because they CAN- mainly because we LET them.
Hmm, not so sure about that, now they contract out half the military duties in Iraq to private companies...
Also, the control of the military appears pretty much in the private hands of the Republican oil machine...
Do I read this right: have they legislated to prevent the provision services by the state to the people?
These will become essential and ubiquitous services, disallowing state provision will once more disadvantage the disadvantaged.
But perhaps I misread it.
I tend to think that these services shouldn't be paid for by the government. It's not that there isn't a need, It's just that I don't feel it is the governments place. People who are interested should start a wireless cooperative or some such. This way the people who are using this service are paying for it in terms of money and support.
Start putting up flyers, get people interested and setup a network of hotspots. If you get enough people interested then you can bargin with verizon for cheap prices and such.
-- john
Perhaps the Sold-Out one should be recalled?
Nothing changes politician's minds faster han a number of signatures on petition to recall them. Magically all the "benefits" of their decision evaporate and they change their minds. So, organize people, get signatures, and don't forget to inform him about your activities.
Hyperom.com
I guess they kinda have a point.
Bullshit. Coca-Cola could make the same argument about the government interfering with their ability to make a profit of Disanti water because, shucks, the public water utilities are hurting their ability to compete.
Communications, in this day and age, are as vital a resource as water and transportation. Leaving it in the hands of a few private organizations to implement when and where they see fit (e.g., when and where they can make a profit) is, to put it blundly, bullshit.
...is competition I think we could do without and has nothing to do with capitalism.
If you want an idea of what Government owned/backed "competition" can do to private enterprise look at what the Canadaion airline industry went through. Air Canada was crown-owned, and then privatised (but still propped up with massive amounts of tax dollars). Its predatory business practises made Microsoft look saint-like by comparison.
Since Air Canada could always count on the gov't to keep it afloat it could price the competition out of existence. It led to the downfall of Canadian Airlines (its chief competitor--privately owned and with much less government assistance). furthermore, it did nothing to control costs and maintain efficient operations. After it was privatised and finally had its mouth ripped from the teat in Ottawa it slid inexorably into bancruptcy. In the meantime, it allowed competition to fourish for at least a couple of firms (Westjet most notably).
Only now is Air Canada getting its act together and behaving like a responsible corporation (after emerging from bankruptcy as essentially a completely different company). Some of the same people are still there so they still make the occasional bone-headed decision. At least now they have to deal with the reprucussions.
The same thing could happen in telecommunications. If we want competition we cannot allow government participation on the playing field. Govenrment has demonstrated it does not act in good faith or in accordance with supply and demand so the result will invariably be a government monopoly.
The dominant telco in western Canada (Telus) used to be owned by the governmnents of Alberta and British Columbia (AGT--Alberta Government Telephones--was privatised and became Telus--BCTel merged with Telus not long after it was privatised). When AGT started offering internet dial-up access it was still government owned and put a lot of smaller operators out of business--the competition had to rent the lines from AGT so AGT even made money from its competitors. It did put downward pressure on prices (good) but when the competition nearly died completely outside the major cities customer service suffered greatly. Telus STILL has such crappy service that they have been the subject of repeated complaints to the CRTC (Canadian version of FCC)--a legacy of its government heritage.
There is still a problem with the industry (particularly in the US)--it is that even though the market is privatised and somewhat deregulated, the established players are still coddled by government. The decision to prohibit city-owned wireless ISPs is probalby the correct one, but the playing field still isn't level. Hopefully they aren't emboldened to try to limit PRIVATE competition.
Bush, Rumsfeld, Clinton, reagan, Kissinger, Nixon, Johnson et al, have all killed MILLIONS more than McVeigh ever hoped of killing.
THEY are the REAL terrorists! And for what reasons? So that multinational corps could raise profits? So that rich people could live without fear of socialism spreading democratically throughout the world?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I dare you to assassinate a corporate puppet.
..it's getting stinky in here with the BS. Do you think seriosly that government-owned with NO competition would actually be better than private enterprise--even if there were only as few as TWO players? The profit-motive is incentive to improve efficiency and service. If you wanted to experience government-monopoly "efficiency" at its best, in the 80's you could've flown on Aeroflot or ordered a new Trabant to drive around East Berlin (if you wanted to get a new car there for your kid when he finished school you'd have better had it on order by the time he was 10 years old or he wouldn't get it on time).
