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.
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.
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?
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...
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
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).
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.
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