LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

An anonymous reader writes "On Saturday, Lafayette, Louisiana voters gave BellSouth and Cox the collective finger and approved a municipal FTTH network by a 62% to 38% margin. The Daily Advertiser has coverage of the vote and possible repercussions. The hotly-contested vote was prompted by a lawsuit by BellSouth and Cox Communications, who bitterly opposed the plan. BellSouth threatened to close a Cingular call center if the plan passed, and the companies employed push polling, including statements that a city-run cable system might ration TV programming and block religious channels."

Comments

The cities have a right

[gbulmash]

The phone companies have long enjoyed local monopolies that were only recently (last decade or so) broken down with requirements that they have to share their copper. The cable companies on the other hand won a recent FCC ruling that they don't have to share their coax.

The fact is that these companies are rolling out fiber to the home on their own phased schedules, the timelines of which do not sit well with a lot of bandwidth-starved consumers, particularly those in markets that are far down the roadmaps. So it's not surprising that the municipalities are trying to accelerate this rollout with a DIY philosophy. The municipal governments are doing what they really should be doing, which is serving their residents. You don't see the cities implementing municipal-run ISPs to compete with existing, viable solutions from the cable and telephone companies. The municipal-run ISPs are being constructed precisely because they're filling a gap the big communications corporations are voluntarily leaving.

The sad thing is that the cable companies and telephone companies are trying to protect these markets by suing the cities rather than rolling out the services that they want. Their philosophy is "you'll get it when we get around to you, and if your government tries to provide services in the meantime (or invite in alternative service providers), we'll try to prevent it". This is wrong and arrogant. It treats consumers like a resource these companies have some sort of divine right to exploit, rather than a market which can and should be able to vote with its ballots and pocketbooks.

In a free market, if you ignore a market segment, you should not have a legal way to prevent others from coming in and serving it. While I can understand the desire of the big communication companies to protect their markets, they should protect them by serving them, not by suing those who would fill the gaps they're leaving.

We are in a world where broadband is synoonymous with prosperity, or close to it. The availability of broadband is an economic growth factor and an economic indicator. No single corporation should have the power to determine the timeline when such a powerful tool comes to a community. - G

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, sir, on your brilliant first post.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

I see it from the other angle. This is about infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons taxes are paid. I see no issue with Govt. providing that infrastructure, but I do take issue with govt. providing the services passed with the infrastructure.

Example: Govt. should build roads, not cars.

That said Govt. should build water mains, waste lines and electrical connections, but I don't necessarily want to see private industry providing water to individuals or processing sewage. I do not mind private electrical generation or a mixed public/private electrical co-op. What is the difference between these though?

Perhaps it is because given a stable grid power is power there is no difference in electrons at the level of the home user. A unit of water on the other hand can be fundamentally different coming from different processing facilities, but since it would be carried in a single medium there is no differentiation except for local.

Anybody else's thoughts on the matter?

Re:The cities have a right

[geekee]

"The sad thing is that the cable companies and telephone companies are trying to protect these markets by suing the cities rather than rolling out the services that they want. Their philosophy is "you'll get it when we get around to you, and if your government tries to provide services in the meantime (or invite in alternative service providers), we'll try to prevent it". This is wrong and arrogant. It treats consumers like a resource these companies have some sort of divine right to exploit, rather than a market which can and should be able to vote with its ballots and pocketbooks."

No, companies treat customers like a market. They no fiber is too expensive and no one would pay for it in a market where cable and twisted pair are available. So now everyone's forced to pay for something that will be of real benefit to only a small minority in the near term.

"In a free market, if you ignore a market segment, you should not have a legal way to prevent others from coming in and serving it."

Govt. is not a market force. Govt. intervention means, by definition, that the market is not free.

"The availability of broadband is an economic growth factor and an economic indicator. No single corporation should have the power to determine the timeline when such a powerful tool comes to a community. "

It is local govt. who have set this artificial monopoly. No local govt. just lets anyone string cable, fiber, etc. Companies are at the mercy of govt. regulation, not the other way around.

Re:The cities have a right

[Dark Paladin]

Considering that it was the will of the voters, which could said to be the equal footing of, say, voters in a corporation, and it was over 70% of the voters who said "yes", I'd say this is a form of market force - only here the "corporation" is also called the "city council", and the voting is "one person, one vote" not "they who own the most shares get the most votes".

Re:The cities have a right

[ctr2sprt]

*shrug*

The government is the biggest, baddest monopoly of all. It's also an insidious one because there is no direct correlation between its fees (taxes) and its expenditures. If your cell phone company, for example, charges you a ruinous rate, you can see exactly how ruinous it is. You can then decide whether their cell service is really that important to you, and if it's not, you can cancel and take your money elsewhere. If it's your government providing your service, not only can you not take your money elsewhere except by moving (which can have very high costs), you also have no idea how much of your yearly "bill" is actually going to the service. It's like paying your rent, electric, water, sewer, garbage, telephone, Internet, and cable bills all at once, with no idea how much goes to each. Your rent may be $500/mo or it may be $5000/mo. And of course, if you don't want telephone service - maybe you have a cell phone - you have no way of saying "Don't bill me for this, because I'm not using it." You're paying for it whether you use it or not.

So those are some of the reasons why governments providing services is usually a very bad thing. Now for what I think would be the right way to handle broadband, and yes, it does include government intervention.

Basically, the government would own the fiber and some of the supporting hardware (routers etc). It would buy it all at first and pay for it via loans or bonds or whatever else (but not taxes). It would then turn around and lease the fiber to private companies at cost, plus some more to pay off the initial investment in, say, five or ten years. Obviously companies could lease part of the network - for example a high-speed link between two offices - or some of the bandwidth of the entire network (an ISP). All maintenance and upgrade costs would be split up among the interested lessees. The government would be involved in this only as an arbiter and guarantor of quality of service (i.e. it ensures a base level of maintenance and that there is enough bandwidth for everyone who wants it).

(One important part is that this has to be leased at cost. No more, no less. If the government makes a profit, it will dump it into other projects: see Social Security. If it loses money regularly, it will try to raise it via taxes or by diverting funds from other projects. It's really critical that this be a self-sufficient, not-for-profit program. Obviously with floating costs, lessee turnover, etc., some years this will turn a profit and some years it will take a loss. But with good planning this should be manageable, and it goes without saying that any profits should be set aside to cover future losses or, hell, refunded directly. As long as the program isn't running an annual loss, most lessees would be content to pay the remainder at the end of the year if they were given refunds years when it made money. If you are running in the red every year, then you need to consider the possibility that people in your area really don't find this a valuable service and settle for providing high-speed Internet access just in libraries or other centralized areas.)

The neat part is that this really opens up the market to small area businesses by knocking out the enormous initial investments. It also allows the fiber to be "multi-use" through multiple providers: you can get Internet, phone, and cable TV over the same fiber from three different companies.

Of course, this will never happen. Either it will be blocked by the big companies or it will become yet another socialist pork project (because we really need more of those). But Slashdot is the forum for subjunctive dreaming!

Re:The cities have a right

[Big Jojo]

... but I do take issue with govt. providing the services passed with the infrastructure. Example: Govt. should build roads, not cars.

Neither road nor car is a "service". They're both objects.

Policing roads ... service. Cleaning them, snowplowing, maintaining ... service.

Your position is clearly bogus!

One way to look at this is historically. And in the historical sense, community infrastructure has only very recently come to be seen as something that governments "should" stay out of ... you know, because if they were to offer service near cost, then more money would stay in the hands of citizens; there wouldn't be as many ways the corporate oligarchies could rip them off.

Notice by the way that your example of a "stable grid" for electricity assumes artificial scarcity. No reason that we couldn't be using lots of local energy sources -- methane from recycling, wind, solar, a factory's off-hour capacity -- and have an economy that's not so readily gamed by the Enrons of this world.

Re:The cities have a right

[penix1]

"If your cell phone company, for example, charges you a ruinous rate, you can see exactly how ruinous it is. You can then decide whether their cell service is really that important to you, and if it's not, you can cancel and take your money elsewhere."

Therein lies the problem. There is no "elsewhere" to take it in most rural areas. Cable & phone companies are government sanctioned monopolies. I'm sure you have cable in your area. Let's say it is Cox. Try taking your cable business to Charter and see what answer you get.

Governments provide services like these when corporate entities can't or won't. That is one of the jobs of government.

B.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

The government coming in and choosing to shut down an entire sector of business by underwriting the operation with TAX PAYER MONEY is communism.

That's not what's happening here. A nationwide bunch of companies are basically telling a bunch of small towns:

We'll get around to running fiber to you when and if we feel like it. Because we all agree that it's not currently profitable to run fiber to you, it could possibly be several decades before we get to you (if we ever do). In the meantime, you can kiss our asses and feel rotten that a small part of the fees you're paying us now are funding fiber in _real_ towns. Suck our assholes.

--The Cable and Telephone Companies

Because what's profitable for the goose is profitable for the gander, it could seriously be decades before fiber comes to some towns. It hasn't been all that long ago before there were still one or two spots that didn't have telephone service. What this town is basically doing is creating competition for those companies. If the companies want that area now, they'll have to do it sooner.

If this was occuring on a national scale I dont think people would even tolerate that for a second.

You're probably correct; however, in that case (and on that scale) the government would be competing against businesses. Here, the local government is competing against nothing.

the government is not supposed to be "in business" the are supposed to guide and maintain the legal infrastructure for us the people to do it ourselves throuh business.

No business is helping these people because they aren't profitable enough to deal with, so they're going to help themselves. This could even wind up being more efficient because the local money is directly going to help that small area (if there's enough oversight).

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your position is clearly bogus!

And your clearly an idiot, as you have taken the statements out of context.

the stable grid example does not assume an atrificial scarcity, but nor single sourcing hense the appearent reason the GP equivocation on the subject GP even mentions multisourcing.

I do not mind private electrical generation or a mixed public/private electrical co-op. What is the difference between these though?

I personally like a free enterprise system such as teh US was originally organized around and think that cities should provide infrastructure but not services.

Re:The cities have a right

[vought]

I grew up in Lafayette. Rather, I grew up in Carencro, a few miles north, but since two Interstates cross in Lafayette (I-10 and I-49) more people know where it is. I spent much of my childhood there, since both my parents worked in "town".

Louisiana, despite the craven Christo-Republicanism currently grippping the state, has long and deep populist roots. Louisiana was one of the first states to have free textbooks for public school kids, and during a time when the state's agricultural base was in tatters, Huey Long rode to success on taxing the oil companies who were then punching a hole in the mud wherever they could, and using the money (well, most of it, anyway, or whatever didn't fall under the table) to build roads across the waterways that divided the state.

John Breaux and Bennet Johnson continued this tradition on the federal level to a certain extent; while Louisiana never had a large Air Force, Army, or Navy presence, and missed out on much of the Space Race southern welfare programs of the 60s, the state did get some heap-big federal dollars for I-10 across the Atchafalaya, I-55 through Manchac, and I-49 from Lafayette to Alexandria, which was one of the largest earthmoving projects in Insterstate highway history, and opened a remote part of the state to high speed travel, cutting the time from Lafayette to Alexandria to just under two hours in 1999 from a little under five hours in 1980.

Because of the infrastructure building, Louisiana is a far, far different place today. Lafayette's vote is a reflection of the very deeply-held Louisiana belief that big comanies get their money from the citizens anyway; why shouldn't we try to build one ourselves, with our money, and do it better?

Lafayette, by the way, has one of the best public utility systems around. LUS has always been self-sustaining, sells power to other utilities to lower ratepayer burden, and Lafayette is one of the cities that when hit by a hurricane, always amanges to get the power back on within a few days. They've also done an amazing job of cleaning up the neglected Vermilion river.

I'm proud to be from there, especially with the outcome of this vote, and the margin.

Go Cajuns!

Re:The cities have a right

[d34thm0nk3y]

The government is the biggest, baddest monopoly of all. It's also an insidious one because there is no direct correlation between its fees (taxes) and its expenditures.

There is no direct correlation in business either. The price for products and services are set by what the market will bear, not what it costs to make.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Do you really think the " Christo-Republicanism" "gripping the state is "Characterized by abject fear; cowardly"? I would remind you that the Christo part of that statement is what provided public schools in the first place in this country as well as the first universities and colleges.

Further, while I Louisiana, your claim of supporting infrastructure with roads is clearly out of place. I live in Texas and routinely made runs into Louisiana (I have many friends and much family that live there) the roads were the worst of any in the gulf coast region for years. If you happened to be asleep in a car as it passed the boarder into Louisiana you would immediately be jarred awake by the bumps in it.

All that aside, I stand by my original post and say that it is the govt. place to build infrastructure, but I still have a problem with them providing services through it. Not completely mind you, and thats why I asked for comments. I do also recognize the difference between local (city, county state) and federal govt. in this however. While the Fed. govt. is bound by the constitution I do not consider the state to be bound by the federal constitution but rather the states (or commonwealth or republic etc.)

Thank you for your view and comments.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

voters (shareholders) of a corporation have limited rights and do not directly determine the strategic direction of the company. They have very limited voting rights (even if that is slowly changing).

Shareholders also are inclined to see their corporation run a profit in order to be able to pay out profits in the form of dividends (or at least see capital appreciation).

Voters are not so involved in their governments business strategies. They are largely ill informed of the rationale (in this case, there is one, but it comes at a cost) and will later complain about the costs.

There will be numerous cost overruns as the govt will be unable to control spending to the degree that a corporation would. They will also likely overspend. The service will not be taken up by consumers by the amount forecast leading to even higher costs of service.

I am not sure how the govt is structuring this in the end but the least bad would be a private-public partnership. The govt should build the network (since the idea behind this is that a company will not build the network needed for increased bandwidth due to the loss making nature of it) and then lease the network out to any company wishing to offer internet services. Ie more than one.

This would be similar to splitting transmission from energy generation. Leave the physical network with the city (although have a private company bid to maintain it and service the end users) and allow competition between providers leasing the network to drive down prices.

A complete government solution is abhorrent and will do more economic harm than good. There will be much larger economic distortions.

The private-public partnership would also lead to a variety of services available and not a onefitsall package.

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

Your analogy is false because the customers of a business are generally not those doing the voting, whereas in government, the users of the service (customers, in a sense) are. Corporations are neccesarily private and are defined that way in law (the word actually has a real and legally binding meaning, you know). Last I heard, public corporations were referred to as authorities. Read up on Robert Moses and his reign of tyranny if you think that public authorities are a good idea. Robert Caro has written a very revealing book on the topic that's worth the read, despite its size.

It's only a market force if the government and economy are one, which they aren't in the states. The cable companies have one responsibility--to profit by selling cable. If a market is not profitable, then they shouldn't have an obligation to be there and the users demanding the service should find it themselves, as they have (regrettably) through the socialization of said service.

Re:The cities have a right

[Emperor Cezar]

"Cable & phone companies are government sanctioned monopolies."

So, if they screw that up so badly, let's just give them even more control over it.

Re:The cities have a right

[timmarhy]

your missing the point. if neither company will fill the demand, then why the fuck do they have the right to stop the local government doing it? obviously residents have lobbied for this to happen, due to being sick of waiting for either corp. to do it. you can't purposly stay out of a market, but keep ANYONE else servicing the demand just because you PLAN on coming in later and making money on it. it doesn't matter who is servicing it, it's totally irrelvant in the context of what is happening. it's exactly like someone living on a dirt road, asking a company to seal it for them, being told it's not worth the trouble, then going to the local council getting them to do it and having said company whip around and cry "you can't do that, i would have made a killing off that 12 months from now!"

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Markets do not exist without government interference. State issued money and police-backed courts come to mind as examples of government interference.

Re:The cities have a right

[bsdrawkcab]

And of course, if you don't want telephone service - maybe you have a cell phone - you have no way of saying "Don't bill me for this, because I'm not using it." You're paying for it whether you use it or not.

Yup. Public goods rarely directly benefit every single individual. You can't opt-out of highway taxes just because you don't drive.

I'm sure you recognize that sometimes this is exactly the right approach to important pieces of infrastructure.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple technicalities:
It was 68% percent of participating voters, not "over 70%".

Secondly, the city council doesn't have a thing to do with it. This was a public vote.

It was also about 12,500 people who voted for this out of about 74,000 registered voters who voted in favor. Although, also much like a corporation, a minority -- in this case, a bit more than a sixth of "shareholders" -- made a decision for 74,000 total vote-capable "shareholders", and a city of about 120,000 people.

So yeah, it is like a corporation. About a tenth of people affected made a decision on behalf of the other nine-tenths.

I still like the idea, though, I just doubt it'll fiscally succeed. The City of Lafayette would have to be the leading TV provider in the city in order to be fiscally successful. Being a South Louisiana broadband consumer, I'd just be happy with 6Mb broadband without Cox Communication's involvement, myself.

OTOH, I can see fiber bringing in businesses that wouldn't normally bother with a "city" like Lafayette, which smells like garbage, is home to the real-world South Central Louisiana State University, and apparently has had drunks for city planners since about 1985.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

The government coming in and choosing to shut down an entire sector of business by underwriting the operation with TAX PAYER MONEY is communism.

Well if being able to vote in a low-cost high-bandwidth solution is communism, then I'll have some more communism thanks!

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not consider the state to be bound by the federal constitution but rather the states (or commonwealth or republic etc.)

Thank goodness the judicial branch of the US federal government, for the most part, disagrees with you.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

yet another socialist pork project

What? Ain't you never heard of Huey Long, boy? That's a compliment down here.

WOOOOO CHARITY HOSPITAL SYSTEM WOOOOO

Re:The cities have a right

[timeOday]

The government is the biggest, baddest monopoly of all.

There is a key difference: with government you get to vote.

Anyways, I agree with your plan: let the city build the infrastructure, and let companies compete for ISP services on that fiber.

Re:The cities have a right

[timshea]

Example: Govt. should build roads, not cars.

I don't have a car. I don't need a road.

That said Govt. should build water mains

I have a well.

waste lines

I have a septic system.

That said Govt. should build water mains, waste lines and electrical connections, but I don't necessarily want to see private industry providing water to individuals or processing sewage. I do not mind private electrical generation or a mixed public/private electrical co-op.

Electricity is different?

Re:The cities have a right

[maxpublic]

then they shouldn't have an obligation to be there

They don't have any such obligation, nor is anyone trying to force an obligation upon them. On the other hand they don't have any business suing the municipality for providing service to areas they refuse to string line to.

This works both ways. Companies don't have to serve those they don't want to serve, and municipalities aren't required to preserve 'fallow' territory simply because the companies *might* want to bring it service at some later date. Citizens aren't 'natural resources' to be harvested at the whim of the companies in question.

the users demanding the service should find it themselves

Which they did. I find it unfortunate that they did so through the mechanism of government rather than relaxing regulatiions so that private individuals could fill the gap, but it beats having no service at all.

Max

Re:The cities have a right

[vought]

Do you really think the " Christo-Republicanism" "gripping the state is "Characterized by abject fear; cowardly"?

I didn't say that Republicans were cowardly for hiding behind the Christ, but here are my thoughts on it.