Coca-cola sells reverse-osmosis filtered water in little bottles under the Dasani brand. Public works delivers somethat chlorinated, mineral-laden, marginally drinkable water through pipes to your house. I'd hardly say that's competition. If however, some municipality decided to stock supermarket shelves with litttle bottles of reverse-osmosis-filtered water then I think Coca-cola would have every right to try to shut them down--because Coca-cola already has to pay the municipality for the water they use for their Dasani product and the municipality only has to cover the filtering costs--and would be making money from selling the water to Coke to boot.
As far as "vital services" like trasnportation--who do you think BUILD the roads? Do you seriously think in this day and age that the government goes out and buys the equipment, the asphault, hires each end every worker, etc? This is North America, not cold-war-era Soviet Union. It's all done with private enterprise by the lowest bidder (good ol' capitalist competition--ideally anyways. In reality it is done by the firm with the biggest political donation all too often). Furthermore, streets and sewers are often financed in large part by private development corporations as a condition for building new subdivisions.
Get your head out of your ass. Private enterprise and PROFIT is everywhere. It's why the west is number one today.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is _5_60/ai_65133031
I believe you may have just committed a crime (IANAL). I am sure that many of the rightwingbots brownshirts on /. will rush to report you to the SS.
As for myself, I would never advise or incite anyone to commit a crime. I advocate reformism via information war.
As for the negative consequences I would like to see Rendell suffer, they would be as follows: arrested and indicted for treason (the enemy of the people being Verizon (the constitution being a flexible document, as per case law (IANAL))), and then tried in a recognmized court of law by a jury of his peers, and then once found guilty, executed, as traitors have been in the past.
Now if those kind of negative consequences existed, scum like Rendell would not be grabbing those wads of corporate cash, would they?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
It should be noticed, however, that Austin is implementing a free wifi in city parks plan. And, of course, you can't swing a patch cable without passing it through an open wifi network, mostly due to the hard-workin' volunteers at http://www.austinwirelesscity.org/
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Why should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for freeloaders. When WiMax ramps up, eeryone will have the opportunity to pay for wireless internet anywhere. Cities shouldn't force you to pay for services you're not even using.
anybody got a couch I can crash on out of PA until this bill gets Vetoed? I HATE ED RENDELL
Philly is a big city. I'm sure it has lots of attorneys on staff and easy access to the courts.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Here in Kutztown, PA, we have a borough-sponsored fiber-to-the-curb network. It's really convenient and the price is $15 a month for 2Mbps down ($40 total if you want a full 1Mps up, too) ... pretty decent.
Hopefully we get grandfathered in, becuase one of the reasons Kutztown pursued this multi-million dollar project was the way Verizon dragged their feet and refused to bring DSL here. (Actually, the Borough of Kutztown pretty much controls all of its utilities)
I have Vonage and my fiber connection, and I am extremely happy that Verizon is not a part of my life anymore. You'll take my fiber out of my cold, dead hand you fucking corporate swine!
Umm no they aren't terrorist. The legitamicy of their government rolles made not so.. please play ball by the rules now. Rules that rich people make.
seriously, i find little if anyhting that would make what the presidents did any were near the same level as McVeigh. In no way does it come close. Think again.
This is an absolutely classic example of what is utterly wrong with the USA and its system of raw, unfettered capitalism. Why on earth should a privately-held company have a greater right to make a profit than the citizens of this great nation have the right to have access to essential services? WHY? This is disgusting.
There is no argument on earth that can convince me this is beneficial to society. I am reminded of another great public scandal in Los Angeles: when the city built the rapid-rail system, it lost a legal battle to run the line to the airport. Why? Because the operators of the long-term car parks sued the city and won, on the basis that the rail line would reduce their business. Now the infamous Greeen Line runs to within a mile of the airport, from where you must take not one, but two buses, to get to the airport, via the LAX Transit Center. From the platform of the rail station, you can smell the aviation fuel and plane-spot, if you so desire. And so, yet again, Capitalism fails to provide for the needs of the people.
And don't call me a Commie, I'm not, I just need you to see what is wrong here People!
No, the government should allow competition instead of protecting GM's monopoly.
Cingular, SBC, etc can't step in because Verizon owns the connecting networks and won't give them access, or would charge outrageous fees for access. Even if they wanted to spend billions building their own networks, the government wouldn't give them permits.
When GM made crappy cars, Japanese companies sold good ones. Are you saying you think the government should've banned Japanese car imports to protect GM? Because the government is protecting Verizon's monopoly.
and should've known what I was replying to.. heh
All your base are belong to Google.
The government already runs a postal service to rural areas, using government employees, and government funding. If the government also provides internet access, then it IS providing anime, because you can order it online from anime stores in other areas.
