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."
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.
I was going to craft a well-thought out response regarding the difference between an ideal free market and Free Market Idealism, and point out that governments can be actors in a free market, and then I was going to dig up links to a couple of very successful municipal broadband projects.
But then I thought to myself, "Looks like high schools have let out for the summer".
I think it's time for a hiatus for me for a while...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
It already is, goto a public library and access the WWW.
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?
Do you also whine when Slashdot posts stories about the UK, Australia, etc.?
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.
It already is [free], go to a public library and access the WWW.
A public library where the internet is provided by a telecommunications company. I think GP wants a Public Non-profit Telecom.
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 agree completely. Basic connectivity should be considered a necessity in today's world. I would be perfectly okay with my tax dollars going to subsidize a program such as that. If an individual wants more speed, a static IP, no caps (that'll be the day), or some other more advanced features then they are still perfectly able to pony up the money and go with a commercial ISP.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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
Yeah, free market is good. And, when there is no market, the city should be allowed to enter the market. That sounds pretty free to me!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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).
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows government to build roads and bridges, either - but I bet you're happy enough to use them.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Oh good god. There are steaming piles of tax money in the telcos and cablecos, not to mention their monopolies. Tough titties if they can't deal with a little competition.
If you want to be an idiot at a city council meeting, maybe you should bitch about all the wasted billions we've paid for telecom infrastructure that is now falling apart?
Man, you really need that seminar!
"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???
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
Then the taxpayers pay through the nose. Much like we're paying through the nose for a lot of failed businesses anyway.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
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!