I think the "Christo-Republican" political base is in fact quite bold in it's assertion of principles, picking and choosing chapter and verse as necessary, as Jimmy Swaggart was so good at. Like Swaggart, they'll likely be forgiven time and time again as long as they duck behind an unimpeachable icon: the church.

Among other things, the Republican party and their allies in the "pay for Jesus" movement teach that old testament principles (the angry, world-destroying, testing God) should be intermingled with new testament principles (Forgiveness despite intent) by followers as they so please and dictate.

Abortion? Wrong in every case, despite intent, original sin, etc. Eye for an eye death penalty? Right in every case, despite the imperfect and often jaundiced legal system available to the poor.

As to your roads comment, it's arguable that most of those bad roads (and I agree, most have seen better days) wouldn't even be laid down if it weren't for the populist movement in Louisiana during the late '30s. Huey was many things: a drunk (or was that Earl?) a cheat, a liar...but he was also godawful poor when he was a little boy, and he knew that if he could spread the money around to his friends and make things marginally better for the little people living under the twin threats of flood and remoteness, he would be revered. And he was.

Back to the roads. The roads that I liken to Lafayette's existing dark fiber ring and proposed FTTH. (Have to stay on topic.)

Consider that the Houston->New Orleans corridor sees 1: more heavy truck traffic than most other continuous four lane interstate routes (I-5 from L.A. to San Francisco sees less heavy truck traffic.) and 2: that Louisiana Interstates and highways below Alexandria are mostly built on fill or ground that is given to subsiding, unlike the mixed swamp and prairie west of Lafayette and 3: that Louisiana has one of the highest ration of bridge (expensive to build and maintain) to bedded roads in the nation...

(By the way - the elevated freeways above the Atchfalaya Basin and Lake Ponchartrain are pretty amazing engineering feats and...did I mention Free? It's not like traffic would have a choice if they decided to make it a toll road.) The Atchafalaya Basin freeway handles more traffic than most Interstates...and it sits on 60 foot pilings.

whew. Had to catch my breath there.

...and it's no surprise the roads suck. Louisiana also has a lower per-capita income, so the tax base is less than Texas. Sorry our roads suck. Why don't you fill up in Lake Charles next time you're in the state and help out? Better yet, stay out of the Casinos - they're a net loss of tax dollars. Eat, drink, be merry and stay in a hotel instead - you'll eat better, fell better, and help the Bayou state keep it's roads up.

Re:The cities have a right

[spewey]

I see no issue with Govt. providing that infrastructure, but I do take issue with govt. providing the services passed with the infrastructure.

My home town of 30,000 did the exact same thing as Lafayette after the cable companies and BellSouth failed to meet their promised goals of providing service. Citizens voted overwhelmingly to authorize the local power system to provide cable, internet and telephone service, and almost immediately coverage in the area more than doubled. Since then, every citizen within the city has access to cable, telephone or broadband. There is no local subsidy; under terms of the authorizing legislation, users pay all infrastructure and operating costs. But guess what? They still come out less than the cable company and Bellsouth were charging. I think more than 60% of the people have swapped service to the local utility (which will also respond faster to any problems).

If citizens had had to wait on the cable and telephone companies to get their act together and roll out service, a lot of them would still be communicating via papyrus scrolls.

Re:The cities have a right

[maxpublic]

There is a key difference: with government you get to vote.

And your neighbors can vote to erect a firewall that prevents 'disturbing internet sites' from 'corrupting the youth of the city'. Thanks, but I'll pass on letting my fellow citizens tell me what I can and cannot see on the internet.

Max

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

We agree. Perhaps I just worded it less accurately than I intended. The only issue with the municipalities getting in is that they could end up closing the market via regulation (rather than allowing the cable company to come in and compete if it wants to). This is the slippery slope I see. No the company shouldn't be able to win a lawsuit for it, but suing might be in their best interest, since it establishes their protest of having to compete with the government for customers (which is never pretty).

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

I don't have a car. I don't need a road.

Do you ever use the road system?
Do you ever derive benefit by consuming product transported on the road system?
Can you possibly think beyond yourself?

I have a well.
I have a septic system.
I have a septic system.

Umm, see above and generalize

Yes electricity is different because supposing supply to be available then delivery is the only quantifier. for example electricity is either present in sustainable consistent amounts or it is not. I suppose water would be the same if we had an exact definition of what water means to a municipality, by which I mean X ppm of Y for every possible variant. A better way of saying it would be that if at any tap in a municipality the water was chemically and physically identical.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, but I'll pass on letting my fellow citizens tell me what I can and cannot see on the internet.

Yeah I'm with you, I would prefer Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch to make that decision instead.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Yeah, you just have more faith in the Govt. than I do.

Sounds like your town did things right, but I tend to think that puts it in the very small minority.

Thats the nice thing however about Local vs fed. as an AC in this thread completely got wrong, or just trolled about, the Feds are supposedly restricted to only what powers were granted to them in the Constitution, local/ state etc are free to do anything else (i.e. what powers not specifically granted to the feds is allowed to the states) the best example of this is the church, People (especially arch conservative Baptists) rant about separation of church and state and how any collusion between the two is evil by definition seem to forget that the states had their own churches for quite a while .. lie the State Church of Virginia which lasted until the late 1800's and it was constitutional! In any case I ramble on what I am saying is that local communities are (or should be) free to make such decisions themselves, I just tend to think we are all a lot better off when govt. is small rather than large.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Just one small part to answer you, the rest while interesting is outside of what I would prefer to discuss on slashdot:

I didn't say that Republicans were cowardly for hiding behind the Christ, but here are my thoughts on it.

I never said that either what I said was

"Do you really think the " Christo-Republicanism" "gripping the state is "Characterized by abject fear; cowardly"?

because you said they were craven and so I just inserted the definition of the word craven and asked you if you really meant what you said. As to "Bro. Jimmy" please do not confuse him and his message with Christianity, that would be like making Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts head of the church or even Jim Baker or Robert Tilton Pope sure we have our charlatans, but eventually the house cleaning will get done.

As to abortion always being wrong ... it is in every case wrong, no exceptions whatsoever. I am sorry you do not understand that, in fact I am am sorry that the on average of 42 million people a year who are involved in it don't get that either. (thats about 21 million perpetrators and 21 million victims)
oh and in the US the breakdown according to the CDC is :

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's (usually mental over 90% of the time) health problems.

ok sorry about that abortion is one of my buttons.

Re:The cities have a right

[vought]

The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.

Then maybe you should teach children about sex when they're most likely to be doing stupid thing with each other, instead of asking them to abstain completely, which they will not do.

ok sorry about that abortion is one of my buttons.

You have a uterus? Oh. Then you have no real say.

But then neither do I, which is why I support choice - because I have no say in the matter, but a woman should.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

And your neighbors can vote to erect a firewall that prevents 'disturbing internet sites' from 'corrupting the youth of the city'.

Unlike content filtering instituted by privately owned service providers, you neighbors have the little matter of the constitutional protection of free speech standing in their way. So not a very good argument in this particular case. Better stick to the efficiency argument in favor of competition next time.

Re:The cities have a right

[Kadin2048]

Well, what the municipalities really maintain is the road network, not just "a road."

Of course, a stretch of road, in the middle of nowhere, connected to nothing, would be simply an object. Over time, it would deteriorate, and eventually become nothing but a line of dust. The roads which are built by the government are first of all part of a complex network, useful not only because of what they are, but because of other roads that they connect to. Also, they're useful because they are maintained.

Really, the municipalities are in the business of road maintenance. Road construction is simply a sideline. However, because much of the same equipment is used for road construction as in maintenance, they might do construction from time to time -- and why not, if they can do it cheaply. However I know where I live, road construction in new developments is normally handled by private contractors, and then later upkeep handled by the state.

But the real reason why municipalities do maintenance, or anything at all for that matter, is because there is a perceived public interest in doing so. People think that maintaining the road network is important, and they also think that the government can do it better than private industry can. Thus, they vote and continue to allow funding to be allocated for those purposes. Although some might argue that private firms could do a better job maintaining the roads, I think they'd be in the minority.

Our government however is not in the business of producing cars, because most people would not agree that this is a function better handled by the government than public industry. (Except maybe for the few diehard fans of the Trabant.)

What we are seeing in the case of internet access is a market that was previously served only by corporations, but poorly. As a result, people are going to the polls and demanding (retroactively, in this case) that their government provide a service which private industry is not. That is certainly their right, and given the history of the U.S. I very much doubt that people would do this unless they felt dramatically under-served by Industry.

The communication-industry, if they had two brain cells to rub together, would do itself a favor to stand back and let the people through on this one. They might just find themselves getting a very nice free ride in a few years: it's doubtful that the local government really wants to operate an ISP, once the infrastructure is built they'll probably want someone to operate it and provide content down the fiber. If the telcos and cablecos haven't alienated consumers too badly by then, they'd be in a perfect position to step in. But at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the people told them where to stick it and cast out further for a content provider.

With all the money that corporations spend trying to understand their markets, it slays me that they can be so blind when 'their market' rises up and kicks them so savagely in the ass for their slowness and attitude.

Re:The cities have a right

[WhiteWolf666]

Most 'city' broadband programs encompass a 'co-op' type of ISP setup.

I'm sure they'd have all sorts of zany city council rules, but hey; so will the private ISPs, too (telecom rules are crazy).

I honestly feel that if private companies are not providing the service than there is nothing wrong with the cities jump starting a community organization, and this is how most of the current projects look.

Re:The cities have a right

[Kadin2048]

Just because the government builds water mains, sewer lines, and (in the past) underwrote power projects doesn't mean they give the end product away free.

You pay for your water, at least where I live if you connect to the city sewer, you pay annually for that as well. And of course electricity costs money. But in each case much of the infrastructure development was done at public expense, because no corporation was willing to take up the project, either because of unprofitability, risk, or time-scale. But they're still worthwhile, because having the infrastructure there benefits citizens by raising the standard of living in the long run. At least that's the theory.

In L.A., no company wanted to pay for FTTH, but the residents still want it and are willing to use their tax revenue for it. In theory, I fully support this. They voted, they should get it.

What I don't support though, is the State and Federal subsidies that L.A. will probably get for this project, because as someone on the East Coast, I didn't vote on the project and I'll never see any benefit, so I don't want to pay for it. However if they want to use their own city taxes for such a project, more power to them.

Re:The cities have a right

[Guppy06]

New Orleans, on the other hand...

Re:The cities have a right

[Guppy06]

"I live in Texas"

"While the Fed. govt. is bound by the constitution I do not consider the state to be bound by the federal constitution"

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--Article VI, Clause 2, Constitution of the United States of America

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

--Article I, Section 1, Texas Constitution

They're your constitutions. You'd think someone as proud of your home state would actually attempt to read these documents once in their life. Unfortunately, you're far from the first Texan I've come across who showed a gross lack of knowledge not only of the US Constitution but also the constitution of their own state that they claim to hold more alliegance to.

Heck, the entire premise of the Tenth Amendment relies on the idea that things were actually denied to the states in the original document to begin with.

Re:The cities have a right

[j_w_d]

The corporations are the ones who dragged their feet. One the greatest handicaps the US faces in maintaining any kind of technological parity with Europe and Japan is just that. Corporations seek a profit and presumably they reckoned that they couldn't amortize the cost of installing broadband efficiently. The local citizens regarded the availablity of broadband as critical to their social and economic well being.

Since the FCC has seen fit to tell the various cable companies that they don't have to permit access to their infrastructure by competitors, there is now actually far less benefit to be gained from new infrastructure construction. They can continue to charge high rates and by reducing infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, boost their profit margin significantly. They thought they had become immune to some competition.

They also made the rather glaring error of mistaking their "market" for sheep to be shorn. While it is rarely obvious, the "market," "local busniesses" and the "citizens" and the "local government" are not XOR sets. They contain a great deal of intersecting interests and members. One of the tenets of free enterprise is that where there is a demand, there is a market, and some party can move to serve that demand. In this case, the result ammounts to a coop solution. Merely because it's labeled "government" doesn't mean that it wasn't an appropriate market response.

Under good circumstances the new local public service will be able to provide broadband at least as cheaply as "private" enterprise could and probably far more cheaply since it doesn't require any profit margin beyond a small one.

Government becomes more expensive and less efficient as it begins to cater to the "needs" of enterprise. Corruption begins to increase costs dramatically without offering additional benefit. So, when you consider the "private" vs. "government" equation, you also need to very carefully consider just who the government is serving. Big business is the single greatest corrupting factor in modern government. The voting citizens on the other hand are the real, principal "clients" of government, as well as being the actual source of government. Forgetting this leads to revoluions.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it depends on what scope you're using to look at the "market" and on the situation.

If the market is competitive, and there aren't socialist collectives running anything then prices will reflect costs.

Re:The cities have a right

[maxpublic]

So not a very good argument in this particular case.

You've forgotten that SCOTUS ruled that local community standards can be used to determine what is and is not pornography, and then ban said pornography from the municipality.

There's no reason why this ruling couldn't be extended to government-controlled broadband.

Max

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

You've forgotten that SCOTUS ruled that local community standards can be used to determine what is and is not pornograph

They did?! Could you please cite some authority for that. As far as I was aware the law is that "community standards" are used to determine what is "obscene." This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity (which judgement is a judicial function).

There's no reason why this ruling couldn't be extended to government-controlled broadband.

You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech, (as opposed to the use of minors in the production of pornography, which is an offence), is going to allow that?

Face it, compared to governments, private corporations have far greater power of censorship, at least in the US.

Note: nothing I have said is to be taken as indicating that the supply of broadband services ought to be in government hands. My point is rather that your censorship argument is weak.

Re:The cities have a right

[vought]

Governments provide services like these when corporate entities can't or won't. That is one of the jobs of government.

The article doesn't mention, and I've seen no one bring it up, but Lafayette has had a fiber infrastructure ringing the city for years now - unused, dark fiber circling the city limits.

Did Cox or BellSouth step up to use this unpaved, but graded and cleared roadway? No. They insisted on using their own outdated, aging infrastructure.

If this turns out like many of Lafayette Utility Service's other projects, the results should be spectacular. 100Mb to your desk - at home or office.

No wonder BellSouth and Cocks cable were reluctant to step up...they'll lose the customers they have when Lafayette gets it's network lit.

Re:The cities have a right

[maxpublic]

This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity

Of course it does. This is what allows municipal governments to outlaw strip joints and video porn stores.

You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech

I think you misspoke here. You can and will be arrested for possessing child porn, in any of the 50 states of the U.S. The possession of child porn isn't legal anywhere in America.

Face it, compared to governments, private corporations have far greater power of censorship, at least in the US.

I don't agree with you on that one, at least with respect to internet access.

My point is rather that your censorship argument is weak.

Perhaps, but government is the only entity capable of enforcing censorship at gunpoint. That makes government the entity you least want in control of any form of communication.

Max

Re:The cities have a right

[Flambergius]

My "How I Would Run the Thing If I Had the Power" doesn't differ much from yours. Government's role should be one of a facilitator and rule-setter. Tax funds should definitely not be used to run the thing.

I'm not quite so dogmatic about use of tax funds for infrastructure investments or using possible earnings to other purposes. Both of these combat the problem of "no direct connection between its [governments] fees (taxes) and its expenditures". I agree this sort of lack of accountability and traceability is a real problem in the public field. But so is lack of flexibility and your hard rules would make this even worse. I believe that the cure for both is more transparency and active oversight by the community. Transparency can actually be achieved with rules, but oversight depends on citizens participating, so that part might not work. If that were the case, your dogma would probably be the best solution.

An investment to new infrastructure has always external benefits for the whole community. This easiest to see in the case where the fiber network brings in new business, that pay taxes and buy products and services from other local businesses, which may not use the fiber themselves. This benefit is often overemphasized, for sure, but it does exist. Another factor that may support using tax funds is purely financial; it may be possible to build a better all round financial plan with by using capital already in the bank. Using tax funds to build the infrastructure is not a question of dogma, but a question of case-by-case assessment.

I agree that public sector should attempt to run infrastructure at cost, with following two qualifiers: 1) at cost for the lifetime and 2) its better to err to the side of having money than not having money. In practice, during normal operation the fiber operator should attempt to build a safety net with its profits, so that it can use its own money when the times are bad. Furthermore, the money in the bank should not be left just there to sit, but it should be invested in a way that is beneficial to its balance and the community in whole. This may take any form that is practical.

Re:The cities have a right

[dodobh]

Corporate voting is generally one share, one vota. In this case, all shareholders have one share

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy of a water main is more apt.
This is a fundamental issue of infrastructure, not of profits.
Anyone who doesnt think that the sooner each and every home is attached to massive bandwidth internet the better is living in a hole in the ground.
It is absurd to think that the current paradigm of private corporations controlling both the rate at which the infrastructure is upgraded, and who has access to said infrastructure, based on their profit margin, is anything less than backwards-thinking bullshit.

The quicker everyone gets hooked up the better. We should all give corporate isp's the finger and get on the municipal bandwagon.

On a side note, push polling should be a capital crime. Start executing a few corporate ceo's and mainstream politicians for lying directly to the electorate, and we might just get a few honest elections. I'm of course exagerating, a little.

Re:The cities have a right

[magarity]

We are in a world where broadband is synoonymous with prosperity

Broadband access is a by-product of prosperity, not a cause of it, for the average consumer.

There's a good reason why the existing companies are taking time bringing out high speed to certain areas. There's not enough people in those areas demanding it.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

> Go Cajuns!

Shouldn't that be "Geaux Cajuns"?

Re:The cities have a right

[metallic]

while Louisiana never had a large Air Force, Army, or Navy presence... Uhh, what about Barkesdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, LA? It's one of the largest B-52 bases in the world and sprawls over several square miles. I would consider that a pretty large military presence. Because of the infrastructure building, Louisiana is a far, far different place today. Lafayette's vote is a reflection of the very deeply-held Louisiana belief that big comanies get their money from the citizens anyway; why shouldn't we try to build one ourselves, with our money, and do it better? For such a deeply held belief, I don't know a single person in the state of Louisiana that shares it. I think you should speak for yourself and stop speaking for everyone in the state.

Re:The cities have a right

[BVis]

Yeah, you just have more faith in the Govt. than I do.

This raises an interesting point. I'm a third-generation New England liberal, and still believe that the government has a responsibility to the have-nots; but I find myself increasingly alienated from a government ruled by rich white people and the corporations they run. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that the people of Lafayette are rebelling against their corporate masters by taking matters into their own (the peoples') hands. On the other, I have limited confidence in a municipal government to run an agency providing internet bandwidth such as we're seeing here. If you thought dealing with Verizon was difficult when there was a technical problem, wait until you have to call the local Department of Public Works because a router is down. Chances are that whoever you speak with (if you can find anyone at all to call) will have gotten his/her job through political connections rather than technical qualifications, and cannot be fired or reprimanded for poor job performance. Worse, (and more likely,) the town could put technical support out for bid, and wind up with lowest bidder quality.

Oh, and congratulations to the parent poster for being an actual conservative, rather than the current leading brand of NeoCon. You're a rarity these days. I never thought I'd see the day when Reagan looked like a better alternative to the current primate occupying the Oval.

Re:The cities have a right

[RWerp]

The principle that only a women should have a say about abortion rights is strikingly similar to a principle that only a man should have any say about prison rape. Both of them are bullshit.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Then maybe you should teach children about sex when they're most likely to be doing stupid thing with each other,

I have and do.

instead of asking them to abstain completely, which they will not do.

They have and and will continue to abstain until they are married ...

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

To the moderator who modded me flaimbait:
Sorry you can't handle the truth, and you should note that I was not the one who brought the topic up. Besides which I have more than enough positive "karma" to handle your childish tirades.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Given this thread, I find your .sig
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
particularly appropriate.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Due to a fundamental ability to read in a manner that befits understanding, you have taken my comments out of context as you have the documents you purport to understand.
What you have completely failed to understand are these parts of the US Constitution:

Article 1 Section 8 which begins:"The Congress shall have Power To"

Article 2 Section 1 The executive Power shall

Article 3 Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall

You fail to see that these are explicit definitions of what the branches can do, Simple reasoning shows that since the constitution explicitly states what they may do then they may not do anything else.
This is further evidenced by the
Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which amazingly enough is precicely what I said

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

LIke I pointed out to another poster, You just have more faith in Govt. than I do.

If private companies are not providing the service .. I see where you are going but I have seen some whacked out Govt. programs so that sentence could lead to weird crap like cow painting .. I mean after all if private companies are not providing the service then the Govt. should. And if you think I am being silly you should take a look to see what tax dollars actually get spent on sometime.

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

The municipal governments are doing what they really should be doing, which is serving their residents. You don't see the cities implementing municipal-run ISPs to compete with existing, viable solutions from the cable and telephone companies. The municipal-run ISPs are being constructed precisely because they're filling a gap the big communications corporations are voluntarily leaving.

Municipal governments may be doing that which they should but they better not be using taxpayer money to pay for it. They might issue munis, municipal bonds, to pay for the contruction but then those bonds and operatiing costs should be paid for on a subscription basis, ie those who use it pay for it.

In a free market, if you ignore a market segment, you should not have a legal way to prevent others from coming in and serving it.

Bravo! Just like what Adam Smith would of said in The Wealth of Nations .

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

I don't necessarily want to see private industry providing water to individuals or processing sewage

Water has been called by various publications in business media including "Forbes" and others Blue Gold and Blue Oil. Several big multinational corporations are pushing hard to have water privatized, RWE's Thames, Suez, and American Water Company amoung them. In Cochabamba, Bolivia a 17 year old boy was killed a several people were shot in rioting after the city's water supply was privatized and "bought" by Bechtel Corporation. Once Bechtel took over Cochabamba's water supply they significantly increased water rates. The rate increase was devastating to the poor who couldn't afford to pay anymore.

BECHTEL VS. BOLIVIA
THE BOLIVIAN WATER REVOLT

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

The principle that only a women should have a say about abortion rights is strikingly similar to a principle that only a man should have any say about prison rape. Both of them are bullshit.

What? Please clarify.

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[mysticalreaper]

I see no issue with Govt. providing that infrastructure, but I do take issue with govt. providing the services passed with the infrastructure.

I agree with this, and i'd like to share how i think this could be done. This isn't my own idea, but it's the most appealing i've heard so far.

Like the phone company, you establish a central office in an urban area. Now, depending on the size of your city, you will probably need more than one. Let's guess each CO could service 10,000 customers.

This CO is owned and operated by the Fibre Utility, which is government owned. From the CO, the utility runs dedicated a fibre pair to each house (business, apartment, etc). Maybe even 2 pairs, while they're at it. So the result is 1 building with 10,000 fibre terminations.

In the CO, the fibre utility doesn't really have any equipment, they are not capable of providing a service to anyone, really. However, at fair and equitable rates, any company can place any equipment they like in the racks. And then, they can sell the service provided by that equipment to the customer. It could be television. It could be pure IP, nothing more. It could be the next future type service that no one's even thought of.

When you get your bill, you see something like:

FooBar Full Service
Internet: $25
TV bundle 2: $32
Fibre Utility
2 Active pairs, 2x$5: $10

The fibre utility could bill this to the service provider, i suppose, but i prefer the transparency of billing me directly for used fibre.

Now, the primary reason why i like this idea is: It fosters competition.

Over and over it has been shown that copetition is good for the consumer. And the more competition, the better. In this proposed scenario, a new competitor would only have to put equipment in 1 place to have the potential of servicing 10,000 customers. If you imagine a city of 500,000, that's 50 installs for the service provider, to cover an entire city. The idea here is the the infrastructure is common, but not the service.

If any of you remember the first dial-up days, (i'm thinking about 1992-2000) there were TONS of Dial-up ISPs, all competing based on price, online time, and various other criteria. It was excellent for the consumer, giving us plenty of choice, and driving prices down. Common infrastructure, competing service.

I don't know about the rest of you, but when was the last time your broadband connection price went down? Mine hasn't. And yet we can be sure that all the equipment costs are falling just like all computer hardware. Funny, isn't it?

I hear Verizon and Bellsouth are maybe rolling out fibre. This is cool, but that just entrenches their monopoly EVEN MORE, which is, of course, terrible for the consumer. This concerns me greatly. Our goal should be fantastic public infrastructure, not private ownership of all-important communications systems.

Comments?

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Only exception I have to this is that if the CO was constructed and is maintained with tax dollars then I would like to see the portion of the bill for its specific use either be nonexistent or sufficient to cover the install and maint only. Otherwise i think that effectively the customer is paying for it twice. Aside from that I think you are on the right trail.

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

while Louisiana never had a large Air Force, Army, or Navy presence... Uhh, what about Barkesdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, LA? It's one of the largest B-52 bases in the world and sprawls over several square miles. I would consider that a pretty large military presence

Only several square miles and it's one of the biggest Air Force bases? At more than 724 square miles Eglin Air Force Base in Florida is much bigger, say a hundred tymes several miles squared. Having been temperarily placed there 3 tymes while in the army, I'd say the base is hugh and I never even saw most of it.

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[mrbrown1602]

Lafayette, by the way, has one of the best public utility systems around. LUS has always been self-sustaining, sells power to other utilities to lower ratepayer burden, and Lafayette is one of the cities that when hit by a hurricane, always amanges to get the power back on within a few days. They've also done an amazing job of cleaning up the neglected Vermilion river.

I can attest to this. I grew up in Youngsville, which is part-LUS and part-Entergy. When Allison came thru a few years ago, my neighborhood was without power for nearly 2 weeks, while the LUS neighborhood was back up within a few days.

Re:The cities have a right

[pipingguy]

Go Cajuns! [sp]

Agreed, I'm half Acadian myself.

Re:The cities have a right

[vought]

Uhh, what about Barkesdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, LA? It's one of the largest B-52 bases in the world and sprawls over several square miles. I would consider that a pretty large military presence.

True, Barksdale is one of the few B-52 bases left - but it's certainly a lightweight in terms of total military presence compared to Eglin AFB, Ft. Hood, and other bases in nearby states.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'd wager that even with the reduced staffing at Travis AFB, the near-shutdown of military presence at Moffet Field, and the drawdown of the once-significant Navy presence on the Bay, we've still got twice the military personnel than the entire state of Louisiana. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was right.

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

No the company shouldn't be able to win a lawsuit for it, but suing might be in their best interest, since it establishes their protest of having to compete with the government for customers (which is never pretty).

This is true if the company wants to compete, but in many places they don't want to put the effort needed to offer the service. I don't like or trust government, maybe even else than I do corporations, but when those corporations won't offer a service then people have the right to provide said service themselves just so long as they don't make those who don't want and won't use the service to pay for it.

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

Of course they do. Did you read farther into what I said than my words? Yes people have the right. Corporations also have the right to sue. I said myself that they shouldn't win the suit. If the market becomes valuable, the company might want to enter at a later date. They shouldn't be put in a position of "now or never" which is essentially what's happening. People aren't going to pay more for their service (unless it's vastly better than what everyone else in the country has) if they're already paying it in taxes.

That last part is what bothers me about this whole thing. Chances are you use broadband. I do too. Chances are grandma marge doesn't want or need it. Now, in that community, she'll be paying for it whether she likes it or not. I could care less about the cable company. My problem is with that, and it seems that we are in agreement on that one if your last sentence means what it says.

Re:The cities have a right

[evilviper]

If it's your government providing your service, not only can you not take your money elsewhere except by moving (which can have very high costs)

Actually, once upon a time, I heard tell of a way an individual could change what the government does. They called it something that rhymed with "boating". Coating? No. Goating? No. Oh, I remember, it was called Voting...

It's like paying your rent, electric, water, sewer, garbage, telephone, Internet, and cable bills all at once, with no idea how much goes to each.

That's interesting. Because, you know, I get an individual bill for each, even though most of the entities you've listed are local government agencies here. None of it coming out of tax dollars, nor from people who do not use those services. Is there some inherent reason a municipality couldn't do exactly the same with a fibre network?

penix1 already covered the fact that most internet companies are monopolies these days, or close to it.

Re:The cities have a right

[falconwolf]

That last part is what bothers me about this whole thing. Chances are you use broadband. I do too. Chances are grandma marge doesn't want or need it. Now, in that community, she'll be paying for it whether she likes it or not. I could care less about the cable company. My problem is with that, and it seems that we are in agreement on that one if your last sentence means what it says.

First, I have broadband now but for years I didn't have it at home. Secondly I didn't say corporations don't have the right to sue, not it that post and while I might of come across as saying that in other posts I neither recall saying so nor do I support denying the right to sue. What I did say is that the people should themselves be able to provide a service if a corporation won't. Actually they should be able to whether someone else already does or not, I'm all for competition in a free market.

Falcon

Re:The cities have a right

[SeaFox]

Govt. is not a market force. Govt. intervention means, by definition, that the market is not free.

...And the Government is not intervening in anyone's ability to deploy fiber. If Cox and BellSouth want to start running fiber tomorrow, they are more than welcome to.

The people have simply stated they would like their municipality to run a fiber network of it's own, and have agreed by way of their vote, to pay for it. If Cox and BellSouth see this as a competitive move, they are free to treat the government as a competitor, and show through superior products and services they are a better choice. If they do nothing, it was their choice to not rise to their customers' demand. That is how a free market works.

Re:The cities have a right

[drsmithy]

Just to get it out of the way, I 100% support abortion, even for simple birth control reasons, however:

You have a uterus? Oh. Then you have no real say.

Why should the father, who may well have equal emotional stakes in the child[ren] (and will probably have equal stakes in the cost of the child[ren], even if he _doesn't_ want it/them) have no input on the matter ?

It takes two to tango, as they say.

Re:The cities have a right

[SeaFox]

Therein lies the problem. There is no "elsewhere" to take it in most rural areas. Cable & phone companies are government sanctioned monopolies. I'm sure you have cable in your area. Let's say it is Cox. Try taking your cable business to Charter and see what answer you get.

If you are seriously disatisifed with your cable service, the people to complain to are not the ones working the phones at the cable companies, it's the franchising authority for your municipality. (Note: the FCC requires their contact info be printed on your cable bill.) This is the local government body who gives your cable company the right to be a monopoly in the area. If the city is up in arms with dissatisfaction in service, they can revoke the business' franscise license of COX, Charter, ect and allow another company to come in. It can also allow more than one company the right to do business in an area (this is where line ownership is generally the limiting factor to competition).

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

>This doesn't mean that any local government is able to decide for itself what constitues obscenity

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

Looks like we'll only be able to solve this with relevant authority, since you failed to produce any to back up your statements, allow me.

1. The test for obscenity in Roth is "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Note the community standards are local only in the sense that they are to be determined (rather obviously) with respect to the standards in the state in which the respective obscenity law has been enacted (since the regulation of obscenity per se falls to the states). Given that obscenity is a question of fact, in practice this will come down to what the members of the jury consider "contemporary community standards" to be. Note also that the court raised the bar in Miller where two additional elements were required.

This is what allows municipal governments to outlaw strip joints and video porn stores.

Who then have the option of going to the courts to challenge the ordinance. If you read the case law I think you will see that both ought to win. Strip joints because they can argue artistic merit and because what they do is generally not "hard core", and porn shops because it is the obscenity of each individual article they sell that must be determined. Of course when it comes to issuing licenses to carry on business, or zoning commercial activities &tc the municipal government can make it awfully difficult to operate.

>You really think a court which ruled child pornography is protected speech

I think you misspoke here.

But you only think that because of you're not up to speed on this topic. You can rectify your ignorance somewhat by reading Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition . To summarize briefly. What makes child porn illegal is the involvement of children in its production. Writing, drawings, or photographs of underdeveloped adult models proporting to be minors is not illegal per se. Of course on a case by case basis such child porn might well be judged obscene, but by default child porn is protected speech.

government is the only entity capable of enforcing censorship at gunpoint

Lemme guess, you don't live in Sicily ;) I take your point. However, this does not necessarily mean that government can enforce censorship as effectivly as private bodies. Look at the information sieve that was the Soviet Union and compare that to the very effective censorship excercise by Walmart.

That makes government the entity you least want in control of any form of communication.

Whether I trust a government to control a form of communication, or indeed to censor, depends upon the nature of the government in question. Is it democratic, bound by the rule of law, not corrupt, does it as a matter of actual practice excercise its powers with honour and respect to convention &tc.?

Re:The cities have a right

[penix1]

"If the city is up in arms with dissatisfaction in service, they can revoke the business' franscise license of COX, Charter, ect and allow another company to come in."

That's assuming another company is willing to come in. In rural areas this is problematic. Let's face it, the big bucks don't come from rural areas. In fact, rural areas are a source of huge expense when you consider transmission line amplification as well as length compared to how many are on that line. This article didn't say what led up to the decision to wire themselves up but if they are rural I would suspect that could be one reason.

B.

Re:The cities have a right

[spewey]

People (especially arch conservative Baptists) rant about separation of church and state and how any collusion between the two is evil by definition seem to forget that the states had their own churches for quite a while .. lie the State Church of Virginia which lasted until the late 1800's and it was constitutional!

Uh, it lasted to 1786. Thomas Jefferson's revolutionary Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1799) was incorporated into the Virginia Constitution of 1786, dissestablishing public support for the church and discontinuing mandatory observance. Virginia was actually one of the first states to establish such a concept.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Re:The cities have a right

[Dannon]

And if the bigwigs with the political pull don't like the way you voted, they'll put the issue up for a vote again, maybe changing just a few words until it sounds different. And again, and again, until "the people" get it "right".

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

You moght want to read your history again because you are incorrect in your interpretation of my statement. Mandatory attendence abolishment is not the same as not having a state sponsored church. Moreso teh state church of Va was teh anglican chuch aka The Church of England.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Er... I used the wrong word. I didn't mean to say "correlation." What I meant was what I went on to say: that you don't know exactly how much a service paid for by your taxes costs or even whether that service is paid for by your taxes at all. I'm not sure what word I did mean to use, but it wasn't correlation. Sorry for the confusion.

Re:The cities have a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Public goods rarely directly benefit every single individual. You can't opt-out of highway taxes just because you don't drive.

That doesn't seem right to me. So many people drive that I'm sure you could charge a use tax for highways which would only hit drivers. You have to renew your license or registration or emissions certification every year or other year anyway, so it's not like the bureaucratic infrastructure isn't there already. People who don't drive (no registered cars, no active license) would save money. People who do would suddenly realize just how much the "car lifestyle" costs, even though they'd only be paying a few dollars a year extra (to make up for the people who are no longer paying the tax). It might encourage some people to take public transportation (and yes, I realize that funding that would be a whole other ball of wax), move closer to work so they can bike in, or whatever.

It would probably be fairer to have this tax on fuel, actually, so the amount you drive is taken into account. If you drive 50 miles a day, you're putting a lot more wear and tear on the roads than someone who drives 50 miles a month, so it's fair that you pay more. And, as before, it will encourage people to investigate alternatives and drive less.

The idea is to make everything have a cost. Well, everything already has a cost, but by hiding it in "income taxes" you never see it. And, as such, it's difficult or impossible to make informed decisions. How much does driving my car to work really cost me? I have absolutely no idea. And if I decide to live a more environment-friendly, wallet-friendly lifestyle by getting rid of my car, I only realize part of the benefit because I'm still paying to maintain roads I no longer use. (Costs of freight for groceries and stuff would be included in their price, so I'd still be paying for benefits I receive indirectly, which is perfectly fair.) It borders on being a disincentive to do things which are, ultimately, more economical. Which is when you start getting into real messes with subsidies and tax refunds which nobody, including the people who write them, fully understands.

I'm sure you recognize that sometimes this is exactly the right approach to important pieces of infrastructure.

I think we differ on what qualifies as "important," though. I do not consider large-scale broadband deployment important. I would support using public funds to put libraries (or other public areas) on the Internet, because people should have access to it. But we don't need it in our homes. I'm on the Internet practically 18 hours a day, between home and work, and I could easily live without it if I had to. It's not like electricity or water.

Re:The cities have a right

[spewey]

Well, then you might just want to read the first line of the statutue, which I quoted for you but which you ignored. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedowm outlawed both mandatory attendence AND public support for the church. (Previously, all citizens, Anglican or not, had to pay tithe taxes to support the church; this statute abolished this practice.]

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

and you might take a reading class since cessation of tax payments did not constitute cessation of support ( note I have a significant legal background and am currently working on a MS in church history)

It is a matter of history, and this a matter of fact, not subject to your wanting interpretation.

Re:The cities have a right

[spewey]

I read quite well. I already have my master's degree in history as well. Following the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, Episcopal churches in Virginia had to support themselves through pew rents or from collections as well as a few oddities such as glebe farms. There was no support from the General Assembly or other state sources. In fact, the church was already beginning a decline in percentage of the population to other faiths such as Methodists, Baptists, etc. You also indicate that the church was aka "Church of England" through the late 1800s. With the Revolution, Anglican churches in this country organized their own separate church distinct from British control and answerable to their own bishops, not the British church heirarchy and the monarchy. It remains an Anglican church in communion with the Church of England but is entirely separate (and with increasing differences over such matters as the ordination of women). Please post any reference to Virginia maintaining a state church in the nineteenth century. I don't think you'll find any credible source.

Re:The cities have a right

[Hungus]

Only fools argue with fools, I guess I need to remember that.

Re:The cities have a right

[spewey]

I knew you wouldn't find a source. Goodbye.

Re:The cities have a right

[unitron]

"If the market becomes valuable, the company might want to enter at a later date. They shouldn't be put in a position of "now or never" which is essentially what's happening."

One of these days being an Internet Service Provider might be profitable enough for me to want to get into the business. Somebody should have stepped in and prevented the formation of AOL, Earthlink, Roadrunner, etc. And don't even get me started about that Henry Ford guy.

Hey, ya snooze, ya lose.

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

You missed my point. I was talking about government--which isn't the same as business at all. Once the government starts charging taxes and providing a service, a company is unable to make money by offering the same level of service. It has to be worth it to the consumers to pay the tax, forfeit that service, then pay for the company's service on top of that. That's not the case in company-to-company competition, which is the point of my previous post and the reason why your analogies fail.

Re:The cities have a right

[unitron]

"Once the government starts charging taxes and providing a service, a company is unable to make money by offering the same level of service. It has to be worth it to the consumers to pay the tax, forfeit that service, then pay for the company's service on top of that."

They aren't going to do it with tax money, they're going to issue bonds to build the system and then repay them and cover ongoing operating expenses out of the fees paid by those in the community who chose to be customers.

There are a lot of places where the commercial electrical companies weren't interested in offering service because the potential customers were so far apart and the lines would have to be so long. A lot of these places are now much more densely developed but it's too late for the for-profit companies because the Rural Electrification Associations got there first. Should those few farmers have been told "No, you can't have electricity because we're going to wait just in case all these farms get turned into sub-divisions and the power company (that's currently telling you to buzz off) decides it's worth their while to come in. Letting your co-op get the right-of-ways now would be unfair to them."?

And before you nitpick that the co-ops aren't government, they're just citizens banding together, well, what do you think government is?

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

I was misinformed about this case. I was under the impression that tax money was going to this. Since it isn't, they're essentially taking advantage of their community's credit rating in issuing the bonds, which is less objectionable.

Co-ops don't have the legal standing of government. We have a hierarchy in this country--national, state, local, etc. Each level of government must recognize governments on the level below. Since states don't recognize co-ops of citizens as local governments, they can't be equated so simply. There's a huge difference between a non-profit corporation and a government agency.

Re:The cities have a right

[unitron]

"Co-ops don't have the legal standing of government."

Yeah, but just try doing anything with a co-op that involves digging up or planting poles in the right-of-way without the help and co-operation of the government.

Re:The cities have a right

[zorander]

That wasn't the point you tried to make or the point I responded to. Anyone who wants to plant poles, corporation, co-op, or individual would need government's cooperation to do so. How does this differentiate a co-op from a corporation in a meaningful way?

Re:The cities have a right

[twojean]

I live in an area that, until recently, had no broadband available. SBC, in it's infinite wisdom, and when it felt good and ready, and it's "customers" were sufficiently insignificant, magnanamously brought in a single fiber line. The demand was extremely high, of course, and fraud rampant. The single line was oversubscribed before it was installed. Cox cable, the only cable company, doesn't think it's very high prices are sufficiently profitable to continue offering service.

Yes, this limits prosperity, and is entirely intentional on the parts of the companies involved.

Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

If all networking was by fibre optics, imagine how much quicker the first post would be.

Re:Speed

[Seumas]

If brains were bandwidth, you'd be dialup.

Re:Speed

[dnoyeb]

Nobody remembers 2nd place, your so far down the page now its not even funny...

Los Angeles

[Tablespork]

Anybody else think that title could have been worded better to avoid confusion with the more common LA?

Re:Los Angeles

[PhoenixFlare]

If the first sentence of the summary didn't mention Louisiana, I might be inclined to agree.

Re:Los Angeles

[dukeisgod]

LA = Louisiana L.A. = Los Angeles Sounds right to me.

Re:Los Angeles

[Seumas]

What if you didn't know LA == Lousiana and that Lousiana was a state? Some of us have public educations, you insensitive clod.

Re:Los Angeles

[Reignking]

Are you kidding? I'm sure all of the foreign readers automatically think of the Bayou State, and not the smog city in California when "LA" is written...

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering that the population of the Greater LA Area is much larger than the population of Louisiana, and that the relative economic and social importance of L.A. is larger than Louisiana's by an even greater margin, I think I speak for most of the world when I say that we are only dimly aware that Louisiana exists.

However, we are grateful to the denizens of Louisiana for the fine assortment of hot sauces they have produced.

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

It says LA City. Calling Los Angeles LA is much more common to most people than the abreviation LA for Louisiana. Most people that don't live in the state don't use that abreviation that often. The headline was pretty clear specifying it was a city and not a state.

Re:Los Angeles

[Rickler]

"LA city" usually means a city. Not a city in a state.

Would you write "NY city" and expect people to think your talking about Buffalo and not the city of New York? :rolleyes:

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh it's not like the louisiana purchase ever happened and had an effect on world politics for a couple hundred years

Re:Los Angeles

[JahToasted]

effect on world politics? American politics, maybe, but the effect on world politics was it gave napoleon a little pocket money for a couple of years. A few years later he was gone and therefore the louisiana purchase had no further effect on world politics.

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, Louisiana has been branded as Louisiana, and L.A. has been branded as L.A. (For a glaring example, I've never heard anyone call Louisiana LA.)

I have to admit that the story title is a great, yet subtle, troll.

Re:Los Angeles

[Spock the Baptist]

New York City is the name of a city. Thus, NYC, or NY City would be apropos. However L.A. is an abbreviation of Los Angeles, please note the name is NOT Los Angeles City.

'New York city' is not equivalent to 'New York City'. Note the importance of capitalization in this matter. When City is capitalized a specific city with the name New York City is being referred to. Whereas, New York city refers to some unspecified city in the state of New York.

Good Grief, people take a course in basic English composition and rhetoric, read English for Dummies, but learn the *basic* rules of English grammar. (Not that I'm anywhere near an expert when it comes to English grammer. Geez, I'm often clueless when it comes to the use of the comma, and semi-colon.)

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is a 4. I have to say the story title is a great troll.

Re:Los Angeles

[HornWumpus]

LA purchase == major affect of US growth (without it we would have had to annex canada to expand in other directions).

A balkenized north america in the twentieth century would have been bad. The USA was twice (WWII and the cold war) the only thing that saved the planet from a 1984 like outcome.

If the East US had sided with the axis powers, the west US with the allies and the central US attempted to remain neutral things would have been as bad here as they were in europe and asia.

Re:Los Angeles

[lobsterGun]

You're assuming they know how to spell 'Louisiana'.

Re:Los Angeles

[karnal]

comes to the use of the comma, and semi-colon.

Please tell me that was intentional, cause I got a laugh out of it!

Re:Los Angeles

[JahToasted]

No way to know. Maybe if the US didn't enter WWI, a more equitable armistice would have been negotiated with Germany, and then the Nazis wouldn't have risen to power, and WWII wouldn't have happened. Then again, maybe not. Alternate histories can be fun exercises sometimes, but there is no real way to know the result of a what-if beyond a couple of years.

Likely the US would have taken the French territories by force, like they did with native american territories, spanish territories, mexican territories, and attempted to do with the remaining british territories in 1812. Louisianna would have been pretty easy pickings since france really had no interest in defending them and after the defeat of napoleon, they didn't have the capability to defend them.

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Heear's an izzy way to rember how to spel "Louisiana": "Louis, I am not a lwayer" = "louisIANAL" - termnitaing "L" = "LouisIANA". Then jsut recpa to get "Luoisiana". See hwo izzy that waas? Their's is relaly no ecxsue fro bad spleing.

Re:Los Angeles

[vought]

Just another careless posting by postmaster Zonk.

Zonk: La. is a state. L.A. is...a state of mind!

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, my understanding is that "New York city" would refer to that city with the same name in New York. Just like writing down "Los Angeles city".

Re:Los Angeles

[Spock the Baptist]

Yes it was intentional.

Re:Los Angeles

[unitron]

"(Not that I'm anywhere near an expert when it comes to English grammer. Geez, I'm often clueless when it comes to the use of the comma, and semi-colon.)"

Actually a lot of what gets posted on /. seems to be the result of the use of the colon. :-)

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely the US would have taken the French territories by force

so then american ties to france probably would have weakened leading to domino affects of alliances, which falls into 'world politics'

Re:Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

"LA city" usually means a city. Not a city in a state.

Most cities in the U.S. are in states.

Dirty Cox

[Seumas]

including statements that a city-run cable system might ration TV programming

Cox is right. After all, we saw that happen with roads and highways. You know, if they were privatized, you'd be able to drive them any hour of the day as much as you want, but since they're owned by the public, you have to ration your usage of them. Sometimes you'll be halfway to your destination only to find that your allocated monthly miles have expired and you have to walk home... and then you find out that your monthly allocation of side-walk travel has expired as well and you're all sorts of fucked.

Seriously though, I do wonder how difficult it will be when there is an outage? What are your means of resolution?

and block religious channels

Yeah. Because god knows we can't do without the umpteen thousand religious channels on cable. Why, that's why I pay $120 for my digital cable. Just so I can have to surf through the 10 religious channels, the half dozen stupid local/public access channels with idiots and their religious/nude/idiotic shows and the half dozen shopping network channels. Why, dear lord we can't do without all of that. Thank god Cox sets us up the Jesus so sufficiently.

As for Cingular threatning to close the call-center... Come on... like they hadn't already planned to ship the jobs overseas or open up a call center in the midwest where they can get labor for half the cost? This was just a convenient point of leverage for them to use. If they won, they won. If they lost, they still win because they were going to move 'em anyway.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Scoria]

religious/nude ... shows

Ah, it hurts!

Re:Dirty Cox

[tomstdenis]

Sweet jesus [sorry] you have loads of wits about you.

If you're ever in Ottawa give me a ring. I owe you a pint.

Tom -- who is glad to see someone else with good common sense about them

Re:Dirty Cox

[DigiShaman]

Because the local city will now provide the cable service, expect no religious channels. After all, you have to maintain a seperation between church and state.

While I'm not a religious person, I do find it rather unfair to those that are and welcome religious programming they once were able to get through the private sector. But once government gets involved...well

Re:Dirty Cox

[(H)elix1]

As for Cingular threatning to close the call-center... Come on... like they hadn't already planned to ship the jobs overseas or open up a call center in the midwest where they can get labor for half the cost?

I'm sure the city had some sort of early termination fee, right? I hear that is a requirement for anything in the telco space...
/ducks

Re:Dirty Cox

[Seumas]

Maybe things are different down there, but in my experience, almost every city provides public access programming that is created, produced and performed by whoever wants to be involved. The shows are broadcast over cable, by the cable companies but these are based on agreements they (as a utility) have with the local governments.

So if the government forces private broadcast carriers to provide public access shows (including religious content which seems to make up 50% of public access -- the other 50% being guys from NORML and crazy naked guys like Jim Spagg), I would expect them to have the same provisions for themselves.

Not to mention, a number of network stations also provide religoius programming. I think UPN and WB both provide some. One of them broadcasts Oral B every Sunday. Also, Trinity Broadcasting Network (ugh) usually finds a way to get a toe-hold into anything so they can broadcast more Benny Hinn throwing his coat on people and shoving crippled people violently to the ground.

There will be no substantial conflict as long as they are not promoting for or discriminating against any people who want to produce and broadcast their religious content. Just like places where the telephone is a municipal property, churches are still allowed to own and use telephones.

Re:Dirty Cox

[IntelliTubbie]

You know, if they were privatized, you'd be able to drive them any hour of the day as much as you want, but since they're owned by the public, you have to ration your usage of them.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but this is actually truer than you think: it's called traffic. Despite the fact that costs-per-additional-car are much higher during rush hour than during non-peak times, these costs aren't borne (directly) by the driver. The result is that people drive even when they don't "need" to, resulting in more traffic for those who really DO need to use the roads at those times. Private toll roads have become popular in some metro areas because they keep traffic low for those who care enough to pay the premium; people who don't mind the traffic as much can stick to the normal roads.

Cheers,
IT

Re:Dirty Cox

[LWATCDR]

" Just so I can have to surf through the 10 religious channels, the half dozen stupid local/public access channels with idiots and their religious/nude/idiotic shows and the half dozen shopping network channels"
Yea I do not want to see any Wiccian or Buddhist channels on my TV. Good grief where are the freedom people when someone bashes freedom of religion?
Seriously though a City could have issues with any religious programming thanks to some peoples extreme views on separation of church and state.
I am for city run fiber networks. In the city I am in our company can not get good inexpensive band width. We would love to give some of our people the chance to work at home but that is just not an option. A good solution maybe to have the City build the network and the rent it out to ISPs and cable companies. You could have some choice that way.
Of course the sad thing is LA is probably one of the last places that need this. I would guess that their are companies that are falling all over themselves to serve LA. Where it is needed is small and middle sized cities.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You don't sound like you'te from Lafayette. The vast majority of us go to church. I would guess that over half of my high school classmates go to church - and that's probably the one demographic with the lowest religiousness. One website I saw reports around 80% church membership for Lafayette.

(Interestingly, for all that Slashdot does to promote the First Amendment, you do seem a little touchy when someone starts to use the freedom of speech to promote freedom of religion.)

Re:Dirty Cox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Of course the sad thing is LA is probably one of the last places that need this.

Just to clarify, this is Lafayette, LA [Louisiana], not Los Angeles, California.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Rick Zeman]

The result is that people drive even when they don't "need" to, resulting in more traffic for those who really DO need to use the roads at those times.

And how do you qualify or quantify "need" there?

Re:Dirty Cox

[maxpublic]

After all, you have to maintain a seperation between church and state.

Y'know, I didn't think of that. As an ardent (small 'l') libertarian it never occurred to me that a government-owned cable company might not be able to run religious channels.

Here's my libertarian membership card - sign me up!

Max

Re:Dirty Cox

[maxpublic]

you do seem a little touchy when someone starts to use the freedom of speech to promote freedom of religion

Mainly because the people so bloody interested in "freedom of religion" refuse to acknowledge that this also means "freedom FROM religion".

Max

Re:Dirty Cox

[Anonymous Coward]

You want your God to come to you on Television? Or do you want to get off your collective couches and do charity work like Christ would do? Religion on TV is crappy TV and crappy religion.

Re:Dirty Cox

[CrazyDuke]

"I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but this is actually truer than you think: it's called traffic. ... Private toll roads have become popular in some metro areas because they keep traffic low for those who care enough to pay the premium; people who don't mind the traffic as much can stick to the normal roads."

Yes, because we all know how fun toll plazas are. I can't wait to stop every few miles because I crossed from farmer Joe's to Billy Bob's Tollway.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it explicitly say "freedom FROM religion"? No. It says, "Freedom OF religion". This means you have the right to not listen to a commercial about religion. It means you have the right to look the other way when people are displaying religious symbols. It means you can decide to not listen / participate in religious activities. I don't really and still don't understand where you people get off saying, "No religion is good religion" when this country was not only built upon it but it was built partially because the settlers weren't free enough to practice as they saw fit. With this being said I'm not a religious freak, I don't care what-so-ever about anybody else's religion, and I don't go to church. That also being said I don't see how you stating, "I don't like you or your religion" isn't the same as other people stating, "We're going to practice our religion as we see fit." P.S. -- For the ten commandments thing where the guy paid to have them installed is complete and total BS and a huge crap load of hypocrisy. People/legislators have been saying for YEARS the reason why it wasn't OK to have religion in public places is b/c they shouldn't be funded by the government b/c that's promotion of one religion. In summation, sir, I suggest you get a life and go find a battle worth fighting for. If you put this much energy into battling cancer we would have had a cure for AIDS 10 years ago. K, Thanks bubye

Re:Dirty Cox

[Seumas]

The type of people who show up at church on Sunday and the type of people that sit and watch Benny Hinn (or that annoying red haired lady, or the grey haired guy with the fat purple-haired wife) for hours are rarely the same type of people.

If you're telling me that most of that 80% from your highschool also goes home and watches Benny Hinn slap people in the face with coats to cure their cancer and that fat purple-haired old lady sing about jesus, then I seriously fear for the future of our country.

Re:Dirty Cox

[shicaca]

That wasn't suppose to be anonymous. That was me. K Thanks.

Re:Dirty Cox

[carpe.cervisiam]

I work at the call center in lafayette. Believe me when I say bell south simply does not have enough stroke to close the call center. Cingular is owned by sbc (60%) and bell south (40%). The person they are saying threatened to shutdown the call center if we voted for fiber is the president of bell south of louisiana. He is a state president of a regional company, not the ceo, whose office is in atlanta. The reason that cingular opened the center here is purely financial, The state of louisiana gives them rediculous tax breaks, and the cost of living is so low in louisiana (i pay 315/mont for a two bedroom apartment including utilities, and no it is not in the ghetto) that the companies do not have to pay very well to keep their employees here. The call center isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Fiber is what lafayette wants, and with the amount of oil money in this town, Fiber is what lafayette shall have. P.S. i voted for fiber today

Re:Dirty Cox

[swiftstream]

Nobody's forcing you to watch those channels.

The problem is, athiests want secularism to mean athiesm. It doesn't.

Re:Dirty Cox

[vought]

You don't sound like you'te from Lafayette. The vast majority of us go to church. I would guess that over half of my high school classmates go to church - and that's probably the one demographic with the lowest religiousness. One website I saw reports around 80% church membership for Lafayette.

I call bullshit.

I went to Teurlings Catholic High School, and I doubt that 1/3 of the people at my last reunion have been in a church in the past year.

If you went to school in Lafayette, chances are that you did NOT go to a religious school, and I sincerely doubt that 1/2 of the graduating class of any of Lafayette's high schools are weekly churchgoers - even in a very religious town in a very religious part of the country.

Re:Dirty Cox

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

while I agree with you...
since when did "of" and "from" mean the same thing?
I'm not convinced that your right to choose no religion is the same thing as a right to be exlcuded from other people exercising their right to freedom of speech.
you can always just not listen to them, afterall

Re:Dirty Cox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You want your God to come to you on Television? Or do you want to get off your collective couches and do charity work like Christ would do? Religion on TV is crappy TV and crappy religion.

This is a very true point. But I don't want God to come to me on TV. I want the gospel to be able to reach others who aren't yet religious.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I'm entering my senior year at Lafayette High, and I stand by my estimate. However, I said "high school classmates" - not the entire graduating class. These are the people I know, not a survey of the entire school, and my numbers may be skewed because many of them I know from church, and many are in the gifted program. (Not that being gifted has anything to do with being religious, but I think gifted students may be more responsible about going to church. I do know that there are a few who go to church just out of habit and aren't very religious. You may be right that once they've left for a while, they may be less likely to go to church. I didn't say that Lafayette was the Vatican. :-) )

My only point in the comparison was to say that the majority of the vehement posters on Slashdot are vehemently anti-religious, so their criticism can't be directly translated to south Louisiana.

Re:Dirty Cox

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, athiests want secularism to mean athiesm. It doesn't.

The problem is there is no fucntional difference between the two when it comes to government, so you have no point.

LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[Scoria]

including statements that a city-run cable system might ration TV programming and block religious channels.

I considered giving that argument a minimal amount of credence until I realized that the story was referring to Louisiana, not Los Angeles!

After all, I would speculate that the religious community in Louisiana would be just a little more powerful.

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[SpecBear]

Of course. If it had been in Los Angeles, the blocking of religious channels would have been viewed as more of a feature than a restriction. They were fearmongering, and trying to rally up Louisiana's religious base by raising the possibility of government persecution. This tactic only works in places with a significant religious base.

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[Anonymous Coward]

The question still exsists.Will the "seperation of church and state" clause apply?

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[PsiPsiStar]

This tactic only works in places with a significant religious base.

Particularly a sufficiently gullible or paranoid religious base.

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[Mahou]

church vans can use public roads, right?

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[masklinn]

As long as the state doesn't pay for/fund religious channels any more than they fund private channels, and don't give them special offers, religious channels will be considered just as private channels, and I therefore don't see how church and state separation could be at state.

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[Ingolfke]

Oh shit... you're right... let me call the ACLU!

Re:LA City Votes For Municipal Fiber Network

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, just because I live in jesusland, that doesn't make me any better or worse than you!

The wackos around here though, man.. get me to Ontario! I hear they got the hot chicks up there!

Push polling

[try_anything]

It's as close to deliberate slander as you can get without going to jail.

Re:Push polling

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently Karl Rove invented it
not that ethics mean anything to that traitor

Re:Push polling

[Joe Jarvis]

Don't you mean:

What is your opinion of push polling, a polling tactic that is as close to deliberate slander as you can get without going to jail?

Re:Push polling

[captain igor]

Excepting that slander is a civil offense, not criminal.

For everyone that doesn't RTFA

[priestx]

They're talking about Lafayette, Lousiana.. not Los Angeles, California. If it was in CA, many many pirateers would have many many joygasms and lead to partial city wide heartattack increasment of 150%, depending on the population of course.

Re:For everyone that doesn't RTFA

[jd]

Hmmm. Then why doesn't CA go for it and solve the overpopulation problem?

Re:For everyone that doesn't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the hell?!

+1 Smoking on that crack rock

ps. my script-tester says "NAFSARK."

Government Control of your TV & Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

They raise a valid point of the government controlling your TV via cable and monitoring (even gaining access) to your computer system.

Otherwise, everything should be free and the government should pay for it while lowering all the taxes.

The reason big government can not solve the problem is because big government is the problem.

Re:Government Control of your TV & Internet?

[mrchaotica]

But this is local government. When the people responsible for this live close enough for you to round up a mob, arm them with torches and pitchforks, and beat down their door, they tend not to try to screw with you as much.

Re:Government Control of your TV & Internet?

[Spock the Baptist]

Boy are you ever misinformed about municipal government.

Municipalities, in general, are the most intrinsically evil from of government. The local oligarchs running things way to often at the city level.

Bad, for everyone

[runner1001]

Yeah, you can get cable TV access for $10/month, but what's it truly costing you? Your paying increased taxes, they never hire qualified people to run it. So in a few years when no one can stand to use it, who's left paying the bill, the taxpayers are. It's about Jobs, and when the goverments can get money cheaper than companies can, how are companies suppose to compete with that? These networks are NOT open for everyone to use, and if you do want to try and use it, what equipment are they running, and is it compatable with everything else.

Re:Bad, for everyone

[PsiPsiStar]

If the corporations were willing to provide the service, it'd be a different story here.

But then, supposedly 'privately held' public services like amtrack, which benefit from enormous subsidies, are run just as bad as gov't. services if not worse since public services don't spend millions on their CEOs. There's noone to properly compete with Amtrack or force them out of business. Particularly for those who can't affort cars. No other public trains are going to be built for Amtrack to contend with, and the govt. just bails them out when they go into debt.

How are you going to lay cable anywhere without the government cooperating to help lay the lines? Its not like a truly private individual can go out and do it themselves. In cases like this, I think it's good to have the government setting themselves up as a competitor just so the private companies don't get too complacent.

Re:Bad, for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

AMTRAK never got any real subsidies... some time ago gov did even fund a 5 million$ investment for track upgrading when they are giving 5-20 billion $ to the private airlines!! Amtrak has a better track record than any airlines that you might want to consider. Till now no airline (currently in service) has broke -even ... so much for true privatisation!!

Right thing..

[mislam]

The cities/municipals are doing the right thing by taking this initiative. This brings every Joe user to the reach of boradband at a much faster rate than the one set by the telephone and cable companies. The idea that the contents coming over these pipes will be limited/restricted is simply ridiculous.

When the free market is subjected to harm..

[CyricZ]

.. the government is the one to step in. In this case it is the city-level goverment. Indeed, that is what the government is there to do: provide what the free market cannot. The free market has been obstructed in this instance due to the monopolistic practices of the cable and phone companies. So it's more than acceptable for the people to unite, in the form of the city government, against the monopolistic forces that are obstructing the free market.

Some simple-minded individuals like to cry "communism" or "socialism" at this point. But anyone with any economic knowledge knows that you sometimes need the government to intervene in order to maximize the benefit and potential of the capitalistic free market for all of society (not just a few cable and phone companies).

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[runner1001]

What about the other smaller companies that are/were trying to compete?

Say a company like Telcove is there, trying to provide their own serice. Now, they have to help fund another competitor (through taxes).

SBC/LEC/RBOC isn't always that bad. Yes, they have expensive prices, but 90% of people don't look around at other options. I can goto SBC and get a loop and pay $1500/MILE, or I can goto another company and pay $1200/MONTH for the entire loop. I do it all the time, all day long.

Now they will have to raise their prices, and try to compete with someone (the local goverment) that can obtain the money a lot eaiser.

Quite honestly, screw SBC, there's lots of other fiber options out there already. American Fiber Systems has metro networks all over the place, and most people don't realize companies like that exists. (and yes, they OWN their own fiber)

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[DigiShaman]

It IS communism and socialism if your tax dollars pay for the service regardless if you use it or not. If it's a paid subscription however, it's a moot point.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Gothmolly]

Some simple-minded individuals like to cry...

Nice ad hominem attack.

But anyone with any economic knowledge...

Ditto.

perhaps it was the government itself which created the problem, by raising barriers to market entry, and granting favors to those they felt like it (Cox, AT&T, whatnot)?

No, that couldn't be it. I hope for your sake that your high # is a sign of your relative youth, and that reality will eventually show you the errors you committed. Not, that this is not an ad hominem attack on your argument.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Alucard454]

wow, hard to be much more wrong than this guy.

just to preface, i live in lafayette louisiana, the city in the article, and I have been working with the anti-LUS political group, Fiber411.

to set you straight from the get-go, the free market was NOT in fact subject to harm previous to this vote, though it would be accurate to say that having lost this vote yesterday, we now certainly ARE subject to harm, thanks to the instrusion of the public sector into an already-crowded private industry.

yea, that's right, crowded. monopolistic tactics? hardly. Cox and Bellsouth have both recently greatly expanded their efforts in all three tiers of telecom (tv, phone, and net) and are directly competing in every respect. to claim that together these two rabid competitors form some kind of strange new monopoly is just bizarre. you could argue oligopoly, i suppose, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree regardless. in addition, we've got quite a few local telecoms, though to be fair, none can compete with BS and Cox on all three levels.

anyway, to attack your own simple-minded views, anyone with any economic knowledge knows that to you only need the government to intervene in the matter of PUBLIC GOODS and that telecommunications is anything but a public good.

so a) you are wrong because you have no idea of the situation involved and b) you are wrong because you have no understanding of economics.

thanks, come again

and yes, i AM a PhD in economics, why do you ask?

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, why are americans so afraid of communism? your government is so outstandingly capatalist its not like your going to look the other way and you'll suddently become a communist country. Even so, that might not be a bad thing.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think municipal cable is Communism, you have obviously never experienced Communist rule. So, shut the fuck up.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[DigiShaman]

Seriously, why are you afraid to study history? It's been proven time and time again that communism becomes a corrupt instatution. Even China has realised this and is on the path of capitolism. Russia even realised this too. Cuba and N. Korea are the only die-hard communist countries left on earth. They are also the most poor.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[InfraRED]

nope, you're totally off.

communism means the state ownership of capital or ultimately everything
nobody really achieved this yet, so socialism was sort of a stopgap measure, did not outlaw private capital, but made really hard to keep it, even took it if some justification could be fabricated

your tax dollars are being spent on things regardless you use, or even approve it, this is basic property of taxation

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[DigiShaman]

your tax dollars are being spent on things regardless you use, or even approve it, this is basic property of taxation

Everytime people demand services by their government, it MUST be paid for somehow. People that work for the government don't do it for free, they must be paid. Second, once an orginization is formed in the government, all it does is request more of it's citizens tax dollars for the sole purpose of survival.

It's very easy to fire a private corporation. You can't however fire your governmet and the services it provides.

The more the government taxes you, the less money you have left for yourself. Eventually, we will reach a downward spiral and depend on the government more and more due to the ever increasing taxation needed to pay for services we demand by goverment...because we have less money from the previous taxation. The end resault is total communism.

Trying to kick the government out of our lives is like trying to kick a crack habbit to the curb. Not likely to happen.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[DrSkwid]

Seriously, why are you afraid to study English? I might be more convinced on the virtues of institutionalised capitalism if your capitalist masters has taught you to spell it. Truly your education is the poorest.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Anonymous Coward]

if your capitalist masters has taught you to spell it

Grug no conjugate good!

Mmmm... preview saves many from baboon appearance!

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[DigiShaman]

Oh I see. Because my grammar and spelling is piss poor, it must mean I'm uneducated in all other subjects. Makes perfect sense! Yup, no problem with that logic.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Atragon]

And how is it bad if the government installs a common (and massively overengineered) infrastructure and then allows private corporations to sell services over said infrastructure?

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[timeOday]

Where do you study history? There are no pure communist countries, and no pure capitalist countries. Nobody would want to live in either one.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Slaytanic213]

.. the government is the one to step in Underrated!

Also, WE are the government.
Not a Democracy but a Republic.
And corporations should have no legal rights but only privileges given to it by the State.
Sometimes we have to be reminded.

Wish you luck in Lafayette.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, I think you just stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Perhaps if those lousy companies (and yes, their customer service sucks, their service sucks and they are too expensive) had moved faster and deployed the services in question, people wouldn't have voted for the new infrastructure. And per your claim that they had "expanded their efforts" -- too little, too late. Beside, it benefits them anyway, since they can now lease the lines at cost without the risk of having to lay them.

Seriously, when the private sector is incapable of delivering, or unwilling to deliver, then, by definition, if people want the service, it is a space for government to enter into.

What's the big deal? Those companies didn't want to provide the service anyway...I don't understand why they are so offended. I guess the fact that the US has advanced beyond 1780 and become a modern, complex society is just too much for you and your "let's go back to the time when a man was a man and the market was free -- and we had slaves!" friends is too much to bear.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[KrackHouse]

In this case it's not a question of if free markets can or cannot do something it's a matter of how long it will take. The Internet is doing more to break up these monopolies faster and better than any government bureaucracy.

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only easy to fire a private corporation if there are other private corporations that provide equivalent services.

While not easy for an individual, in a democracy it is easy for the majority to fire the government... just vote em out of office.

And that's about the way it should be I'd think...

Re:When the free market is subjected to harm..

[HyperTiger]

Maybe, but the point is moot since they are financing this with bonds, not taxes.

Better programming, more public access

[msbsod]

Looking at the local offer by Cox, I would argue that the program cannot get any worse. Perhaps with better access for people like you and me we will see less influence by the so called news networks, religious propaganda machines (why shall I pay for this junk?) and instead get an educated program from local universities, concerned citizens and political parties other than the two half parties who are running the show, and possibly from people who would otherwise never dare to go public. The perspective of affordable high-speed Internet access is also good news for small businesses and those who could not afford it before. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Two thumbs up for the voters in Lafayette!

A business investment.

[CyricZ]

You're looking at this situation with far too simple of a mindset. This isn't about providing everyone with cheap TV. This is nothing less than a massive investment into the future of their community. If they are able to provide cheap, reliable Internet access to many locations within the city, then they are setting themselves up for an amazing tech boom.

Besides the obvious influx of hosting companies, opportunities are also opened for other online businesses. And remember, when there's an influx of techology-related businesses they need employees, and such employees are often amongst the most well-educated people. That leads to lower crime rates, and a general improvement of the city's well-being.

The ecomomic benefits of investing in such a broadband system will be widely felt throughout the community. You speak of higher taxes; the taxes themselves may actually be lower due to the crime drop resulting from the influx of highly-educated tech workers. There is a very good chance that the broadband costs are far less than the costs of a police officer. And that's just the tip of the iceberg!

Re:A business investment.

[iggymanz]

heh, i'm having a bit of trouble with the internet access == tech boom, what with the dot-bomb bust and all. And am laughing at influx of "highly educated tech workers" phase too. More likely employment for Indian phone support people who read scripts to frustrated customers, and a decline in goods/services purchased from local business as large corporation get their foot in the door via internet.

Re:A business investment.

[runner1001]

"Saturday's vote authorizes Lafayette Utilities System to sell up to $125 million in bonds for a fiber to the home and business project."

How do you think bonds are paid back? Personally, I've never seen someplace lower taxes once they've been raised.

So it brings in more 'honest' persons to live in the area, and you can reduce the need for some police force, well, you still have to find a way to pay for the installer, maint people, administrators, etc, etc. At best, it's a 1:1 ratio of loosing people to gaining people workforce wise.

Now, that's just for the city workers. Let's talk about other smaller companies (50 people) that currently try to compete, or offer services that compliment someone elses existing service.

COX will no longer need as many installers, SBC won't either. What about those people going on goverment aid.

The city would have made a better move to openly give access to land that has already been set aside, for telcom providors, instead of either saying no.

The only people that make out in the end, are the people that sold the idea to them, and got the contract to install it. Everyone else looses.

Re:A business investment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Play SimCity much?

Re:A business investment.

[Alucard454]

yet again i'm going to have to call you on the fact that you have no clue what my city (lafayette) is like, or what this campaign was really all about.

newflash buddy, this is NOT a "massive investment into the future of our community" but a massive investment in the future of LUS, our local utility provider, who just got voted a $125 million dollar gift from our government. furthermore, we already HAVE cheap reliable internet access (5mbps cable for $40... not the best, but no more expensive than what LUS promises to offer) and we have already SEEN our fabled "amazing tech boom." We are home to golfballs.com and yes, that amazing cingular call center, as well as tons of smaller computer and engineering firms. horrraaaaaay.....

what has the minor tech boom of the past 8 years done for us? caused the city to grow beyond its logical and reasonable size, basically. we've absorbed several formerly suburban and rural areas, as well as a few former outskirts areas, and just kinda merged them into the urban sprawl, for what it's worth. Lafayette has been the number one favorite louisiana city to live in, raise a family in, and educate your children in for a decade running, but we've been slipping in the last few years, because we're starting to become "just another big city" and it's pretty damn sad. the school segregation problem has become epic in scale since this growth spurt, and thus the city was forced into this horrible bussing program that is threatening to destroy our gifted program.

ok, rant off, sorry.

and no, the economic benefits of investing in this sort of thing are not likely to be widely or even mildly felt in the community. there are going to be precisely two major benefactors overall: LUS (the utility) and ULL (the university). As i mentioned previously, we already have a fantastic telecom infrastructure, with nearly all homes in the city limits being either DSL or Cable modem eligible, and this LUS plan is going to change nothing substantial about this. in the two years that it will take for LUS to acheive anything concrete (there own best-case estimate) BS and Cox will likely have extended their reach to everywhere that LUS was planning to wire.

Not that job-making and -killing is a viable economic argument in the first place, but if LUS does succeed in making any significant impact on the job situation in lafayette, it will mostly likely be because they force out BS or Cox and destroy those jobs.

to be fair, the higher taxes argument is also bunk though. In the wording of the measure passed yesterday, the parish cannot raise taxes to help with LUS's plan, but only sell revenue bonds. Yes they are open-ended revenue bonds and could theoretically be used to buy the LUS director a new car or luxury catering services for the LUS Fiber employees (both of which problems this state has sadly dealt with in the recent past) but I sincerely doubt that this will happen in this case. I believe LUS means well, oddly enough.... I just think the government has NO business intruding on the telecom industry. Ultimately this debate was not about Fiber. It was about good government.

Re:A business investment.

[Anonymous Coward]

what has the minor tech boom of the past 8 years done for us?

Well, the exports of "Girls Gone Wild" at Mardi Gras are way up. The bead industry is also booming.

Re:A business investment.

[DiscoStu666]

Not to mention the added income from property taxes that would likely occur. As higher wage jobs are added, those workers are likely to purchase property, adding to the tax base.

Re:A business investment.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Dude, the bill passed at 62%. I am sorry you disagree but the majority of the people there obviously feel differently. In the age when presidents win by like 1% the message is pretty clear.

Re:A business investment.

[maxpublic]

Dude, the bill passed at 62%. I am sorry you disagree but the majority of the people there obviously feel differently.

Just because a majority of the people agree with the measure doesn't make it a good measure. There's a reason our founding fathers though democracy was a really bad idea, and instead opted for a tightly-restricted constitutional republic.

Democracy is just mob rule, after all.

Max

Oh really?

[Trip Ericson]

and block religious channels

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

I could see if these people were actually doing something, but most of these people are in it for the money, I'm sorry.

With my antenna where I live, I can get 12 channels. One repeats another (Fox 21/27). Then two are nearly 100% religious (TBN and a mix of Jerry Falwell and 'FamilyNet'). Yet another is almost all infomercials (Pax or as it's now called 'i'). One more is a blend of the two. That's down to 7. Then the local UPN station spends about half their time doing religion. That's 6. Two PBS stations, CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox.

On top of that, on Sundays the three latter stations fill all of Sunday morning up with religion. Two different Jerry Falwell shows on at once. Heck, the GM of the ABC station is a member of Jerry Falwell's church!

And this is Virginia, not the deep south. I somehow doubt that a lack of religion will be a problem.

Re:Oh really?

[Wiseleo]

I have always maintained that religion is nothing more than a means of mass control of vast numbers of people. All the holy wars, from an agnostic and atheistic perspective (I know the difference, but in this case both qualify) is who has a better imaginary friend or a group of imaginary friends.

I never knew that religious programming is that prevalent on non-cable networks that I never watch, however.

Re:Oh really?

[red990033]

Interesting situation this puts the /. crowd in.

Generally we tend to flame anything remotely doing with censorship. With the obvious exception of religious programming.

I bet if there were a channel for the pro-evolution believers out there, more people here would put up a fuss.

Oh.. wait.. TLC, Discovery, National Geographic, etc.. Hmm..

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and we know the Soviet communist conquest occured by a bunch of religious nutballs.

Jesus (pun intended), I'm an athiest myself and I know your argument is garbage.

Re:Oh really?

[Starrider]

I so wish I could moderate this up....but no mod points so...

Re:Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

> And this is Virginia, not the deep south. I
> somehow doubt that a lack of religion will be
> a problem.

You mean like Virginia Beach - Pat Robertson or Lynchburg - Jerry Fallwell?

Or just take a drive down 460 from Roanoke to Blacksburg and count all the fundimentalist churches.

The only real difference from Louisianna is that they're slightly more polite in Virginia.

Business and Religion

[fm6]

...a city-run cable system might ... block religious channels.

That's an ironic claim. There used to be a lot more religious channels on commercial cable than there are now. What happened to them? Providers needed their bandwidth for all those useless "bundles" that they're forced to buy. Viewers complained, but business is business.

Religious channels

[charvolant]

I'm not familiar with the US model of church and state separation. Do US cities forbid religious parades on the grounds that public roads are maintained and operated by the government? Or is there some subtle legal difference between common roads and a common fibre optic network? Or is this, perchance, just a bit of puffed smoke?