There ARE some strip clubs in rural areas. They seem to be pretty good at squeezing a living out of the sparsely populated areas. Just like those indians, who somehow manage to run casinos profitably in remote reservations. The whole point is that there ISN'T private citywide wifi access.
They were discussing on Off the Hook tonight about how Philadelphia and Verizon struck a deal that would allow the city to move forward irregardless of whether or not the bill was passed. Anyone know anything more about this?
Great, there goes my hopes of moving to PA. The law will deter tech savvy entrepreneurs from ever considering moving to PA and start a business there.
Linux at home
I have a good idea. It should be ILLEGAL for individuals to lobby the government, to vote, to do ANYTHING. It should be the sole right and priveledge of multinational corporations to do so. That will level the playing field and make things fair for all of us.
James Madison, 4th President of these United States of America, often referred to as the "Father of the American Constitution," said that the primary goal of the American government should be to "...protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Clue: the minority of the opulent is people like Rendell and the CEO and board of directors of Verizon. The majority is people like you and me.
Madison got his wish. Heck, he wrote most of the Constitution. And now you see what he wanted. And he got it.
The Founding Fathers were not good people. They were perfect American exploiters--treacherous, filthy, murderous scum.
They were owners of slaves, whom they no doubt beat until bloody, and raped until traumatized, and murdered. You doubt it? Go read up on some of the personal accounts of slaves. Google will get you there.
The Founding Fathers were owners of indentured white slaves, whom they no doubt beat until bloody, and raped until traumatized, and murdered. You doubt it? Go read up on some of the personal accounts of indentured servants. Google will get you there.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
This is not necessarilly a bad thing.
I worked for a small ISP which pulled out of Altoona PA because it was impossible to compete with the tax-subsidized dialup there. We weren't the only ones. The end result was an "abundance" of choices for Altoona's consumers: Poor quality subsidized dialup or AOL.
Of course, Verizon doesn't particularly want to share the infrastructure, so its trade one devil for another when it comes to broadband. But the principle is reasonable.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
But the fiber network backbone system is. That's why telcom cables and water pipes share the same public servitude and both are regulated by local governments. So long as the telcos control law at the federal level, real wireless replacements for cables will not be something you can afford or use.
Mesh nets are cool in theory, but it's wrong people should be forced to rely on an inferior technology so that an obsolete incumbent can continue to make a living. Just think of the local reverse osmosis company getting ownership of the water pipes and making things so expensive and difficult that passing buckets of river water from house to house started to look good. This too may come to pass as the overall standard of living in the US declines in order to support an ever less numerous and ever more powerful, ignorant and useless elite.
Sonny, of Sonny and Chere was a FUCKING SENATOR? THE GUY WHO'S "BEAT GOES ON" GAVE US 100 YEAR COPYRIGHTS? Something is very wrong here.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How many people did mcveigh kill?
:)
How many did OBL?
What about Bush?
for further information see my sig
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
and when their system of abusing the public and leeching from even larger parasites (government) fails, somebody will be left to pick up the pieces.
ive never been closer to not voting in protest in my life. we have to stop sanctioning the government and corporate abuses of the public. we have to let them fall thru their own corrupt system, and then step in.
the we of course, is anyone with brains and body who manages to survive when it all crashes down.
Who wants to bet that Verizon calls in on this little favor in the future?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Do you really want a government run network? I don't trust the government to buy toilet seats for under $1000, or hammers for under $500. Why would I want them to supply wireless network services to me? What happens in 2 or 3 years when it's out-of-date and desperately needs an upgrade? Do you expect your local city council person to just vote? These people aren't technical. They hire contractors and consultants and pay them scads of money to do nothing.
Free enterprise is the way to go. I'd rather have 3 or 4 telephone companies putting up competing products.
Think about ethernet cards. If the government stepped into the ethernet card business, they'd be $200 a piece. And you wouldn't get any choice. But instead, we've got 93 companies making a bazillion ethernet cards all for less than $20. And 3Com sells the 905B for $50.
Hopefuly, Philly is allowing multiple vendors. If they operate like Cable TV franchises, then we're all fucked. We'll pay whatvever they want us to pay, and there's no choice.
-- No sig for you!
Verizon pissed me off. Fuck them!
There is no fucking way private companies should be even remotely involved in something as vital as residential fresh water delivery and sewerage. One can live without a phone or television, one can't withouth potable water. The privitization of water in the UK was a fucking disaster and a reprehensible move on all sides.
