Yes. In a free market, municipalities must be free to compete as well. Look at many of the municipal broadband success stories over the past few years. Their incumbent telco was slothful and had almost no competition, so they didn't see any reason to improve. This pissed off the citizens, so they got the municipality to start a network. Just the act of starting it caused the incumbents to try and improve, although in most cases the municipality still had better service at lower prices.
That's nonsense and has nothing to do with somebody being forced to PROVIDE you with a product or a service.
Also, this is completely false. The Constitution actually contradicts this. I have the RIGHT to a jury trial, and the RIGHT to counsel in the aid of my defense. At least one, but if I'm poor enough, both of those rights can require other people to PROVIDE me with service. Either the service of legal counsel or the service of mediation.
That's nonsense and has nothing to do with somebody being forced to PROVIDE you with a product or a service.
Depends on your definition of "harm". If I'm dying, and you have the capability to save me, and you choose to not do so, many people would consider that harm.
Harming another person is not a right, that's been agreed upon for a long enough time on this planet for you to miss that.
Really? Most of you free market assholes tend to think differently. If you can take advantage of someone, then you shouldn't just do it, you are obligated to do so.
There's still no reason why a municipal government should not be able to provide this to its citizens should the private market fail. And there are many, many, many documented cases of the private market failing.
No, I'm sorry, but you're full of shit. You bring up an example from the fucking 80s as a reason not to do it? Why can't you use today as an example? Is it because today, they are light years ahead of us, in both penetration and access costs?
Why is this marked troll? Why would any corporation give directly to someone's campaign now, when they can quietly and anonymously give to the candidate's PAC?
No, this whole post is full of shit. There's nothing special about municipal internet that would cause this to happen there and prevent it from happening on private internet.
Private does not automatically mean better. In many cases it doesn't at all.
No. Your "one detail" bullshit doesn't give any evidence that local government would be any less efficient than an incumbent telco who's had no competition for a decade or more. Hell, look at all the success stories of municipal broadband.
And as for your stupid "I can fire AT&T and Comcast" remark, in most cases, no you can't. You can choose to not have service with them, but there's generally no one else to do business with. So either you give up internet entirely, or you bend over and take it from them.
I can have a say in how local government, and local utilities are run. I have absolutely no such say with AT&T and Comcast.
I fail to see the problem here. If they want to pretend they are purely private, and that they should have control over every bit that travels over the lines, then they should have to be treated accordingly.
Agreed. Saying they own it without paying back all the benefits they received in the past would be like me financing a car, and saying I own it without paying back the loan.
Essentially, they have "Phone Neutrality". Meaning, when you call someone, they are required to connect that call, regardless of where the other person is, or what network they're on (exceptions for opt-in things like 900 blockers). And they cannot degrade the quality. A call to someone on a different network has to have the exact same priority as a call to someone on the same network.
Either way, I don't see why that's any different than the store reserving some spots for those who drive more efficient vehicles. I didn't knock the lady up, so why should I have to pay for her to get preferential treatment?
Oh fuck you. Just because you had your ass handed to you in your false assertions does NOT mean that anyone is trying to force anyone to "conform". The vast majority of people have a commute that is well within the range of these cars.
And nowhere did I make comments on his vehicle of choice. I merely pointed out the flaw in his thinking, that most people couldn't get use out of these cars. It's absolutely false.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. In a free market, municipalities must be free to compete as well. Look at many of the municipal broadband success stories over the past few years. Their incumbent telco was slothful and had almost no competition, so they didn't see any reason to improve. This pissed off the citizens, so they got the municipality to start a network. Just the act of starting it caused the incumbents to try and improve, although in most cases the municipality still had better service at lower prices.
No, you're absolutely wrong. Private companies lobbying for shit like this is in fact a product of capitalism.
What the fuck are you talking about, "two wrongs"? If anything's a wrong, this proposal is.
Those are not rights, those are products and services that people need and create on their own without government.
And in many places, government is the only actor with sufficient resources to actually provide it.
That's nonsense and has nothing to do with somebody being forced to PROVIDE you with a product or a service.
