boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Court ruled on statutory language not munis' merit
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 |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to boogie74
(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:
| reply to bonnyman
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 |
|
bonnyman
join:2003-04-16
Rome, GA
| 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 |
|
