| reply to pnh102
Re: Opinions Are Fun! Local governments DO have the right to spend money and since they have this right, who is Time Warner and AT&T to tell them how they should or should not spend it. It should be left up to the LOCAL government to decide how the money is spent. That is the beauty of having a LOCAL government so OUTSIDERS cannot dictate what goes on. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by biochemistry:Local governments DO have the right to spend money and since they have this right ... And the state governments have every right to tell the local governments that they cannot do this.
Local government already has enough responsibilities. And just about every local government is whining that tax revenue is down and that services need to be cut back as a result. More reckless spending is not going to help solve that problem.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
|
|
| I'm going to venture a guess that you have a direct interest in these things not working out because it puts the local duopolies on notice and hurts their potential profits by a) requiring them to invest to compete b) takes away some of the money they get for doing nothing.
That makes you a partial person and thus your opinion means nothing. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Skippy25:I'm going to venture a guess that you have a direct interest in these things not working out ... If my town decided to do something like this I would, as a taxpayer, be absolutely livid, especially if the same local government was talking about cutbacks to police, firefighters, paramedics, schools, libraries and other such things.
Let the people who *want* this put their own private funds on the line and build all the broadband service they wish, but keep those of us who are not interested in such things out of it.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
| reply to pnh102
Totally agree with you! How can spend money on bonds and pay for them with you're broke and can't even afford to pay for police or fire? or even pay to pave streets?
Soon this will be all over with, after November and all new reps and such are voted for, DC will be passing the Muni bill band and will BLOCk and end these projects from happening. |
|
| reply to biochemistry
Give it up. Hypocrites are hypocrites. |
|
| reply to pnh102
Thats fine, let you be livid and show that in your next vote or at a counsel meeting.
But if my town rejected doing something like this I would be livid. If my town put this to a vote and a majority of the people voted for it and they didnt do it, I would be really livid.
I expect my town to provide me needed services that the private sector is not providing. I consider broadband to be a needed service and I expect them to provide if the local private sector wont. I would even take it far enough to give them (failing private sector) an ultimatum that they provide service or have their ability to do business removed. |
|
| reply to pnh102
The point of this discussion is that the likes of AT&T are lobbying to get legislation passed that says local govts CANNOT set up public broadband services for their constituents. Whether or not the city or county is fiscally responsible and able to achieve this is another story. I would deeply resent some private company telling me what I can and cannot do if I were in a position of city government. This is not some noble act but a cold calculated act designed to prevent revenue erosion for these private companies. They offer no alternative to the lack of services but are making damned sure that these under-served (by design) markets are unable to help themselves.
The whole concept of Federal trumping state, state trumping city/county in decisions like this is a huge load of bovine excrement. When the Feds or the State or the private sector can offer a solution that is not a rape job on the consumer then "maybe" people will be more open to it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to pnh102
Are you as livid while these corrupt corporations waste tons of money on constant political greasing, courtroom visits, wasting taxpayer money every time, for politicians that should be doing something else?
If you are so content with local government rights being thrown out due to the economy, why don't you kindly give up everything? After all, we can't pay for it, so it's obvious you should give up your rights. There's no planning ahead, no time in the future where you would have money huh?
 |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Metatron2008:Are you as livid while these corrupt corporations waste tons of money on constant political greasing, courtroom visits, wasting taxpayer money every time, for politicians that should be doing something else? I could not care less what a corporation or any other private interest does with its own money.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:But if my town rejected doing something like this I would be livid. If my town put this to a vote and a majority of the people voted for it and they didnt do it, I would be really livid. If a majority of people who supported such a thing were also made to pay for it directly, with no such costs being imposed on people who did not support such a thing, then I might be inclined to be less livid.
What I don't get is that is exactly what can happen now. Any interested group of individuals can pool their own resources, secure financing and create a local non-profit organization that can do this. The local government can help by simply granting all the requisite permits and such and the interests of all involved would be respected.
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
 ·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by Skippy25:I'm going to venture a guess that you have a direct interest in these things not working out ... If my town decided to do something like this I would, as a taxpayer, be absolutely livid, especially if the same local government was talking about cutbacks to police, firefighters, paramedics, schools, libraries and other such things. Let the people who *want* this put their own private funds on the line and build all the broadband service they wish, but keep those of us who are not interested in such things out of it. Its ok for other residents in your community and state to pay for schools for your children to use?
