batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25 | reply to myhoes
Re: Busy-Bodies
You're right.
But I'm a heck of a lot more afraid of Comcast than I am of my Mayor.
The lesser of the two evils is my local gov. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
 ·LINGO
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Verizon FIOS
| The same thing that stops private providers from blocking access to certain content would stop municipal providers.
Municipalities would have no reason to behave any differently than any other provider. (Except that their purpose would be to provide service, rather than to provide profit.) |
|
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| said by JTRockville  :
The same thing that stops private providers from blocking access to certain content would stop municipal providers.
Municipalities would have no reason to behave any differently than any other provider. (Except that their purpose would be to provide service, rather than to provide profit.)
So you think your local muni will only charge what it takes to run the system? Before long you will be paying to provide service for free to schools, hospitals, the local government, those less fortunate who cannot afford internet service. And of course let's not forget that this will be another way to add an additional tax to support whatever it is they want to support/spend money on and not have to increase sales or property taxes. Good luck to all. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs:
·LINGO
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·surpasshosting
·Verizon FIOS
| Private companies are required to provide compensation, such as service to schools, hospitals, local government, and the less fortunate, because they use public property for private profit. Since municipalities are not private, and do not profit, they are not obligated to provide such compensation.
Municipal systems provide lower cost services, and enormous economic benefits to a community. |
|