The last thing the world needs is a country full of Walkertons because the CEO wanted a new jet and so didn't maintain budget for filter maintenance. Competition does NOT axiomatically lead to low prices and great service, anyone with a fucking brain can see that's pretty damn obvious.
"Competition at all costs!" libertarians have their heads buried further in sand than Communists.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
See, it pays to be too lazy to read the link. Or something.
Thanks for making that clearer... it does sound a lot better than I thought it was (if still sucky).
I'd better burn down my house so I can get value for money.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
...driving in Pennsylvania I have found that the roads are kept up fairly well but that unless you drive on the TOLL roads you won't get anywhere really fast. And on some roads in the sleepy suburbs outside Philly they have this obsession with "Jug Handle" interchanges--a clever way to avoid left turns in front of traffic, but they are too small to handle enough capacity and they are not consistent in implementing them (as a visitor I caught myself in the left land when I had to turn right to go left...but then the next interchange down you turn left to go left...grrr...)
Anyways are you sure the gov't actually BUILDS the road? I'm sure they likely maintain it (re-paving, etc) but do they really own all the heavy construction equipment, hire all the workers directly, etc during construction? Even up here in "socialist Canada" construction contracts are tendered to privately-owned construction firms. That makes more sense then buying heavy-construction vehicles that are only used part time and hiring a bunch of temp workers directly.
This is the first time I've ever written this type of comment. Mod up, doubleplusinsightful.
toresbe
I have one of those brita filter pitchers so yes, i drink tap water and it tastes fine. Is it now competition since the gov't is supplying water i'm drinking (after a little filtering)?
Noooo, that would mean Brita is competing with Coca-cola/Dasani, not public works, because the governtment doesn't realise any more extra revenue from Brita's operations. If the city were to use taxpayer dollars to buy everyone Brita filters who asked for them then it would be a different story.
If you write-in a real candidate (not Mickey Mouse, but rather someone who could at least theoretically do the job, like John McCain, Howard Dean, or my mom) you notify the powers-that-be that you are both dissatisfied and politically aware, and that none of the nominated candidates or parties are representing your needs.
.05 percent) they will try to find ways to identify and satisfy the needs of these potential votes in their favor.
The parties will see this as a failure of their machines, and if any significant number of people do this (say, great than
Remember, the goal is to get elected, and they are not going to rule out *any* means of gaining votes. They will even go so far as to promote justice and fair play if necessary (they'd rather not, obviously, but if that's what it takes...).
If you don't vote, you are sending an entirely different message; one that sounds like this to the parties: "BAAAA! BAAA! I'm a SHEEP! You can FUCK ME UP THE ASS and I won't do anything at all to stop you!!" They want you to quit voting, because it makes their job easier!
You seem reasonably intelligent, think about it. If you were a greedy, immoral, power-hungry plutocrat, would you pay more attention to those who vote against you or those who don't vote? Why would you care what Verizon does as long as you get your 3 girls and a cheesesteak every day?
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" -- Neil Peart, in Rush's "Freewill".
Philadelphia has Old Money like no other city in the States, as well as Philanthropies and a tradition of Old Money endowing valuable services (Think Green Firetrucks,(thx mum)). It is best that Philadelphia's Free.net not be part of the 'games' at City Hall. Would the Franklin Institute like to host such a city wide effort - establish standards and act as the interconnect? Penn could do the tech support as outreach....WiFi at the Charity Balls anyone? =)
There's a hardware solution to intellectual-property theft. It's called a .357 magnum. No better way for taking pirates off-line. Permanently. Properly applied to the head of any copyright-infringing little bastard, this works.
-From Noir by K.W. Jeter.
Who you calling "we", white man? I generate my own power, hunt and gather my own game, and live in high style.
Get smart and stop spending your money on things you can make yourself and useless plastic shit.
Outside the system is freedom!
killing isn't evil./ killing for the wrong reasons is. get that straight.. It doesn't make a person a terrorist if they act as a government against a government. Even if inocent civilians get caught in the crossfire.
It does make a person a terrorist (even racist) when that person attacks citizens because they have a problem with a government. Bush and blair never did this. You may not like it but there is a difference. now say it with me THEY AREN'T TERRORIST.
I support free markets and competition on principle, but you shouldn't really be holding up Verizon as shining example of free market capitalism. Verizon and the other ILECS are heavily regulated quasi-monopolies. They have no problem with gaming the regulatory process to shut out competition while collecting economic rents on their local loop monopoly.
See...
e s/ Colloquium/040721Baller/index.htm
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectur