Slashdot Mirror
Minn. Supreme Court Upholds City's Right To Build Own Network
BcNexus writes with news from Minnesota that may have significance for cities around the US where municipal networks are either in place or planned: "Here's the latest development in a fight pitting a telecommunication company against government competition. The telco, TDS, took its fight all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court because it thought the city had no right to serve people's internet, voice and television needs with its own network, but has failed."
Also from Minnesota today, BcNexus writes "The State of Minnesota was the first to blink and chose to avoid a court showdown when it dropped its attempt to block online gambling sites."
I'm all for free Markets but the current Internet situation in Minnesota is pathetic. If the people want better service and are willing to fork out the dough let them however this project (if it gets off the ground) has a huge chance of failing like the many other attempts at Municipal Internet.
If the telecom companies are unwilling or unable to fork out the cash to build a high-speed, fibre optic network, than they have lost their chance! The whole point of a municiple one is because the telco companies put up such a fight against doing it. Now that the city is undertaking the project, suddenly there is an uproar. Too late .... a day late and a few dollars short.
This will be for nothing unless they actually build out an infrastructure and actually maintain it - even if the contract out the service provision. Owning and maintaining the infrastructure itself is the most important part.
Public access to the WWW should be a part of the public broadcasting system for the same reasons information should be freely available to a free people. This, of course, assumes that citizens of the U.S. are still a free people.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Even if the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled against a city-owned and run network there are other ways around it. Be clever, start a non-profit ISP and have them build out the network. Fund it through the ubiquitous government grants that the Obama Administration is giving out towards increasing broadband penetration. Also, fund it through city "Technology" grants. The neat thing about legal loopholes is that they sometimes backfire against those that exploit them.
TDS often fails. A lousy service provider with lousy techs. One of their number came into my building a few years ago. They managed to take down two Ts and left before I noticed a third was down. Brilliant.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
That's fine if you live in Minnesota, but most of us don't. Minnesota's SC rules on Minnesota's constitution and laws, not California's or Illinois'. Post something when the US Supremes say something about it and it will be relevant for a whole lot more prople.
Free Martian Whores!
Will it fail just like municipal electric, water, sewer, and telephone?
At some point I thought all of these private corporations suing the government because they can't compete with the government for efficiency would cause some light bulbs to go off. As long as it's implemented and controlled at the county level, doesn't prohibit the existence of private offerings, and pays for itself, what exactly is the problem?
Do you really want to choose the tyranny of Comcast or AT&T over that of a local city or county meeting?
Is there an opinion or some other sort of official documentation to read? Or when they deny an appeal, do you just get a "No" without explanation for why is was denied?
Now the telco's will just buy up some legislators to pass a law against it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
TDS knew they were never going to succeed in blocking this, but they DID succeed in delaying the cities roll-out by a couple years! So, the company lawyers have achieved their objective.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I live in Minnesota and worked in Government IT for a decade. I have to say that the state of broadband is sad. The consumers lack the freedom of choice in most areas of the state. Comcast and Quest in the Twin Cities and Charter almost everywhere else. There are a few smaller providers here and there with a minimal market share. The large companies have a monopoly in their respective territories. Although they deny this fact at every turn. A perfect example of this is Charter, in towns where they are the only player you will be charged at a rate that is much higher than in a city where they have direct competition. When this is pointed out they deny the fact and claim the difference in cost is due to the "cost of doing business in that town". Please. A few years ago in Rochester, MN the Public Utility (RPU) decided they wanted to test ethernet over power lines. As soon as word got out Charter had a melt down and had reps at all of the city council meetings crying unfair competition. The phones at city hall rang off the hook and the behind the scenes threats were made. The project was killed. You figure it out...
That's fine if you live in Massachusetts, but most of us don't. Massachusetts' SC rules on Massachusetts' constitution and laws, not California's or Iowa's. Post something when the US Supremes say something about gay marriage and it will be relevant for a whole lot more people.
When I lived in Santa Clara, CA., the city owned the electric utility service. I have since moved to neighboring San Jose and I am being serviced by PG&E. Since the change over, I pay a difference of about $180 a month more for about the same electricity usage. That and the fact the Santa Clara's utilities actually is making a profit which they want to raid for a sports stadium can easily tell you, if its done right, it can make money.
The network will be paid with municipal bonds ($25M), these bonds will be paid by the tax money of future residents. This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
How, exactly? In my state, general obligations bonds are funded by the property tax, and it seems like property taxes go up regardless...
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Is the idea that anyone who votes against participating in something shouldn't have to participate it when they are outvoted? Because that's not how government generally works...
A municipality has no right to exist, much less to pile on debt that it will repay by stealing future residents.
Why does it have no right to exist? Also, I assume you meant stealing future residents' taxes...
This is wrong by practically any standard of morality, expect the one where you grant magical super moral powers to governments.
It might be unwise, and you might disagree with the course of action, but why is it morally wrong, by practically any standard of morality? Considering the projects that many grants that are funded by bonds go to, I'd rather see GO bonds go to something that has broad appeal and use.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
And wish their efforts in this the best of luck. Not only that, but I hope more cities try something similar!
This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
Sure it does. Just like all the other taxes for all the other services. Police, fire protection, roads, parks, libraries. It's well know that funding any of these lowers property values. It's a fact. Go look it up.
A municipality has no right to exist...
Right. People have no right to form a local government in order to provide the amenities of civilization. Wait, you do know how municipalities come into existence, don't you???
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Wow, 75% of people supported the idea, and you're claiming it's somehow anti-democratic and immoral? Geez. I mean, if it had been 51/49 or something, I could see the issue, but a full three quarters of the population supported this measure. That's a mandate by any standard.
Besides, if that 25% don't like it, they should move to a more conservative municipality. They voiced their opinions. They lost. I know, it's tough, but they should suck it up, leave, or fight to change the system through democratic means. That's the way the system works (well, save for things that are fundamentally human rights issues, in which case you have to balance tyranny of the majority against the rights of individuals... but this is definitely not one of those cases).
"A quarter of the voters rejected the plan..."
75% supported it? Welcome to democracy.
The Minnesota Supreme Court shouldn't be doing anything else but finishing their ruling on Coleman v Franken. It's been three weeks since they've heard oral arguments and over 8 months since the election took place.
Where's the (-1, Nutjob) moderation option when you need it?
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan
So... I guess that if a quarter of the voters voted McCain he should be president too?
So are schools in my Metro (I don't have kids) and some road construction/repair projects (I don't have a car) I'm not out on the streets complaining about the considerable tax burden I face for service's that don't benefit me. I live in a community I accept that we all have to pay for things that may not benefit all of us all the time and I don't mind sharing the burden. I get to vote.
The city is charging a fee for access to the network so the bonds could be paid back in part or in whole with revenue from the project and that same network adds value to the real estate. In practice TDS will probably undercut the city on cost at a loss or something close to it to punish them and dissuade others from trying to build their own municipal network as thuggish telecoms tend to do. It would be nice if the city could sue them for noncopetitive practices and use the money to pay off their bonds but that won't happen.
If you don't like municipal projects you should consider protesting them by staying off the streets, sidewalks, stay out of parks and libraries, hauling off your own garbage, digging your own well, making sure your body's waste is processed in septic tanks, etc.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Internet connectivity in Minnesota is so bad that broadband wireless service, with its slow speed, download caps, and unpredictable coverage, is still an improvement.
In the American system, Government does not have any 'rights.' Rights are affirmed by the gov't, granted by God. The gov't has responsibilities that it must do, and it has restrictions on what it can do. Anything not expressly regulated to the gov't is for the People to do. I don't think muni internet falls into any of the Constitutional requirements or powers granted to the gov't by the people.
One of the things that makes me leery of governments becoming ISPs is the likelihood of an erosion of rights and freedom, namely, the ease of creating a surveillance society. If a city owns a citywide network it's a short step to implementing redlight cameras, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, automobile tracking, etc. This will all be done under the guise of "safety" and "protecting the children" while becoming a profit center for generating revenue, all the while innocent citizens are monitored. While I acknowledge the benefits of municipal owned and operated water, power and waste, I have a hard time believing that connectivity falls under the same headings.
He objects under the Rational Objectivist philosophy, which is that no entity should have the right to tell a person what to do with his or her effort, whether that be represented by money or by sweat. There might be a corollary in there about the huddled masses actually needing to do something in order to get their broadband. In a more broad sense, he would object in principle to the use of government funds for anything other than the protection of property rights, since a man is entitled to the fruits of his labor.
No it became overvalued because people would pay for it. If people weren't willing to pay it would not have gone up. It has now dropped because people are no longer willing to pay that much for it.
Would you rather have government rationed housing. Sure it's all the same price, but you have to get on the waiting list when demand is high, even if you have extra money and are willing to spend it to get into a house sooner.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I was taking business away from TDS, until they got the FCC to allow them to change their tariffs. T-1 circuits for an ISP more than quadrupled overnight. But only for ISPs. If you were the hospital and you wanted a T-1 you got the old rate. I did not have the finances to put up a legal fight; needless to say I was forced out of business. TDS is getting whats coming to them.
No suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag? For shame, editors. For shame.