Same thing, some people use the resources, some people don't.
Cancel your internet plan, then see how these people feel. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by toby:Its ok for other residents in your community and state to pay for schools for your children to use? We don't use public schools either.
But to belabor your point, let's go the other way and have everything run by the government, since after all, some people use those things too, right?
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:If a majority of people who supported such a thing were also made to pay for it directly, with no such costs being imposed on people who did not support such a thing, then I might be inclined to be less livid.
I agree, a refund for some middle east wars, some school taxes for sports teams expenses, refund for local adjustments for farm land tax exemptions, refund for federal farm subsidies, oh I don't like the local sheriff either so I need that tax refunded. I didn't support any of these of course.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:If my town decided to do something like this I would, as a taxpayer, be absolutely livid, especially if the same local government was talking about cutbacks to police, firefighters, paramedics, schools, libraries and other such things.
Let the people who *want* this put their own private funds on the line and build all the broadband service they wish, but keep those of us who are not interested in such things out of it. Ironically police, firefighters, paramedics, schools, libraries, and other such things all have private company equivalents. Why aren't you yelling and screaming that the private sector shouldn't be doing all these activities as well? |
|
| reply to pnh102
Your full of it.
The city/town officials are there to provide for their citizens and if a majority of them say do it, then they should do it. Expecting the ones that only support it to pay for a city/town wide benefit is just silly. With that thought no schools, libraries, roads or many other benefits you yourself enjoy would be there.
In addition, the build it yourself(ves) mentality is getting old. 1.) You and I know it is too cost prohibitive 2.) They are trying and the corps don't like it and this anti-city/town doing it is only one angle they will take. If private citizens tried themselves they would still fight it but from a different angle. |
|
| reply to pnh102
Of course you don't as wont any other corporate shill that thinks companies like AT&T should be able to legally bribe, cheat and steal as long as it means bigger returns on their investment. |
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | reply to pnh102
I appreciate your position on this matter, but remember that your run-of-the-mill phone service, your run-of-the-mill electrical service, your run-of-the-mill postal service, your run-of-the-mill police service, your run-of-the-mill fire service, your run-of-the-mill paved road, and so on and so forth - in order words, so many of the things that you and I now take for granted - have been historically subsidized at some point by making the "haves" pay a little more in order to benefit the "have nots". For example, way-back-when it was relatively easy and profitable to provide phone service to city dwellers (high population density and so on), but much less so to folks outside of the cities, so it took a government mandate and subsidies to make this happen - which I (as a city dweller) help pay for via my phone bill.
In other words, we've been down this road before, and we've found a way to make it happen - up until recently, anyway. And no, it hasn't always been the most cost-effective, efficient, or "profitable" process - at least not by the standards on which private industry would judge it.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Util···_Service
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_delivery_service
etc, etc. |
|
scross
join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN | reply to pnh102
"... its own money"? Don't you mean, "the money that I pay them"?
You should care, because this directly affects how much you pay for any services which they may be providing to you! I don't mind so much paying a bit extra on my phone bill in order to subsidize rural phone service, for example (this is even broken out nicely as a line item on my bill, typically), but I am livid at the thought of paying for high-priced lobbyists, lawyers, and such (this cost is bundled into the main bill), because I pay AT&T enough money every month already! Not to mention the corresponding legal costs that will eventually show up on my tax bills. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| reply to pnh102
Okay, so this week the Republican base loves government again. Too bad for the last 3 decades you have been rallying against anything and everything that starts with gov.
I think we all see what is going on here though. You guys do not hate government; rather, you hate it when 'We the People' get to benefit from our government. And we all now how much the GOP base hates a to z Americans.
It's quite evident that you have no problems with private corporations buying your elected (R) officials and then forcing their profit protecting schemes on the American people.
Not to mention, laughable considering you guys love the free market and no regulation. However, will use the same government to shore up monopolies and duopolies. Which in actual fact, is a hindrance to the free market model and must be prevented at any cost. |
|
