RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Of the people, for the people, by the people?
Guess we know know who no longer runs the country. Too bad we can not find (and keep) people to elect in the US that are not on the take.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
TheWeatherMan4
Premium
join:2001-04-23
Plano, TX
clubs:
| The Supreme Court is merely interpreting the current laws. The Dolts who wrote the current laws can change them and the Dolts who elected their representive Dolts can vote them out... this all assumes the average person gives a rip.  |
|
Rammer
Premium
join:2001-03-06
clubs: | you dont vote then why bother too complain
VOTE VOTE
thats how too change things
vote the bums out |
|
CrazyJr
join:2003-02-27
Oakland, CA | In the middle.
The sad part of all this is, we as consumers, are stuck in the middle of this spat between telcos/cablecos and the munis. |
|
Annonn
@rr.com | reply to Rammer
Re: Of the people, for the people, by the people?
Take it i can blame you for the people in office then? |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
|  The ruling isn't that bad...
It simply clarifies that the States have the right to limit Muni's abilities to provide service. It does not prohibit the practice. If a State does not pass a law prohibiting it then you a Muni can provide the service. The citizens of these various Muni's need to start beating up their State Legislator's and get them to repeal the stupid laws. Of course money talks and BS walks so with the amount of money the telco's are throwing at these guys, one can assume it will be pretty tough to do. |
|
bolt
Former Broadband Exile
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Charlestown, IN
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to Rammer
Re: Of the people, for the people, by the people?
Voting changes nothing. Now, you just get to vote for which corrupt, career politician you want to have the office. Voting would be different if there were ANY viable choices, but there aren't. Besides, I feel that withholding my vote because of the lack of competent contenders should count as something as well. You shouldn't be automatically discounted because you feel that there are no politicans who have earned your vote. Besides, our government is already run by corporations and special intertests, we just don't know it yet.
--
bolt
»www.boltweb.com |
|
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL | reply to RayW
Welcome to the United States of Corporate America |
|
bonnyman
join:2003-04-16
Rome, GA
| Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit
The Court handled this as a states' rights decision, not a telecom policy decision.
The Court explicitly stated that they were not ruling on the merits of municipal broadband but whether the language in the 1996 Telecom Act met the legal requirements (as determined by previous court rulings on the U.S. Constitution) for a federal law to preempt state control over their own cities and counties (cities and counties are legally considered to be subdivisions of the state). The majority determined that the Act did not.
Here's the link to the decision -- it can be skimmed pretty quickly by a layman:
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···1238.pdf
--
Al Bonnyman
Fiber Planners Inc.
See my weblog at:
Community Broadband Networks for FTTH, municipal broadband and powerline broadband news |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
1 edit | reply to bolt
Re: Of the people, for the people, by the people?
To the Politicians that are voted into office, If You (or anyone else for that matter) didn't vote for them, Then You are an Uncounted vote and that You really didn't speak up and make Your self heard, It's like this, Since You don't vote, You don't exist to the politicians. And Yes I do, I'm an Independent.
--
Charter Pipeline rules in Hesperia, CA  , Verizon (ex-GTE) sucks... |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| business as usual
Of course they're against it. who would want the customer getting a decent level of service for a fair price instead of the subpar crap thats stuffed down our throats and labeled 'broadband'.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to bonnyman
Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit
said by bonnyman  :
The Court handled this as a states' rights decision, not a telecom policy decision.
The Court explicitly stated that they were not ruling on the merits of municipal broadband but whether the language in the 1996 Telecom Act met the legal requirements (as determined by previous court rulings on the U.S. Constitution) for a federal law to preempt state control over their own cities and counties (cities and counties are legally considered to be subdivisions of the state). The majority determined that the Act did not.
Here's the link to the decision -- it can be skimmed pretty quickly by a layman:
»a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422···1238.pdf
How dare you post something true like this? Can't you see that this type of argument is detrimental to the "fundamental right" to complain that when something happens that you don't like or agree with, the only rational reason for it is because the "Corporate Pigs of the World" bought the decision under the table somehow??
Boogie |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| (Boogie, maybe we finally agree on something....)
Actually, I'm just sitting here being amused at everyone getting in high dudgeon over a decision allowing a government to prohibit its subdivisions from doing something.
Apparently, everyone thinks that the Feds should tell the states that they can't do that, which would be a government prohibiting its subdivisions from doing something....
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by calvoiper :
(Boogie, maybe we finally agree on something....)
Actually, I'm just sitting here being amused at everyone getting in high dudgeon over a decision allowing a government to prohibit its subdivisions from doing something.
Apparently, everyone thinks that the Feds should tell the states that they can't do that, which would be a government prohibiting its subdivisions from doing something....
Calvoiper
Exactly! It's getting to the point around here where people are wishing for a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and when he gets there and does something that they don't agree with, "Mr. Smith" became a "bribed, career politician"
Boogie |
|