Re:Religious channels

[Akai]

It's a big bit of puffed smoke.

The seperation of church and state is not the exclustion of all religion from the public space, it is the avoidance of sponsoring or establishng a state religion.

In you public grounds example, if a local government were to allow a christian group to hold a christmas pagent, then they legally would be oblidged to allow the local pagans to celebrate the soltice on the same or comparable grounds.

For TV, that's another thing, because religion on TV is a private enterprise function, not a government function. A municiple cable company most likely would be governed by the same FCC statutes that corporate cable companies must follow. These statutes include a provision called "must carry" which allows any TV Station over a certain signal strengh to request and recieve carriage on the cable network.

For non-broadcast cable relgious stations, that would be a business, as opposed to a legal decision I think. The Click Network is Tacoma, Washington's municiple network, run by the city-owned power company. A quick perusal of their cabler offering includes many local channels, some no doubt religious, as well as several cable religious channels. Tacoma isn't exactly the bible-belt, so if there were going to be challenges to the programming content they most likely would have occured there, than in the heart of the south.

Re:Religious channels

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends on who you ask. If you read the Constitution, you'll find there's no reference to "separation between church and state" as such; the first amendment says only that the government shall not establish a state religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion.

If you ask the ACLU or others commonly held to be liberal, they'll argue that things such as religious-themed statues on government property and funding charitable religious organizations constitute establishment of a state religion. From this we arrive at lawsuits to remove the G-word from the pledge of allegiance, currency, etc.

Personally I think those arguments are a load of dingo's kidneys, but there it is.

Re:Religious channels

[d34thm0nk3y]

Tacoma isn't exactly the bible-belt, so if there were going to be challenges to the programming content they most likely would have occured there, than in the heart of the south.

What can you do, it's the closest we can cet this side of the mountains.

Outcry

[cloudscout]

I imagine all four of the citizens who watch the religious channels were lobbying heavily against this.

Re:Outcry

[StikyPad]

Except Lousiana is in the middle of the Bible Belt, so 4 is more likely the number of citizens who don't watch religious channels.

Re:Outcry

[elrous0]

Actually, I occassionally watch one of my cable religious channels. It's pretty funny stuff, mainly for three reasons:

1. Hair and makeup that literally have to be seen to be believed (Tammy Faye has nothing on these guys)
2. Vacuous, washed-up celebrities like Stephen Baldwin prattling on about how they found Jesus right after they lost their ability to get roles
3. Kirk Cameron, who really deserves his own category. The same eyes that once charmed a generation of pre-pubescent girls now have the dead sheen of a true-believing religious fanatic. Hard to decide which member of his old cast I pity the most.

-Eric

Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has been saying fiber is good for you for a while now. Part of a well-balanced diet...

La not LA

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought louisiana was capital L little a

Re:La not LA

[Mahou]

yeh http://www.netstate.com/states/links/la_links.htm LA is for postal and La is traditional abbreviation.

In a free market

[vlad_petric]

In a free market, if you ignore a market segment, you should not have a legal way to prevent others from coming in and serving it.

Let's not forget that the free market is nothing but an idealized abstraction. This case is yet another example of market forces being incapable of driving the services/products in the right direction. Sure, it's generally much better when market forces alone take care of the situation, but this doesn't mean that when it can't we should do nothing and invoke the free market dogma.

Re:In a free market

[maxpublic]

invoke the free market dogma.

This might be true if the forces of the free market were actually working in this situation, but they aren't. Local and state restrictions essentially mean that only large players can get into the public utility game, and most municipalities in the country grant de facto monopolies to various cable and phone companies in return for a chunk of the profits.

In this case the city had the option of repealing a number of the regulations which keep individuals and small groups from entering the market, but it chose to instead go the route of socialized government service. I can't blame the folks of this fine town for choosing socialized service over no service at all, but they were forced into that position by regulatory demands that no one other than a large corporation can meet. I'm sure their government never bothered to provide them with this third option, as it would mean an end to the profiteering that municipalities are engaged in with the artificial monopolization of public utilities.

Max

Re:In a free market

[freedom_india]

I like your Sig. Interesting

Re:In a free market

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

but, dude, come one. everybody knows that the market hates it when the government can do something effeciently and for free. and when you do too many things that the market doesnt like, the terrorists come in and impregnate you daughter.
I know. I saw a special about it on Fox.

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away

[HornWumpus]

Learn to swim.

Re:The only way to fix it is to flush it all away

[Dolphinzilla]

wow - a Tool reference, don't see that everyday :-)

Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[ShatteredDream]

I bet you that most of the ghettos in this country could get broadband. Yet something tells me that that doesn't imply for even a second that they are prosperous.

You're right, though, that the city government can do this. However, the private corporations involved can also shutdown their services and liquidate and/or sabotage all of their infrastructure.

There's nothing "free market" about what you support. The government getting involved to compete is socialism, not capitalism.

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[masklinn]

You're right, though, that the city government can do this. However, the private corporations involved can also shutdown their services and liquidate and/or sabotage all of their infrastructure.

Say, is anyone supposed to give a flying fuck about that?
Let them sabotage all they want and drive more people to public networks, as long as these manage to make money over acceptable time frames (a few years) and ain't permanently deficitary there is no problem here, the customers (you) pays the right price for the right service (and no one prevents competitors from rising) and the state/city makes more money, improving the state/city or lowering the taxes in return.

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[Anonymous Coward]

> The government getting involved to compete is socialism, not capitalism.

so?

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[maxpublic]

Say, is anyone supposed to give a flying fuck about that?

Except that it leaves the city with absolutely no competitors over time, and gives the government complete and utter control over every citizen's internet access. Don't you find that just a bit disturbing, or are you one of those folks who trusts government (and your neighbors) implicitly?

Max

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[Capsaicin]

>> The government getting involved to compete is socialism, not capitalism.

so?

What do you mean "so"?! Don't you know ideological purity is sooooo much more important than positive outcomes?

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[vought]

Except that it leaves the city with absolutely no competitors over time, and gives the government complete and utter control over every citizen's internet access. Don't you find that just a bit disturbing, or are you one of those folks who trusts government (and your neighbors) implicitly?

As a former resident of Lafayette Parish, I can assure you that no one in city government gives a shita bout what you're doing on the Internet.

Unless you live next door. And that would be no different if your beighbor worked for BellSouth/Cocks Cable.

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[jackofallbrandnames]

Don't you know ideological purity is sooooo much more important than positive outcomes?

Even if it results in negative outcomes? How does that make it "more" important?

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[falconwolf]

There's nothing "free market" about what you support. The government getting involved to compete is socialism, not capitalism.

Nope, when government owns all means of production then it's socialism. When because a corporation doesn't want to spend money to provide a service and the people decide to provide it themself that's democracy. At the same tyme if they decide to force those who don't want it and won't use it to pay for it then it's a dictatorship, tyranny of the masses.

Falcon

Re:Broadband and prosperity have little in common

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have a spare moment, do yourself a favour and look the word IRONY in a dictionary. You'll probably make a fool of yourself in public a little less often if you do.

This will not hurt religion.

[PsiPsiStar]

I am a religious person, though admittedly one who is not particularly into collective worship in public.

The whole 'the government will bar religious shows' sounds bogus.

I'm sure there's a way to fairly auction some channel space to private individuals, and then make it clear that the religious show was put on by the private individuals and does not translate to an endorsement by the government, which is all you really need. As for the internet - there's already a lot of fiber optic cable owned by the gov. and that hasn't made a darn bit of difference what people can put up on the net.

The courts have set up some clear workarounds for the whole "do not recognize an establishment of religion" clause so that religious freedom is well and safely preserved and private individuals can worship as they choose. You could go outside my school in the morning and pray around the flagpole, voluntarily, with a group of other kids.
But there are some fundies who take not being able to use the classroom as their personal pulpit for their religious beliefs to be a conspiracy against religion.

I'm all for private schools, but the rules for public schools regarding religious practice are good ones.

But there's been a deliberate push by the so-called Christian coalition to misinterpret what the courts have said, specifically because it's devisive and gets votes for their supporters. And because they want to establish a state religion, which is the exact opposite of religious freedom. And the tactic works since people are more likely to vote on issues like this, which are designed to be incendiary, rather than on budget measures where pork is easily softpeddaled as one kind of improvement or another.

Re:This will not hurt religion.

[Seumas]

As an agnostic, I am tired of people confusing seperation of church and state. Yeah, it's a bad idea and I'm a tad offended by putting religious monuments of a specific popular religion inside a courthouse. And yeah, I'd be offended if the Christians and Muslims got to have their cable and public acccess shows and the Wiccans and whatever-elsians didn't. And I'd be pissed if someone tried to force me to believe a religion. Or spent public funding on it.

However, as most public access policies seem to be fairly liberal, I dont' see a problem. They let on crazy old women who want to rant about the good baby jesus for an hour every week. They let on crazy old fat men who want to get naked and smoke a joint on screen every week. They let on punks skating around town having fun. They let local clubs broadcast their events on them.

As long as everyone get's a fair shot, I'm all for it. A Christian or Jew or Muslim shouldn't get preference because of their faiths over other faiths (or people without a faith at all), but they also should absolutely not be subjected to extra qualifications and difficulties and hassles because of those faiths. If I'm allowed to make my show about how to safely protest without being beaten down by the man in Little Beirut (Portland, Oregon) - then you should get to have your show about converting sinners to the arms of Jesus.

If these municipal fiber to the home things take off across the country and people find themselves being discriminated against because they want to put religious material (of any sort) on and everything ELSE is accepted, I will gladly stand by and protest with them. Promoting the ability to spread and share ideas is far more important than censoring any idea, whether I'm offended by that idea or completely indifferent to it.

Re:This will not hurt religion.

[dave1g]

Th eidea that religions wouldnt be allowed onto the fiber network doesn't hold water.

The gov cant impede religion either, so as long as they pay for their use of the network just like anyone else, then the gov. couldnt block them.

However you also can't expect the gov. to pay for the costs of broadcasting religious shows either.

Removing Religous Channels a threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a pretty funny threat...

I live 30 minutes from Lafayette, and I use COX for my cable needs. About a year ago, COX removed TBN from the basic plus channels, so that you are required to have digital cable to watch it. The leverage COX used as a threat was going to happen regardless, just like Cingular removing the Call Center.

This was a great move for the city of Lafayette, and will hopefully provide an increase in IT jobs! :D

Municipal includes Law Enforcement

[caller9]

I'm all for this, but it gets fuzzy in the details.

What if any laws prevent the local Police CyberCrime division from throwing up a net of packet sniffers?

There are many positives to that scenario, the downside being a warrant-free monitoring scheme. You are using public resources, so I could see that throwing away your expectation of privacy.

I'm not an advocate of illegal internet use, but I like not expecting a knock on the door on the occasion that I start a legal torrent simply because some dumb filter looks at port traffic instead of conent.

I could also see surveilance as a big use for these. Most places don't have the backhaul to get info out of those traffic cameras. Until they have their own fiber net. There's a good side for emergency first responders at intersection traffic accidents, etc. Just depends on how much you trust your govt. I guess.

I still haven't seen many arguments on the net for what happens when a city full of grandmas and newbs have 5+Mbps symmetrical connections and unpatched versions of (you name it) and become a bigass DDOS net. When a handfull of PCs can flood a modest coorperation's net which the coorperation's local provider charges through the ceiling for, the disparity will become a nightmare. Not to mention the amount of SPAM a single zombie on that net can vomit out in a day.

Next headline: Lafayette becomes first entire city to have traffic blackholed.

Lafayette LA isn't the first--Loma Linda CA is

[postbigbang]

They have a broader set of ordinances mandating fibre to the home, and business-- all with nearby access to the National Lamba Rail.

The good news is: this is a trend that ought to shake up how we think of broadband-- as a utility like water, gas, and electricity.

Re:Lafayette LA isn't the first--Loma Linda CA is

[brjndr]

For a second I read that as Nambla Rail.

Now that would be a scary ride.

Re:Lafayette LA isn't the first--Loma Linda CA is

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said Lafayette was the first. It's quite notable that Lafayette is doing it, however, because Louisiana is one backwards-ass state when it comes to things like fiber, where the state wants to spend money to improve the telecom infrastructure for commercial use, without recompense in northern Louisiana, but they can't find anybody up there who wants it at all.

Dial-up is good enough for most of Louisiana. Unfortunately, that comes at the cost of access for the parts of Louisiana that want more than dial-up. Cox is selling off its cable assets outside the Baton Rouge/N.O. areas, and BellSouth won't offer more than 1.5Mb residential DSL because nobody not enough people want or use more than that.

Re:Lafayette LA isn't the first--Loma Linda CA is

[duncanbojangles]

They have a broader set of ordinances mandating fibre to the home, and business-- all with nearby access to the National Lamba Rail.

That's interesting, in an ironic way. I live in Lafayette, Louisiana and attend the University of Louisiana, which just so happens to be hopping onboard the Lambda Rail soon!

On another note, this is both a good and bad thing. The fiber will go down every street, but it is only run to those homes that subscribe to the service, which is not quite what they were spinning. The Lafayette Consolidated Government is gambling on enough homes subscribing to cover the cost, otherwise the Lafayette Utilities System, who the loan is taken out against, will have to pay up, probably by raising the price of water or electricity. And even if they do get enough subscribers, Cox and Bellsouth may have to raise their prices to make up for losses, which is not a good thing.

I remember some time ago, hearing about the LUS planning on offering a cable internet service, but then that law got passed allowing cable companies to not share their coax. What a shame, I really would have liked for the competition to bring prices down.

Well, this is good.

[mcc]

Now we'll get to see whether the libertarian cries that internet access as a municipal service will cause incurable diseases and economic collapse hold true. I mean, we'll actually have a test case, a normal one not based on ridiculous circumstance (like San Francisco being so incredibly tiny that you can actually serve the entire thing with 802.11).

Of course I'm a little worried that maybe Louisiana is not the best place to try something like this... since Louisiana is by some metrics of measurement the most corruption-plagued state government in the union... does the City of Lafayette tend to suffer from this similarly?

I'm also REALLY curious about what happens if the cable/phone monopolies try to "retaliate" against Lafayette. I think the easiest way for the nation to start seeing the cable/phone companies for what they really are is if we start seeing stories in the media about how if you don't pass laws in your local community the exact way the telco/cable corps want, they'll make you regret it ...

but of course considering most people get their news from cable television itself maybe the media just won't speak of such things.

Re:Well, this is good.

[maxpublic]

Now we'll get to see whether the libertarian cries that internet access as a municipal service will cause incurable diseases and economic collapse hold true.

Oh, the drama! I see you aren't prone to exaggeration.

I dunno what the Libertarian Pary thinks about this, nor do I care. As a libertarian though, I would have preferred it if the city had decided to repeal the restrictions that government utility creation and do with with municipal monopolies altogether. Either that or create the infrastructure in question and then lease it to anyone who has the cash to spend (real libertarians don't object to this second scenario; it's often far more efficient than straight-up capitalism for certain tasks).

But since the government is about to give up the profiteering it makes on selling monopolies, the only real choice the citizens had were government service or no service at all. As a libertarian actually grounded in the real world I'd choose government service over no service at all any day of the week - and then work to move the government into it's more proper role of infrastructure builder and leaser rather than cable service provider.

Max

Re:Well, this is good.

[mcc]

I see you aren't prone to exaggeration.

Oh, definitely, that was entirely hyperbolic. But, if you've seen some of the previous slashdot articles on these subjects (say the Texas case), it isn't that far off. Assuming of course that you browse at score:0.

^_^

Re:Well, this is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe that the corruption crown has been taken by neighboring Mississippi ever since BB Rayburn and Edwin Edwards & Co. are now serving jail time.

Believe it or not, Blanco, Nagin, and others are quietly cleaning up the "3rd world state," and it's starting to show. In fact, New Orleans is currently in the process of doing a "fiber to the home" project itself using existing water and sewer easements and right-of-ways.

Who knows, maybe one day I'll get to work in the Silicon Bayou!

Re:Well, this is good.

[vought]

Of course I'm a little worried that maybe Louisiana is not the best place to try something like this... since Louisiana is by some metrics of measurement the most corruption-plagued state government in the union... does the City of Lafayette tend to suffer from this similarly?

No. While Louisiana is famous for it's politicians who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Lafayette is one of the brightest spots on the map when it comes to honesty and relative transparency in city-parish government.

Unlike most other states, many Parishes and Cities in Louisiana have joined to form city-parish governments. (Parishes in Louisiana are analogous to Counties in other states).

Lafayette, once the parish seat of Lafayette Parish, is now the seat of the city-parish government, which is responsible for the oversight of Lafayette Utility Services, which is in turn responsible for installation (done)*, buildout (ongoing) and maintenance of the fiber network.

(In the olden days (pre-1983 or so), Lafayette Parish's unincorporated areas were maintained by the Police Jury a quasi-enforcement non-rulemaking entity. Now the city and unincorporated areas are goverened by the same entity; municipalities within the parish maintain their own town/city governments.)

*As far as I understand it, most of the dark fiber ring encircling most of Lafayette (the city) was put in place over the last ten years during significant drainage and road upgrades.

Re:Well, this is good.

[mcc]

Interesting, thank you for clarifying.

More idiocy on broadband...

[suitepotato]

...this is the same /. that is generally leery of statist anything and so pro-personal rights, right?

But as soon as municipal broadband is broached, people who'd usually don a tinfoil hat with regard to any government involvement start drooling like idiots if they think they're going to get higher speeds at lower costs, and screw it if the big bad government is doing it. Suddenly they aren't so bad.

The point about the government not being there to make cars, just the roads is applicable. Heck, they can't even maintain the roads under the cars. Some places are under perpetual construction. And mostly, it is because of incompetence and venal attitude. Hey, we can draw it out as a permanent taxation reason.

It's far from paranoia to suggest that government would do the same with this. Nor is it paranoia to suggest that once they had total coverage that they'd abuse their power to force private companies to sell their services at a dead loss until they went out of business or at least stopped serving those places.

Do you want the same US government that has given us interstate fights over segregation, womens' rights, gay marriage, the Meese Porn Report, etc., etc., ad nauseum, to be controlling your information pipe?

Since George W. Bush took office the first time, we've heard nothing but paranoid anti-American ravings of vitriol aimed at him and his admin. Yes, let's suddenly forget our stance about government taking our Internet away and censoring everything and lying to us and suddenly act as though we never said any of that. As long as you get gigabit pr0n and sub 5ms ping times to frag your friends, right? As long as you get to thumb your nose at the cable company, right?

Wake up and smell the contradictions here people. The same government that can't keep a shuttle from blowing up every few years and launch the remaining one it has without turning into nervous piles of drool... The same government that drops trousers and bends over for the MPAA/RIAA and nods like a bunch of doofuses at the mention of requiring DRM... The same governments that can't manage their cities, can't get along with their suburbs, can't respect the freedom of their citizens nor understand that the government manages at the leisure of the citizenry and that the citizenry aren't free at the leisure of the government... These are the people you want running your Internet and tv entertainment pipes.

I don't think so.