Also, this is completely false. The Constitution actually contradicts this. I have the RIGHT to a jury trial, and the RIGHT to counsel in the aid of my defense. At least one, but if I'm poor enough, both of those rights can require other people to PROVIDE me with service. Either the service of legal counsel or the service of mediation.
That's nonsense and has nothing to do with somebody being forced to PROVIDE you with a product or a service.
Depends on your definition of "harm". If I'm dying, and you have the capability to save me, and you choose to not do so, many people would consider that harm.
Harming another person is not a right, that's been agreed upon for a long enough time on this planet for you to miss that.
Really? Most of you free market assholes tend to think differently. If you can take advantage of someone, then you shouldn't just do it, you are obligated to do so.
And most people would say you're wrong about that.
Whatever you say, screwball.
There's still no reason why a municipal government should not be able to provide this to its citizens should the private market fail. And there are many, many, many documented cases of the private market failing.
No, I'm sorry, but you're full of shit. You bring up an example from the fucking 80s as a reason not to do it? Why can't you use today as an example? Is it because today, they are light years ahead of us, in both penetration and access costs?
a locality has advantages over a corporation in placing broadband.
No, they don't. Especially if the corporation is already there.
they can line the sewers and pull fiber between the casing and the liner for free.
If by free, you mean for the actual costs of doing it, sure. The same costs a private corporation would have to pay.
Why is this marked troll? Why would any corporation give directly to someone's campaign now, when they can quietly and anonymously give to the candidate's PAC?
No, this whole post is full of shit. There's nothing special about municipal internet that would cause this to happen there and prevent it from happening on private internet.
Private does not automatically mean better. In many cases it doesn't at all.
Yup. The party of "Free Market Competition" and "choice" does it again.
Just about everywhere it's been done, people have gotten excellent service and better speeds than the incumbent telco for about the same price.
Why do you think the incumbent telcos are worried about this shit? If they were better, they wouldn't care.
Money and money. The biggest hurdles to starting something like this. NOT the government.
No. You are absolutely full of shit.
No. Your "one detail" bullshit doesn't give any evidence that local government would be any less efficient than an incumbent telco who's had no competition for a decade or more. Hell, look at all the success stories of municipal broadband.
And as for your stupid "I can fire AT&T and Comcast" remark, in most cases, no you can't. You can choose to not have service with them, but there's generally no one else to do business with. So either you give up internet entirely, or you bend over and take it from them.
I can have a say in how local government, and local utilities are run. I have absolutely no such say with AT&T and Comcast.
Yes, I can see just how well a state run by people like Scott Walker or Rick Perry would want to regulate an ISP.
I fail to see the problem here. If they want to pretend they are purely private, and that they should have control over every bit that travels over the lines, then they should have to be treated accordingly.
Agreed. Saying they own it without paying back all the benefits they received in the past would be like me financing a car, and saying I own it without paying back the loan.
Essentially, they have "Phone Neutrality". Meaning, when you call someone, they are required to connect that call, regardless of where the other person is, or what network they're on (exceptions for opt-in things like 900 blockers). And they cannot degrade the quality. A call to someone on a different network has to have the exact same priority as a call to someone on the same network.
Either way, I don't see why that's any different than the store reserving some spots for those who drive more efficient vehicles. I didn't knock the lady up, so why should I have to pay for her to get preferential treatment?
Oh fuck you. Just because you had your ass handed to you in your false assertions does NOT mean that anyone is trying to force anyone to "conform". The vast majority of people have a commute that is well within the range of these cars.
And nowhere did I make comments on his vehicle of choice. I merely pointed out the flaw in his thinking, that most people couldn't get use out of these cars. It's absolutely false.
No, but at the very least it shows they aren't trying to pick favorites, or that Rand Paul isn't using his status to assert that he is above the law.
And I disagree. An unjust law applied unevenly is even more unjust.
I'd be very interested to know how much money this company took/was given by the federal government to get started.
Who cares? I'm gonna guess its orders of magnitude less than what the oil companies have received.