A municipality has no right to exist, much less to pile on debt that it will repay by stealing future residents.
?
So you want all those streetlights, roads, sidewalks, traffic lights and stop signs for free, right?
Municipalities regularly raise cash by bond issues. This lets you have the sidewalk TODAY. You could wait 25 years until the town has saved enough cash - but EITHER WAY you have to pay taxes. All bonds do is let you have your cake now, and transfer the RISK to the bond holder. After all, the owner of a house in a bankrupt town doesn't lose his house. The bondholder (who probably doesn't even live in the town since he's probably a bank, mutual fund or wealthy individual) can lose his capital if the town goes belly-up and if he's not insured.
Now there's a whole argument about rating municipal bonds and municipalities being screwed over by insurance companies; and there's another argument about corrupt politicians robbing the municipal treasuries, but if you think the concept of municipal bonds is a bad thing then I suggest you move to some forest somewhere, and enjoy your lack of utilities/access. You don't get something for nothing - EVER.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"he would object in principle to the use of government funds for anything other than the protection of property rights"
DOES NOT gel with:
"no entity should have the right to tell a person what to do with his or her effort"
If I whup your ass and win your property, why should the government tell me what I can do with my effort???
Do you really want to choose the tyranny of Comcast or AT&T over that of a local city or county meeting?
Hahaha! You said "choose" and "Comcast or AT&T" in the same sentence!
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
A spread of 11% in the U.S. 1952 presidential election (55 v. 44) is hailed as a landslide. A spread of 50%, being much higher, is not so much a landslide as an unambiguous mandate.
Since companies like AT&T have already indicated their willingness to do unlimited surveillance for the government, even when it violates laws, I don't see how the situation isn't already how you describe.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Probably because Ron Paul said so! *ducks*
Now, we can haz senator plz? kthxbai
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
We debated this back home in '63, but it was sewers instead of intertubes.
I live right in the middle of Utah County, Utah. I currently use a multiple city Fiber to the home system and love it. Even if you are the most anti-government person, can you not see when the best option is shown? Now, the Utopia network really is just fiber to the premises with a private company (Mstar in my case) providing Fiber to my house and the service, but I'm sure that Mstar wouldn't be giving me my internet if it weren't for the GOVERNMENT being so awesome.
posting AC so my account doesn't get karma killed. :S
We debated this back home in '63, but it was sewers instead of intertubes.
Given much of the content of the intertubes, perhaps it is still the same debate.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We call it something else when someone steals money from you, and then uses your stolen money to buy something, and then sets up shop in opposition to those in civil society, i.e. those who only ask for your money, and don't take it from you at gunpoint.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"it thought the city had no right to serve people's internet, voice and television needs with its own network"
I think there is an argument to be made that the city shouldn't be serving television, especially anything public access. With internet and phone the user has full control over the service (assuming a non-tampered connection), but the choice of television stations is highly subjective and could be biased by politicians/bureaucrats. Because the city service will likely be (at least indirectly) subsidized by the tax payer, it may put companies that offer a less biased channel selection under a lot of pressure. This is a bad thing.
So you want all those streetlights, roads, sidewalks, traffic lights and stop signs for free, right?
Well, it would be best if those things were paid for only by people who used them. But even if we concede that it's ok for municipalities to spend everyone's money on one thing with a simple majority, that does not necessarily mean that they have the moral authority to do so on any old thing.
Everyone benefits from roads. Even those who don't use them, because the roads allow the ambulance to reach them in time, or the fire department to extinguish the neighbor's fire before it affects your house.
The only people who benefit from municipal broadband (wireless or otherwise) are the people who use it.
So, if 75% really do want it, why do they need the other 25%'s money? Why can't they just incorporate and build the network themselves, perhaps greasing the wheels a bit on easements and such by their vote. They could even let the remaining 25% join later, for a fee, of course...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
But that's like a million dollars. I don't call that a deal, friend.
looks like this submission is infested with astroturfers from various service providers, they can all go to hell, if a local government wants to offer internet it is a good thing,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
No one is saying that every person should be forced to pay for internet service. Small local governments have a long track record of running utilities effectively. If you don't want county water or sewer, you don't have to pay for it, but then you won't get service. The same thing can be done for internet service.
My suggestion is what it is: a well run, policed, open, self-supporting internet utility is not a bad thing, especially when the local community wants it.
If you think public universities are doing so poorly, why are we consistently behind the UK and other countries that have only public education, all the way through university levels? There are several reasons, but this report from OECD made me chuckle:
The US has a comparatively large proportion of poor performers.