Re:More idiocy on broadband...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as you get gigabit pr0n and sub 5ms ping times to frag your friends, right?"

Make up your mind! Are you jealous of my porn collection or pissed off at me for pwning you?

Re:More idiocy on broadband...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was gonna say it, but you said it better. Just want to emphasize the obvious here, though - if the government owns the pipes and funds them with taxes, then the first amendment does not apply, and they can regulate content any way they want. That's the loophole that allows the FCC to censor the public airwaves, and it will apply equally to the public lightways. And since it will be local governments doing the censoring, rather than the federal government, the rules will be ever so much more colorful and broad!

So welcome to the wonderful world of "community standards" - where the same old church ladies who bring you laws that say fashion magazines have to be covered up in the supermarket so children won't see cleavage, the same people who make up all those wierd regulations about where and how alcohol can be sold, decide what you get to see on your internet connection, and enforce it with the same technology that China uses. And of course, this regulatory power won't be used to cut off access to web sites containing "hate speech", such as information about abortion and contraception. Absolutely not, for sure.

Oh, and forget about opting out and getting an uncensored commercial broadband connection. If only 10% of a community wants that service, it won't be enough of a market to justify the cost of installation. Once the municipal government installs broadband wireless, if it works, it will be a monopoly, unless you want to install a rather expensive satellite dish, which local zoning laws might just prohibit as "unsightly" anyway. So welcome to God's Country, enjoy your stay.

Re:More idiocy on broadband...

[vought]

Since George W. Bush took office the first time, we've heard nothing but paranoid anti-American ravings of vitriol aimed at him and his admin.

Sound like you've been Hannitized!

Don't worry. I heard that they're working on a vaccine. It's called a massive budget deficit and $350 billion spent in Iraq. I heard that only 90 people were killed there today - we're making progress!

Re:More idiocy on broadband...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only drawback to your argument is this: you're complaining about the federal government. Everything that is being discussed here is about local governments, which don't have a whole lot to do with President Monkey Man (AKA George W.B.).

They're different entities- get that straight and then rethink your post. Sure, there's the possibility that the federal government could take over these networks sometime in the distant future (with whatever evil they've managed to spin into the public's mind, such as the current terrorism "threat" as the cause of the takeover), but even then, more cities would have to build their own networks for that to become a possibility.

It's a good thing to bring cheap, fast access to cities.

Flame Warning!--Re: Los Angeles

[Spock the Baptist]

"... we are only dimly aware that Louisiana exists."

Is that because 'we' are just dimly aware period?

I dare say that anyone who has had a basic junior high geography class, or any America history class is aware of Louisiana.

Of course both the Northeast, and the Left Coast being the home of so many narcissistic oligarchs I'm not surprised that they're unaware of anything outside of their daily routine of self-indulgent hedonism.

Re:Flame Warning!--Re: Los Angeles

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is a reason they call you "Flyover states"....*snork*

Right

[mcc]

Because everything the government does has to be either all good or all bad.

There's no way that government could be something with both positive and negative aspects, or a necessary evil with potentially useful functions. There's no way you can view referendum-based local democracy and a national governmental bureaucracy run by termed elected representatives as somehow different. There's no way that you can consider the removal of checks balances and constitutional limitations on law enforcement to be bad, while considering taxing the public and providing public services in return to be potentially good.

Nope, either you fully approve of all potential uses of governments from bombing randomly selected foreign countries to city-level arts funding, and approve equally of all government leaders regardless of the rightness of their specific actions or level of public support they're acting with, or you're an anarchocapitalist.

There's black, and there's white. Anything in between is just hypocrisy.

Re:Mod Parent Stupid

[RedWizzard]

The wording of the title rules out the possibility of this having happened in Los Angeles

How? How is the interpretation "Los Angeles City Votes..." not possible? Bell South doesn't do business in CA (California, not to be confused with Cape Ann, which isn't in the south, either.). /blockquote> Believe it or not, some /. readers are not resident in the USA and are not experts on the coverage and clientele of US telecommunications providers. I don't have the slightest clue where Bell South does business and nor should I need to get a clear understanding of a /. story.

Re:Mod Parent Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The wording of the title rules out the possibility of this having happened in Los Angeles

Grammar in Slashdot headlines being what it is, I would not be at all surprised to see this headline on a story about LA the city in California, even if it would be technically incorrect. I agree with the grandparent poster; it's definitely a valid complaint about the headline, especially considering that LA is widely used to refer to the city, but Louisiana is not normally called by its postal abbreviation.

Also I liked the AC's point that LA (referring to the greater Los Angeles area) has a much larger population than Louisiana, has a much greater economic importance (being a major manufacturing center, the biggest port in North America, and the center of the entertainment industry), and a much greater social influence (again, being the center of the entertainment industry, recognized worldwide). If Louisiana and Los Angeles got into a fight over who owned the abbreviation "LA", Los Angeles would win.

You do realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize: Jerry Falwell is based in southern Virginia? Correct? As was, at one time: Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, and others? Virginia may not be the Deep South, but they don't call it "buckle of the Bible Belt" for no reason at all!

Cash Cow for the telcos

[javakev]

Not sure why the Telcos and cable companies are fighting this. They can make a killing in managing these networks. Lets do the math, the city incurs all the cost of building the infrstructure. But, the city will have no experience in managing and maintaing a high speed network. Well the only folks with that kind of experience are the big telcos and cable companies. They can charge hugh fees to montitor and maintain these networks without owning any of the infrastructure.

Re:Cash Cow for the telcos

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

A management contract, however corrupt its administration, isn't likely to pay as much as $50-$100 per month times each oversubscribed user.

Re:Cash Cow for the telcos

[SeaFox]

Not sure why the Telcos and cable companies are fighting this. They can make a killing in managing these networks.

But they wont own them so they can't exert complete control of them. The city will be free to let upstart providers on the networks. It's just like the telco's fighting to keep from having to lease the lines they own to other providers. As far as I remember, since data service is an "information service" and not a "telephone service" the big media corps would be free to exclude everyone if they built their own fiber network. The city network would introduce competition, which the big media corps don't want,

...seeing as how big they are on free market economics

Can someone get a dictionary?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just wondering what how 'extortion' or blackmail are defined.

Seems like telling the city you're gonna fire a bunch of people if a proposal passes would qualify, doesn't it?

If the law recognizes corporations as individuals, shouldn't this corporation be going to jail for attempting to blackmail public officials?

So far, no worse than what we have now.

[MacDork]

What if any laws prevent the local Police CyberCrime division from throwing up a net of packet sniffers?

I thought about the same issue myself. Then I remembered Carnivore.

I still haven't seen many arguments on the net for what happens when a city full of grandmas and newbs have 5+Mbps symmetrical connections and unpatched versions of (you name it) and become a bigass DDOS net.

The internet will handle that just fine I'm sure. Ask the folks in Tokyo where 40/12 Mbps was cheap a year ago. American "broadband" sucks. The American cable/telecom monopolies have been dragging their feet intentionally. They can afford to since they have no competition. Just look at what happened THE DAY AFTER the Supreme Court guaranteed cable companies continued monopoly status with the Brand X decision.

So to sum up, good for Louisiana. Screw the cable and telecom monopolies.

Utah already does this

[TodPunk]

UTOPIA is pretty much what you talked about, except it wasn't the government that bought the equipment, it was a private company on bonds. It's community owned, essentially, so nobody controls the hard wire or other equipment.

It's an interesting model. While there are some other small differences, it's still a good idea either way. I can happily say it's been a joy to work with the fiber guys and see them have their bugs they're working out to make this all work. Now if we can apply the same principles to other things, like DRM or Patent controls, we could make some progress against Corporate Bigotry. Hehe, Open Source ISPs are just an awesome concept, no?

What is Push Polling:

[boijames]

From Wikipedia:

A push poll is a political campaigntechnique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll]. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.

The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of abortion in order to get voters thinking about that issue.

More negative are attacks on another candidate by using polls. These attacks often contain information with little or no basis in fact.

True push polls tend to be very short, with only a handful of questions, so as to make as many calls as possible. The data obtained is discarded, not analyzed. Any poll that does not ask demographic information -- such as age, income, or race -- is generally not a legitimate poll, but some form of advertising.

Perhaps the most famous alleged use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush's campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina reported being asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" an allegation that had no substance but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters. McCain and his wife had in fact adopted an Asian child.

exactly

[sbma44]

Yeah. Because god knows we can't do without the umpteen thousand religious channels on cable.

Exactly. He knows, but without the cable channel, how will he let us know?

United States of California baby!

[Penguinoflight]

Yeah, I'm sure people all around the world know where Los Angeles California is! LA is the proper 2 letter abbreviation for Louisiana, and LA is a state, that's more important than any city. Btw last time I checked LA has a bigger population too.

Mod this an unintentional troll. Think before you post.

Re:United States of California baby!

[Guppy06]

I'd wager money that the city of Los Angeles is represented by more members of the House of Representatives than the entire state of Louisiana.

Re:Mod Parent Stupid

[red5]

They'd probably lose.

From Wikipedia: Los Angeles
On September 4, 1781, settlers from the San Gabriel Mission founded the town and named it "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula"

From Wikipedia: Louisiana
Louisiana was named by the French explorer Robert Cavelier de La Salle in honour of Louis XIV in 1682.

I'm guessing that the LA abbreviation was applied to Louisiana first, as it was named almost 100 years prior to Los Angeles.

Heh!

[jd]

The real twist in your analogy is that private-sector roads are almost invariably toll roads and almost invariably rationed. :)

And, yeah, the odds are that Cingular was going to off-shore all the work anyway, all the difference this makes is that they get to have some free advertising in the form of PR statements.

Hmmm. You sure?

[jd]

I thought the religious channel watchers would have limited themselves to trinities.

We've been through this, and it worked

[botlrokit]

Our local municipal utility company wanted to get in on this game about three years ago. They wanted to raise the money through bonds, and were successful with the City Commission in securing the bonds. Work began, but not before two voices were raised: A local upstart Bell$outh-Buyback company, and a multimagillion dollar flash-in-the-pan cable company both went to the public airwaves and local newspaper, and began fomenting all kinds of arrogance about how the public shouldn't fund this venture without public approval, and "how dare the city council speak like this on behalf of the community", and "we're going to sue your nuts off, you mere public utility!" Then on May 4, 2003, a tornado swept through our downtown district and wiped the Internet Upstart's building right off the map. Instantly, they had a new home, and were up and running again in relatively short order, thanks to the utility company's kindness in letting them use some unusued space in their building. The Internet Upstart's commentary quickly dissipated, and the fiber was strung through the city on schedule.

Allocation of Resources

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest thing that capitalism provides, as opposed to, say, socialism, is that resources are allocated in a distributed fashion according to real consumer needs. Basically, if consumers are willing to pay what it takes to get the fiber run, then a company will be willing to run it (because they'll make a profit.) If people can get their cable and phone and broadband currently, and aren't willing to pay for the costs of a fiber rollout because they don't get that much better service out of it, then it doesn't happen.

Instead, what we have here is that a few concerned citizens decided that they know better than the market what the people want. They are now going to force the people to pay for a fiber rollout whether they want it or not, and whether they will benefit or not, and whether it's worth the cost or not. Sure, it'll be nice to have fiber. It'd also be nice to feed the starving and to employ the jobless, but in those cases people realize that the government doing so with tax money is not necessarily the best way to do it.

Now, did the ballot say that, "On your next tax return, you will have to pay an additional $1000 to cover the costs of the vote you are now placing."? I think people might have realized the consequences in that case, instead of thinking they are just getting something neat.

Missing repercussions?

[aapold]

I didn't see anything in the article mentionining repercussions, just a quote from a group opposed to it. Is there like another page to the article?

I'm from the city of Lafayette...

[optikshell]

where this vote took place. We've been subject to waiting for Cox and Bellsouth to get off their a$$ and offer us something other than sub-par services. If not for anything else, we'll have a little more competition... and the consumer always wins with more competition.
Lafayette, LA has been gradually moving toward being a more tech focused city. With this development, hopefully we'll see some businesses spring up or be attracted to the area. I'm a CS student at UL (http://louisiana.edu/) located in Lafayette, and would love to be able to find a decent job after I graduate without having to move.

What clause?

[Nick Driver]

The question still exsists.Will the "seperation of church and state" clause apply?

What is this "separation of church and state" clause you're speaking of? There's no such thing anywhere in the US constitution.

Re:What clause?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--

make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
--
Seems to me that this is a pretty clear expression of the separation of Church and State. Moreover Jefferson,Adams and Madison all made fairly strong comments regarding the separation of church and state. BTW it was Madison in 1790 (I'll have to check the date on this), who coined the phrase separation of church and state. Furthermore, when Jefferson wrote the Virginia constitution, he was even more clear regarding the separation.

Re:What clause?

[Anonymous Coward]

what part of prohibiting the free exercise thereof don't you understand, you incensitive clod??

Consumer versus citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism consumer property legal_inequality

Democracy citizen sovereignty legal_equality

Guess who wants a property (ownership) society and who wants a civil (equal) society? Laws are passed every year that move the balance in one direction or the other, increasing or decreasing your choices based on whether its legally MADE INTO a matter of affordability or equality.

The rich vote their self interest. Coorporations act in their self interest. Don't be tricked into trying to be "fair". Deception and manipulation is the point of the TRILLIONS of dollars spent on putting words in your ears.

Block religious programming????

[garylian]

And there's a problem with that??? There is nothing sadder than those poor, helpless souls that can only find their salvation sitting in front of the boob-tube listening to some televangelist rant about how God is going to save them. Please. What's going to save them is laying off the bon-bons.

congrats to them

[grumpygrodyguy]

On Saturday, Lafayette, Louisiana voters gave BellSouth and Cox the collective finger and approved a municipal FTTH network by a 62% to 38% margin.

Good for them! That's a real breath of fresh air, especially coming from a state like Louisiana. Hopefully more states/municipalities will follow their lead!

Hey ILEC - Put up or shut up

[binaryspiral]

So if you're not going to give me the bandwidth I want - and I know it's technically possible, other places have it. Then 'eff off and let my city give it to me. Supply and demand at the core.

Chances are though - the city will turn yellow and bow to the money, hookers, and lawsuits being tossed at them.

erm Virginia is the deep south

[Starrider]

quoteth the poster:
And this is Virginia, not the deep south.

Might I remind you the capital of the confederacy was Richmond, Virginia from May 29, 1861, to April 9th, 1865?

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty deep in the South to me.

One more thing, when you are referring to "the South" use a capital "S".

Re: Idiotic abortion stances

[Anonymous Coward]

As to abortion always being wrong ... it is in every case wrong, no exceptions whatsoever. I am sorry you do not understand that, in fact I am am sorry that the on average of 42 million people a year who are involved in it don't get that either.

I am sorry you do not understand that actions aren't always easily separated into "right" and "wrong." Abortion in the case of rape. Abortion in the case of severe risk to the mother's life. No exceptions whatsoever, eh? I am sorry that such a large bunch of hypocrits feel the right to dictate to others but don't back up their moral indignation by donating most of their money to charities that help unwanted/impoverished children. Important enough of an issue to interfere with others' choices. Not important enough of an issue to interfere with your own lifestyle. I am sorry that you're so severely focused on "life" (and the possibility of cognition) barely in the multicell stage, when clearly many of you pay little attention to fully developed life that gets extinguished every day outside US borders.

ok sorry about that abortion is one of my buttons

Confusion

[Presidential]

Anybody else think that title could have been worded better to avoid confusion with the more common LA?

I wholeheartedly agree! After looking all around Los Alamos, the only computer related stuff we could find were some old, discarded hard drives http://tinyurl.com/btatd.

now that your communications log is retained....

[museumpeace]

[i.e. DHS and its UK equivalent want phone co.s to reatain billing records and ISPs to retain net access records far beyond the billing period ] would you rather the phone company held them or your local town govt?

battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[bhiestand]

If you put this much energy into battling cancer we would have had a cure for AIDS 10 years ago. K, Thanks bubye
So, umm, if I worked really, really hard to make linux great, would windows become stable?

You're both right and wrong. Many christians would complete your sentence "Freedom of religion means you can practice christianity as you see fit." Freedom of religion does indeed include freedom from religion. It means you can't be pummeled 24x7 by religious fanatics that THEIR cause is the right one and that yours is the wrong one, even if yours is NONE. And no, as much as theists like to say atheism is still a religion, it's not. Ok, HARD atheism is, because it's a positive belief in something which can not possibly be proven, that there is no god. But simply NOT believing in god is not a belief in anything, therefor not a religion. Wait, I didn't mean to turn myself around in semantics, damnit!

Anyways, many of the founders of america were deists. A lot of them wrote some pretty mean things about christianity that would get american politicians stoned to death these days.

Here are some quotes for you from our founding fathers:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." ..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read,"a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten then, that while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting non-believer, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: "[E]perience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of main- taining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation."
Justice Kennedy, opinion of the court in Lee vs. Weisman

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
-Benjamin Franklin

And what is christianity slowly doing? It's slowly starting to try to take power within american society. Leaders within the churches are claiming they're merely trying to "Take it back", but to be honest, they haven't had it since the salem witch trials. And for good reason. It protects the people as well as the churches. Now you're telling me I don't have the freedom FROM religion? I'm sorry, but I have to stand up for myself on this one. I'm not giving in to you any longer. I'm not goin

Re:battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

"It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise..."
Justice Kennedy, lead opinion, Lee v. Weisman, 505US 577 (1992)

This is quite easily readable as freedom FROM religion, freedom from the government imposing or coercing people into ANY religion.

That's "separation of church and state". But nobody should be messing with my private ability to choose a religion and worship it through means that don't involve the government. The point was that Cox (let's bring this gently back on topic) can gladly show whatever religious channels it likes - whether it be Vatican TV or Wiccan News Network - but LUS, a governmental organization, can't show religious channels because if they show one normal Christian channel, they'll have to show millions of other channels for everything from Scientology to Falun Gong (and we have bona fide organizations of both cults in Lafayette). Otherwise they'd be favoring one religion over another, and the government can't do that (only private corporations can).

Anyway, it's not like it mattters, because I don't think LUS has any immediate plans to compete with Cox's TV service - only its high-speed Internet service. And even if they did show a religious channel, I doubt that the culture here would encourage such a lawsuit by a minority religion. And even if they did sue, I doubt they have the following and material to make their own TV channel.

Re:battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[makohund]

Great post.

But I think there might be a little confusion here.

When the poster says "you don't have freedom from religion" I think it really means "freedom from exposure to religion".

In which case I would agree. It appears that you might too, but I'm not sure. (The "following priest" scenario you paint seems beyond exposure to me, and would constitute legitimate harrassment... a crime. I don't think any claim of religious freedom should trump criminal law, so you should be OK there. Those scenarios should not be protected as religious activity. I would hope not, anyway.)

OK, so I happen to be a Christian. But I am wholeheartedly in support of the separation of church and state. I am also aware of how silly arguments of "but we were founded on Christianity (or whatever)" are. (Interestingly enough, if the average bible thumper actually read and comprehended more than select clips of the tome they pack around, they might realize that this very issue makes up one of the major themes of the New Testament.)

