Slashdot Mirror


Telco Sues City For Plan To Roll Out Own Broadband

Syngularity writes 'MaximumPC is featuring an article about one broadband provider's decision to sue the city of Monticello, Minnesota after residents passed a referendum to roll out their own fiber optic system. TDS Telecommunications had earlier denied the city's request for the company to provide fiber optic service. During the ensuing legal battle, which prevented the citizens from following through with their plans, TDS Telecommunications took the opportunity to roll out a fiber system.'

18 of 681 comments (clear)

  1. That'll learn 'em. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  2. Revoke TDS' exclusive license by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problem solved. Actually I bet just the threat alone would be enough to make TDS fall on its knees and obey the government.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Revoke TDS' exclusive license by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I appreciate your fear and concern about government run communications networks, but there are constitutional and other laws in place to ensure that whatever the government does in terms of snooping or investigating is available to public scrutiny. One way the government uses to get around this is by asking non-government entities to do the spying for them.

      I think the concerns are the same regardless of who is running the show. But in this case, especially, it was the community at large who pushed for the creation of a fiber infrastructure. I think there would be less to fear from this particular government body than from the typical self-appointed/self-anointed government players we typically see day-to-day.

  3. Re:Not government's job by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you're against public roads then.

  4. Re:Not government's job by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except in this case the citizens *asked* the government to perform this service (hence the part about the referendum). This isn't the government "dabbling" in other services. This is a government doing exactly what it's citizens are asking it to.

  5. You're against the post office? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he new we had public mail service. Oh wait... And of course our socialist fire department.

  6. The government runs pipes all the time! by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Municipality can run water pipes, sewer pipes, and gas pipes.

    Please tell me why the Internet pipe is any different from these other pipes.

  7. Re:I wish the system could do something good for o by Interoperable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This doesn't relate to the article, but I can't not respond to the parent.

    You're complaining about the youth offenders system in Australia? On /. ? People complaining about short jail sentences, particularly for young offenders was why I had to stop reading the forums on Canadian news sites. Canada and Australia both have extremely low crime rates because the criminal justice system has reasonable sentences, especially for young people. I'm tired of the "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality; it focuses on vengeance rather than prevention.

    The role of the criminal justice system is to make streets a safer place, not to make you feel better after crimes have been committed. If you make it impossible for offenders to find jobs or otherwise become part of society again you limit their options and increase the likelihood of a re-offense. Certainly a strong punishment is necessary for the enforcement of laws but longer sentences are not the solution to crime; they're a simple campaign line for politicians because everyone loves to hear it. The only important factor is making sure that the fewest possible crimes occur.

    I plan to move to Australia later this year. Don't fuck it up before I get there. (It already seems to be the only developed country with worse internet service than Canada, which makes me sad, although the weather looks better.)

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
  8. Privitization by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you imagine what this country would look like if we had treated paved roads like we have treated much of the rest of our infrastructure (i.e. only allowing private companies to build and maintain them). Does anyone honestly think we would have an interstate system today (or even standardized road signs) if we had followed that model?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. Re:Not government's job by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.

    Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax. Do you purchase food at local stores? Guess how it got there.. You pay more as a driver, but everybody helps pay for it. But mostly, Look at water.

    You know, other easy to make comments aside, you have no idea how much we take water for granted in the US. The vast majority of Americans are given very clean drinking water, and their waste is treated, by the government. We take that for granted, but many illnesses that used to be very common are exceedingly rare in the US. People talk about bottled water, and how much it makes for the companies, but its usage pales in comparison to a single days output from a municipal system. If you want to see the errors in your very conservative logic, go read about south America, where several nations (bolivia comes to mind) have "sold" the exclusive rights to make drinking water to a private, profit driven company. Make sure you read about the riots, protests, cost increases, and even how some protesters were killed. Meanwhile, we take it for granted here.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  10. Re:Not government's job - call the wambalance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what happnes when you dont drive - dont pay for the road and you have a heart attack does the ambalance have to drive cross country because YOU never contributed to a road in your life?

    Should someone come and take all the pavement and street lighting etc up at your your house?

  11. Re:Not government's job by Old97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right and if your are not a victim of crime then you shouldn't pay for the police, courts or jails. If the polluted water or air isn't passing through your sources then you shouldn't have to clean it up or pay to enforce environmental laws to make the guilty parties pay - assuming they are still in business, that you can find them and that they have the means to pay for the damage. If thugs go after some ethnic group that isn't yours you should not have to pay for their protection. If some indigent gets sick or insured you shouldn't have to pay for their care. Let them die if they don't have the money. Children too. If children are stupid enough to have poor or dysfunctional parents, screw em. Let them all suffer and die. Maybe they can get jobs in the child porn industry. Yeah. My birth and education were paid for by the citizens of my parents generation but now that I'm an adult I can just walk away from it all. Who needs government to force us to help people. We can rely on the charity of all the suckers who are willing to pay and if that doesn't work then too bad - unless it's me that needs the help.

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
  12. Re:Not government's job by Cemu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huge difference in what you're trying to compare. One is the government providing a service, the other is denying human rights.

  13. Corporate welfare state by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.

    Exclusive deals usually go sour before the ink is dry. It's not a new problem and if it were easily solved, it would be solved by now. Here's the obligatory quote summing up the problem:

    "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit."
    --Robert A. Heinlein

    It's tenacity probably owes something to shortcomings in human nature and the inability of society to self-correct in those areas.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  14. Re:Not government's job by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is called a trade off. When the government spends money on infrastructure it isn't throwing it away. That money will provide jobs to people in the US those people will buy stuff and provide more jobs and all those people will pay taxes. Some of that stuff may be education for their children or themselves which will pay more benefits.
    Think about the rural electrification project from the 1930s. That paid huge benefits to the country in increased productivity and quality of life in rural America
    In the end things like roads, phone lines, and now data lines are used by everybody. The more people that have access the more benefit to everybody. I know that it is may be unpopular to say it but $300 spent on infrastructure will benefit the US a lot more than that same money spent on a game console made in china by a Japanese company.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  15. Re:Not government's job by Delwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Raise gas taxes and people use less gas. It's a regressive tax and if you push it too hard you'll see a massive flight to higher millage cars or even non-petrol cars. Then what do you tax? Electricity? Now you're taxing people who may or may not use the roads.

    As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.

  16. Re:Not government's job by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the biggest enemy of the free market is the abused court system in this example...

    --
    Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  17. Re:To All The Constitution Advocates by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Al Franken wasn't elected because of his comedy work exactly. Starting with Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot he used his comedy celebrity to engage in political advocacy. You may disagree with his politics, but he does actually stand for something, and if you read his books and listen to his speeches he'll let you know exactly what he stands for.

    I mean, if we're going to have a "no celebrities in politics" rule, then obviously Ronald Reagan should never have been president, but often the same folks who vilify Senator Franken for being an ill-informed celebrity are the same folks who wanted to name an airport after Reagan.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/