24.4% of US 15-year-olds do not reach Level 2, the baseline level of achievement on the PISA scale at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology (Table 2.1a). To reach Level 2 requires competencies such as identifying key features of a scientific investigation, recalling single scientific concepts and information relating to a situation, and using results of a scientific experiment represented in a data table as they support a personal decision. In contrast, students at Level 1 often confuse key features of an investigation, apply incorrect scientific information, and mix personal beliefs with scientific facts in support of a decision.
Translation: religious fundamentalism is making our population quite stupid.
The only reason it can be considered 'morally wrong' is because the guy you are responding to is an exec at an ISP and will not make more money due to this happening. In his mind, its probably 'morally wrong' of course, his mind also doesn't share the same definition of 'morally wrong' as pretty much everyone else, which is why 75% of the voters voted for it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Me thinks we have a Telco monkey speaking
Oops I'm feeding the troll
He did - he looked it up in his gut.
No, no, no. Haven't you been paying attention to Fox news? If their side is in the majority, bitching is akin to treason. But if their side is in the minority, then bitching is needed to bring attention to the unfair tyranny they're suffering under.
See this video from The Daily Show for a better insight.
is the same.
Rates cover the cost of power, plus some administrative fee and some amount for future infrastructure build outs and such.
It's a fraction of the rates in surrounding areas, even though we all draw from essentially the same source.
Given everybody needs power, this is a good thing for everybody but those people wanting to own power companies and rake it in on our backs.
Love it, and I won't move. When I moved here, it was a nice perk. Since I've been here a while, the rate spikes and other things have convinced me that private energy companies really don't serve us as well as publically owned utilities do.
That might not be true for all things, but it sure is true here for power, water and such.
And, I get nice quad-annual newsletters detailing any rate increases, what they are for, why they matter and what our future return will be. Nice.
When I lived in an area that didn't operate that way, all I got were muddy reports and bizzare rate increases that even the company could not demonstrate the value of.
Blogging because I can...
Those guys are called telecom companies.
Remind me, who was it that paid billions to build their infrastructures, give them right of way, and virtual monopolies?
It rhymes with axeplayers.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
It's a fact. Go look it up.
He did - he looked it up in his gut.
Ah, good old gut feelings! Also known as "borborygmi". My advice? Avoid cheese late at night.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Property values went up because banks were willing to sell it to people with no money. As soon as it became obvious that no one actually had any money, the whole thing came tumbling down and every single one of us tax payers was suddenly on the hook to prop up these shit-headed banks that knew they were artificially inflating prices in order to sell more debt to the Public.
It's not gut feelings. It's truthiness
I have long advocated community provision of local internet service as a public utility, like city streets and county roads. This posting leads me to believe that other people are starting to see the benefits of going in this direction too.
Wyandotte MI is a self-sustaining city. It has it's own power, water, cable-tv, and probably it's own internet (wired or wireless) http://www.wyandotte.net/ in spite of the fact Detroit or Detroit companies hold a monopoly on most utilities in the area. When the Detroit utilities want to muscle communities in the area, where Wyandotte holds it's own, they laugh. Comcast is especially upset that Wyandotte had cable even before cable was available anywhere. Comcast can't touch it like they do in the Downriver Area. It is evident you know Wyandotte Cable has been around when the software for the teleprompter stops, and it shows 'Amiga OS 3.9' somewhere on the screen. The power of independence.
Readily available access to the internet has rapidly become a must have for people in our day and age. It's everything from a source of entertainment, education, and general communication. It benefits each individual in much the same way as a library, meeting hall, phone system, entertainment venues and so on and so forth all rolled into one. Saying that you gain no benefit at all from another person having access to the internet is much like saying public funding for education is a complete waste. You benefit by being part of a society that has that connection.
All that said it's a non-issue. This project and a number of others like it, look up Green Light, are funded by bond issues sold to investment firms. Those bonds are paid back by the subscription fees of the people that utilize the service. Taxes do not pay for the layout or the upkeep of these projects.
It was the tax payers in the first place (ie the government) that told the banks they'd cover any bad loans that they made. This was bad policy started in the Clinton era and perpetuated by Bush. Now with more bailouts and stimulus plans President Obama is going to do the same thing.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The network will be paid with municipal bonds ($25M), these bonds will be paid by the tax money of future residents. This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
How, exactly? In my state, general obligations bonds are funded by the property tax, and it seems like property taxes go up regardless...
As it turns out, I'm looking at buying a house right now. One of the things I look at is the annual property tax--it goes to "cost of ownership." A piece of property with a high property tax will have a higher cost of ownership than one with a lower property tax. Consequently, the sales price (value to the owner) has to go down to be competitive with another property with a lower tax burden.
It's quite simple, really.