I agree with your right to do whatever the hell you want, as far as your religious or non-religious choices go. And most definitely disagree with the way many so-called Christian leaders attempt to mix politics in with religion and vice versa. *spitting in disgust*

I agree freedom of religion includes "no religion". It means the govt has nothing to do with personal religious choices (which by common sense includes "no religion for me at all").

But...

I've always interpreted "freedom from religion" to mean freedom from religion having any impact at all on a person whatsoever... which would be difficult. That would mean freedom even from observable evidence that that others might practice a form of religion.

For that to truly be possible would essentially require others to make the same choice as you (no religion) or to hide the choices they've made.

So I think that would be too much... a matter of where the other person's nose starts, so your own freedom ends there.

Does that make sense?

In other words, we might just be talking a matter of differing semantics here.

Are we?

(A reason I myself always include "exposure to" in that particular phrase, rather than leave it insufficiently implied.)

Re:battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[bhiestand]

Overall I agree with you, and commend you for reading your literature. I usually biblequiz anyone who tries to stop me on the street and lecture me on it, and I get rather annoyed if I know more than they do.

The problem I've been running into has been overexposure bordering on harassment. That and people exposing me to religion as part of their official capacities. School teachers arguing and trying to prove God exists, etc. The worst so far is a military commander asking all of the new members to his unit, upon first meeting them, "HAVE YOU BEEN SAVED YET?". You'd better answer yes, because you're in for a very long lecture and a copy of a certain book if you answer no.

Again, I agree people have no choice when it comes to whether they'll be exposed to a religion. But some people have taken that straight to harassment, especially on the streets and in some school systems. Recently there have been public schools where students read prayers or did whatever else for an hour or so a day. The problem is that yes, a person can ignore a comment about why "God is Good", but a forced spoonfeeding -a daily repitition of the same material and lecture in the hopes that he'll start to believe it- gets started up sometimes. Then it is hid behind in the name of "well, you're not free to exposure from it.". Maybe not, but common sense and limits should apply, even if our legalese has not perfected to the point where we know how to word every law 100% perfectly.

So to return to the topic again, it seems the issue here is that people are afraid the the government will either have to provide 0 religious channels, or provide one for every religion that asks for them. As beneficial as I actually think that'd be for americans to watch some TV explaining buddhism, islam, satanism, or even republicanism, I think that's going to the extreme. Just like saying "hippy liberals are going to make it illegal for me to even say 'God' to them". With a good charter or bilaws, it'd be easier for them to base the channel lineup on some simple polls, then provide one, two, or even ten public access channels that follow the same sort of system PBS does today. They produce some quality edutainment.

So I think that would be too much... a matter of where the other person's nose starts, so your own freedom ends there.

An excellent belief it is. I subscribe to the Harm Principle. It's a quick read if you haven't already. My exception I point out is one he himself said: "his independence ... over his own body and mind". In many places in society it has become not accidental exposure or a splash of religion but a fervent attempt to douse people in it, hidden behind a veil of "but we're allowed to expose people to it."

I think at this point we're not really arguing anything, merely having a little discussion on it with each party (mainly me) going offtopic more and more. I'm just glad the mods haven't modded us all down for discussing politics.religion on a politics.slashdot forum.

Re:battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[bhiestand]

A copy/paste from my reply to the other gentleman who replied, but I felt I could save some keystrokes since I am rather verbose.

It seems the issue here is that people are afraid the the government will either have to provide 0 religious channels, or provide one for every religion that asks for them. As beneficial as I actually think that'd be for americans to watch some TV explaining buddhism, islam, satanism, or even republicanism, I think that's going to the extreme. Just like saying "hippy liberals are going to make it illegal for me to even say 'God' to them". With a good charter or bilaws, it'd be easier for them to base the channel lineup on some simple polls, then provide one, two, or even ten public access channels that follow the same sort of system PBS does today. They produce some quality edutainment.

Is it that Cox doesn't want to show Falun Gong or Scientology programming period, or is it that there isn't a sufficient following in your city? I'd personally like to see a good, public access-like religious channel that allowed the lesserknowns a place to voice their views, since we all know that there are a ton of christian organizations out there that already have the money for TV shows, movies, and commercials all day.

Re:battle cancer so you can cure aids?

[makohund]

The problem I've been running into has been overexposure bordering on harassment. That and people exposing me to religion as part of their official capacities.

I would agree... harassment isn't right, and using one's official capacity in that fashion is dead wrong.

School teachers arguing and trying to prove God exists, etc.

Ridiculous, from a secular standpoint. Also wrong by their own religious views... perhaps they should review the scolding of "doubting Thomas". Names and accounts escape me at the moment, but I think there were a few old testament figures that met an ugly demise as a result of demanding "proof". Not that much different, in my book.

Often the best way to shut up a blowhard is to use their own data/viewpoint against them. ;)

The worst so far is a military commander asking all of the new members to his unit, upon first meeting them, "HAVE YOU BEEN SAVED YET?". You'd better answer yes, because you're in for a very long lecture and a copy of a certain book if you answer no.

Absolutely unacceptible. Informing them of their right to see a chaplain of their choice (for services or counseling) if they so desire, whether they've done that same thing before or not... that would be plenty.

(I add that last bit mainly because military units can be sluggish/reluctant about changing one's claimed religious status. Mostly because of paperwork... all of your records would require updating, and they'd have to issue you new dogtags. A pain in the ass, which might earn one a bit of good-natured ribbing along the lines of "oh, so the pope is wrong now?", "so who is your savior gonna be next year?", "give my regards to buddha"... stuff like that.)

Recently there have been public schools where students read prayers or did whatever else for an hour or so a day.

If it were simply time set aside for silent personal "self study", where religious kids could read scripture or analytical texts if they liked, and other kids could dig into science, history, philosophy, mythology, dinosours, or whatever floats their boat... that wouldn't be so bad.

But sounds like that isn't what is going on at all.

Now that I think of that, an interesting thing would be for the subject of study during that time period to be assigned by the parents, including providing the reading material. (Via purchase, library, or whatever). The teacher would have a list of what the kids were supposed to be up to, and just make sure they are doing something like the list says, and not goofing off.

Maybe impractical, but the idea popped in there, so might as well share it. :P

The problem is that yes, a person can ignore a comment about why "God is Good", but a forced spoonfeeding -a daily repitition of the same material and lecture in the hopes that he'll start to believe it

That would certainly be obnoxious and annoying, even for one that DID believe it. At some point they need to just shut up with the preaching and start practicing.

I can't say I attend services on a regular basis for that reason. I like hanging out with people on occasion, but I'm more of a self-study type.

gets started up sometimes. Then it is hid behind in the name of "well, you're not free to exposure from it.". Maybe not, but common sense and limits should apply, even if our legalese has not perfected to the point where we know how to word every law 100% perfectly.

Agreed. I also find it odd that people of that stripe feel no qualms about disrespecting the wishes of others. Seems contradictory to me.

With a good charter or bilaws, it'd be easier for them to

Good points but...

[DocMurphy]

I agree with much of what you said about companies serving their markets rather than suing them.

However, when governments, no matter how localized, begin to own (control) the communications infrastructure there exists a significant danger of regulated speech - whether it be of a religious, political, or even entertainment nature.

I would much prefer to see municipalities grant themselves the rights to "fire" infrastructure providers when services are not provided in a timely manner, and offer contracts to new or more aggressive providers.

If no private entities can be enticed to service a market, then real questions exists as to viability of the market. In these few situations, perhaps municipalities could grant incentives to providers to make the markets financially attractive.

In any case, I cannot imagine the situation where government run media is a good idea.

LA sizes

[Penguinoflight]

Don't wager too much, LA (state) and (city)

So there's more greedy polititians in LA, and therefor more representation. It's also less likely they'd do anything useful in government though.

Re:LA sizes

[Enzo the Baker]

What if you think about the population of Los Angeles County? That's more than twice the population of Louisiana. I think most people lump the suburbs of Los Angeles in with the city. Especially when they say "LA city", it makes me think maybe they mean South Pasadena or something.

Re:now that your communications log is retained...

[jlanthripp]

As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I'd just as soon not have my logs retained at all.

That being said, and having no choice currently in the "if", but given a choice of "who", I'd say my local town government. At least we can vote those bums out of office - theoretically.

Then again, my local town government is one of those where the city manager is the brother-in-law to the sheriff, who is a cousin of the local court judge, who is the father-in-law of the tax commissioner, who is the sister of the school board superintendent, who is best friends with the court clerk, and so forth (not actual relations of course, but it is a very tight old-boy network with many familial relationships).

Re:now that your communications log is retained...

[museumpeace]

Yeah, its a tough call. Big telecom has pretty effective lobbying and we have a federal govt and some state gov'ts that have shown themselves highly susceptible to lobbying: in particular, a lot of major metropolises [philly was one of the first to hit the rocks on this] got their plans for municiple wifi scuttled by legal threats from the major carriers.
I'd go with the local responsiblity...I think you still have a better chance of overturning invasive or corrupt administration of a utility if it didn't have deep pockets and armies of lawyers.

Hear Hear!

[marcus]

The foundation of right is responsibility.

Why do parents have the right to tell their children what to do? Because the parents are responsible for the children.

I as a male and father have a responsibility for my children. This is something that I share with their mother. So I too should have a choice. The female can choose to discard her parental responsibilities. So the male who shares the responsibilities should also be able. Anything else is simply sex based discrimination, and we can't have any of that can we?

Don't bother with the "her body" argument. Join the modern world and realize that any decent DNA test would reveal that the flesh and blood that came out of her body is/was not part of her.

Until the law is changed, from the moment she becomes pregnant the male and female are joined in a set of obligations, responsibilities, and rights that bind them for a lifetime unless the court intervenes. As things stand, the set of obligations and rights are currently tilted far in favor of the female. So far in fact that they can be effectively used without regard for the children and against the welfare the father if the mother is so inclined.

Face it, if the female claims sole right to decide the fate of her child, then she should also be willing to accept sole responsibility for the child. Anything else is simply dishonest.

Re:Hear Hear!

[RWerp]

What is the responsibility of a raped woman, or of a 12-year old girl?

abortion

[falconwolf]

You have a uterus? Oh. Then you have no real say.

But then neither do I, which is why I support choice - because I have no say in the matter, but a woman should.

Neither do I which is why though I personally don't like abortion I do support a woman's right to choose to have one.

Falcon

abortion

[falconwolf]

Don't bother with the "her body" argument. Join the modern world and realize that any decent DNA test would reveal that the flesh and blood that came out of her body is/was not part of her.

While it, the fetus, isn't part of the woman it is a parasite.

Falcon

abstaining

[falconwolf]

They have and and will continue to abstain until they are married ...

Even if your children abstain studies have shown that some children who receive only abstinence education and/or take the pledge to abstain in fact don't. Here's an article on one such study, Abstinence-only data released . This one is about a documentary made on comprehensive sex ed vs abstainance only, Documentary features sex ed debate . Google news has four links from different media sources on the document on the first page of results. Then there's this, Pediatricians Group Approves Policy Opposing Abstinence Education . Some children go so far as to pull a Bill Clinton saying they didn't know what they did was sex. Many instead of having intercourse, ie vaginal penetration with a penis, they have oral sex or anal penetration, which isn't "sex" to them.

Falcon

Re:abstaining

[Hungus]

Because it is not about abstinence training, it is about giving sex meaning and value as well as valuing relationships. In all honesty I do not expect you to get it. Fundamentally you can't since you have a large blind spot. You can provide all think links you want but there are only 3 kinds of people:

Those that are citizens of the kingdom
Those that will be citizens
Those that will never be

For the second two groups I don't expect that they understand I just hope that they will one day and so I keep telling the truth.

Re:abstaining

[falconwolf]

Those that are citizens of the kingdom
Those that will be citizens
Those that will never be

What kingdom? Maybe you do but I don't live in a monarchy though I admit I might like to live in the principality of Monaco.

As far as giving relationships and sex meaning, I do, that's in part why I've never been married, don't have children though I'm old enough to be a grandparent, and don't believe in or have casual sex. As far as I'm concerned sex is one of the most important gifts someone can give to another.

Falcon

Re:abstaining

[Hungus]

Ah, you should read Augustine of Hippo some time I would start with confessions if I were you then move to De Civitate Dei contra Paganos aka City of God.

Re:abstaining

[falconwolf]

Ah, you should read Augustine of Hippo some time I would start with confessions if I were you then move to De Civitate Dei contra Paganos aka City of God.

Though it was a long tyme ago and don't recall it I did read Augustine's "Apology". I didn't read his "City of God" though I want to see the "City Of God" movie. As for having a belief in "God" or any supreme diety, I don't. Though I used to have spiritual beliefs I no longer do. I lost them after I had an accident several years ago it would of been better if I had died from. I had an accident while riding my bike after my classes when a moving van hit me. While in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! If I were to see them today I'd tell them they were dead wrong, my life has been a living hell since. After years of preying I came to the conclusion that if there is any supreme being, "God" or whatever, then IT most be sadistic!

Falcon

Re:abstaining

[Hungus]

What an amazing thing it would be if after all these years of suffering you came to realize that hell will be far worse and perhaps you are yet to be called. Or maybe you are just here to rant against your creator, in either case you will ultimately be used for H-s purposes, you can give in and see that and stop trying to live on your own or you can continue to live with a large blind spot. Either/Or.

Re:abstaining

[falconwolf]

What an amazing thing it would be if after all these years of suffering you came to realize that hell will be far worse and perhaps you are yet to be called. Or maybe you are just here to rant against your creator, in either case you will ultimately be used for H-s purposes, you can give in and see that and stop trying to live on your own or you can continue to live with a large blind spot. Either/Or.

And then again maybe if you've endured what I have you'd have the same conclusion as me. I went from believing to thinking that if, a big "if", there is a "God" IT must be sadistic. If IT exist, IT has only itself to blame. Unlike Job I don't have an endless supply of faith. I'm jealous of those with faith, it'd make life so much easier. I admit I haven't suffered nearly as much as some have, such as those torched by the church, but I came close to committing hari kari, sepaku, or otherwise ending it. Just a little more may of driven me over the edge.

Re:abstaining

[Hungus]

Oh I would be willing to trade stories ... I have yet to find anyone who would be willing to trade histories if it were possible. I am not saying things haven't been difficult or even seemingly impossible, but don't you fond it interesting that you are so vehemently opposed to G-d? especially if as you seem to esposuse He doesn;t exist :)

limited powers of federal government

[falconwolf]

You fail to see that these are explicit definitions of what the branches can do, Simple reasoning shows that since the constitution explicitly states what they may do then they may not do anything else.
This is further evidenced by the
Tenth Amendment

Ah but didn't you know if the fed want to they can get away with almost anything, all they have to do is say the Interstate Commerce clause gives them the authority, just as the Supreme Court ruled in the Ashcroft vs RAICH case.

Falcon

Re:limited powers of federal government

[Hungus]

Which is why we need to get more strict constructionists in the court and stop the rampant silliness of the last 25+ years.

Cost is $125M, over $1K per person

[geekee]

According to this article, voters approved a 125 million dollar bond for the project. Since the population is only 116,000, that's over $1000 per resident.

Re:parasite

[marcus]

In the crudest form of the definition so is any individual, of any age, of any species, that cannot provide for itself, yet survives by obtaining what it needs from others of its kind. However, I do not take on and provide for parasites willingly as I do my kids.

There are many *parasites* walking around on their own two legs that I'd gladly be rid of.

I don't have a car. I don't need a road.

[falconwolf]

So you don't send and receive snail mail? And grow your own food and have a water source on your property? Don't need emergency services? If so then maybe you don't need roads, but then again how are you online? The only way a person wouldn't need roads is if they lived selfsufficiently in the wilderness.

That said Govt. should build water mains

I have a well.

And when that well drys up? I don't know where you live but aquafers are drying up not just in the US but all over the world. Fact is is that water is being withdrawn from these "water banks" faster than they can be replenished, and with global warming it will only get worse. Water shortages will be a serious problem in the future.

Falcon

Reagan and conservatives

[falconwolf]

Oh, and congratulations to the parent poster for being an actual conservative, rather than the current leading brand of NeoCon. You're a rarity these days. I never thought I'd see the day when Reagan looked like a better alternative to the current primate occupying the Oval.

If you mean by conservative and Reagan as a smaller and limited government then there's two problems. First it wasn't conservatives who stood for small and limited government, in the 1700s it was liberals (classical liberals for some) that wanted this. Three big examples of this Liberalism are Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith or Adam Smith (Institute) , and Thomas Paine (Network) , or TomPaine.common Sense .

Secondly Reagan didn't reduce the overall size of government, under him government bloomed. I don't recall most of it but "Liberty" magazine had an article in one issue with the numbers in dollars on how big some parts of government got and it wasn't just the military that did. The parts I recall are the "War on Drugs" and education but there were others as well.

Falcon

belief

[falconwolf]

but don't you fond it interesting that you are so vehemently opposed to G-d? especially if as you seem to esposuse He doesn;t exist :)

Do you mean find? No I'm not vehemently opposed to "God", er your G-d, while I don't believe I don't disbelieve either. I am "agnostic", "a" without and "gnostic" knowledge. Therefore I say "if there is one".

Falcon

Re:belief

[Hungus]

A typist I am not .. I run a spell check once and thats usually it ( I have a marked habit of typing teh instead of the) I think that if you will re-read your comments .. nah you wouldn't .. sorry there is no real reason for arguing with you about it. you may claim to be agnostic, but you certainly do not appear that way :)

markets

[falconwolf]

Markets do not exist without government interference. State issued money and police-backed courts come to mind as examples of government interference.

Sure markets can exist without government interference, it's called barter, but government interference can create another market, the black market or the underground economy.

Falcon

opt out

[falconwolf]

Yup. Public goods rarely directly benefit every single individual. You can't opt-out of highway taxes just because you don't drive.

True as it is now but instead of income taxes there should be user fees. Using highways as an example between vehicle registration and fuel tax, user fees, there should be enough revenue to pay for building and maintaining roads. While those who don't drive will still pay indirectly via higher prices they still benefit as they buy the goods and they should end up paying less because they won't be paying income tax.

Falcon

government competition

[falconwolf]

The government coming in and choosing to shut down an entire sector of business by underwriting the operation with TAX PAYER MONEY is communism. If this was occuring on a national scale I dont think people would even tolerate that for a second.

But the government isn't going in and shutting down any business, the voters decided to provide a service businesses won't provide. I have no problem with this as long as they don't prevent or make it harder for a business to come in latter and provide the service, they don't censor what a person can access, and they don't force anyone who doesn't want and won't use the service to pay for it.

Falcon

tough call

[soloes]

A lot of good points hae been made on both sides here. While I cannot stand when a service company treats the customers like pariah and to quote Lili Tomlin from SNL, "We dont care. we're the phone company we dont have to."
I am equally scared of a govt running it. Not for all the reasons stated here about privacy and freedom of speech, but simply because I am from Baton Rouge, and I know LA govt. It is innefecient at best and more often just plain corrupt. I am willing to bet that this project goes over double itsbudget and service ends up worse than what waas there before.