Adventures in PA BroadbandLegal system debating anti-muni bills ( old news - 05:05PM Friday May 23 2003) tags: legal · alternativesTipped by Karl Bode  Debate continues in the state of Pennsylvania over legislation that would ban local governments from running broadband operations, and reclassify what qualifies as broadband service. House Bill 298 would prohibit local governments from competing with private enterprise, be it via municipal broadband operations or university book stores. Existing municipal operations in the state would be allowed to continue, but would not be allowed to expand. Critics charge that the bill's language could do more harm than good, eliminating select municipal operations that have proven beneficial to their communities. There's similar legislation on tap in Ohio, and several other states, like Texas, already ban the practice. Also on tap in Pennsylvania is HB 30, which would re-authorize the Chapter 30 broadband law of 1993, and prevent local governments or school districts in the state from building their own broadband infrastructure, even in cases where service is poor or non-existent. According to this PennLive article, Norm Kennard, counsel for the Pennsylvania Telephone Association, calls such restrictions a "question of fairness". The backers of the bill would however like to reclassify what qualifies broadband, since the original legislation is a little too rich for their blood; defining broadband as anything over 1.544Mbps. Kennard suggests the industry would like to see that lowered to 200Kbps, to match the FCC's definition. Rep. William F. Adolph Jr., stresses in the article that HB30 is a "work in progress," and that he hopes industry reps "dispel any misinformation that has been disseminated to the general public."
Related:- Consumer Group Wants $44 Billion For U.S. Broadband
- Martin: Chances Of Free Wireless Plan 'Dim'
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- Small ISPs, Facing Recession, Don't Want To Be RIAA Cops
- NAB Sues FCC Over White Space Broadband
- Obama Nominates New FCC Commissioner
- HughesNet Sued For Poor Service
- TiVO Coming To Time Warner Cable
|
 | bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO | Its all a dream anyways Municipal broadband is a pipe dream anyways. I dont care how many 'studies' are preformed or how many municipalities are successful... RIGHT NOW. | |
|  | | | | | | bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Its all a dream anyways Well there are multiple issues one needs to look at when reviewing this issue. First I guess the issues brought up by the interview from BBR/DSLR need to be looked at.
Jim, the interviewee is an obvious representative of the current 'utilities' providers. So his information needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because obviously, he and his firm are making money off of this.
Also, as he states in his first answer the multiple municipal power plants availible in the US, but he neglects to tell you about the multiple privately owned power plants that are still in exsistance today. One would wonder why.
So the second question asks a good question, why is it growing? Probly because people are now becoming impatient with the big corporations upgrades and availibility. Yes, its a big problem. I actually purpously moved to get broadband. About two years later it was availible where I was and where I was was out in the boonies.
Then he states that cable is a limited technology. Erm, where does that come from? With a current cable connection, the max someone can get is 22Mbps both up and down. Then when DOCSIS 2.0 comes out it will be 100Mbps and allow VoIP via the same modem. So there is some disinformation thats already displayed by this "representative".
This isnt even covering whats in future for DSL, which I only hear wispers about.
The fourth question (Third question is being talked about here) is about this fabled "bottleneck". Well lets see. What is going on with the internet now? Multiple people are doing just fine right now with what they have. Who is wanting more? Well lets see, those who want to host servers (if everyone has the same bandwidth and services, why would someone pay you to host a server off your connection?) for gaming, websites, ftps, and whatever else they want. Wont this, in it-self cause this "bottleneck"?
The internet itself can only handle so much bandwidth, but people want to blindly add more so that some people can hog it? Isnt that why ATT @Home died out? Come on use your heads.
BBR: Can't we rely on the private sector to get us to FTTH in the foreseeable future?
Jim Baller: I don't believe so. The main reason is simple economics. Firms in the private sector must cover costs and produce an acceptable level of profits over a relatively short period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. That's how the private enterprise system works. That's how we want it to work. For some services, however, the private enterprise system does not work particularly well, at least in the short term.
So what your saying is, progress comes at a price and it takes time? Wow... what an intuitive comment. This is exactly what causes problems in the USA. People want it now and want it cheap. Would that be why AOL and Microsoft and other companies are sending tech support to India? Damn straight it is. So how could the US economy support itself if all the jobs are in other countries, including municipalities?
Local governments have different goals and are not tied to the same performance criteria as firms in the private sector. Local governments that are building or exploring FTTH networks are not doing so to make profits. Nor do they simply want to provide competition to the private sector -- although that would be a perfectly legitimate goal. Rather, they see FTTH networks as engines of economic development (i.e., attracting and holding on to businesses of all kinds and sizes) and as critical platforms that will support rich educational and occupational opportunities, affordable modern health care, regional competitiveness, urban revitalization, and the host of other benefits that contribute to a high qualify of life. In short, they view FTTH networks as critical infrastructure for the 21st Century, as essential as road, power, water and sewer systems. As a result, they can justify FTTH projects under traditional infrastructure development criteria: they need only contribute significantly to the community's well-being and pay for themselves over a reasonable period of time. That time will undoubtedly be longer than stockholders in private corporations would like.
Er, compairing broadband internet to sewers, water, and electricity... What?!?! First of all sewers are in place for sanitary issues, secondly water is in place because it is a basic necessity, and electricity is needed to help with heat, cold, and to run critical things like the tv, radio, and internet which carry warning messages that the government needs to get to the people.
But they do not pay for the radio, the internet, the tv, or the specific electronics that go with them. Why? Because they are entertainment.
he also states that hospitals and buisnesses need the fiber connection for their buisnesses and to attract buisnesses to them? Er ok... they already have broadband. If the buisness needs it, it will pay for it, fiber install and all. Moot point there Jim.
BBR: How do you answer the charge that municipalities should not compete with the private entities that they regulate?
Jim Baller: The premise underlying this question is incorrect. Local governments do not regulate telecommunications providers -- that is done by the federal government and the states. Internet access providers are generally not regulated by any level of government. Local governments do manage public rights of way, but this is subject to federal and state non-discrimination and competitive neutrality requirements. Besides, incumbent cable and telephone companies are already in the public rights of way, so they can hardly claim to be adversely affected by local right of way management practices. Local governments do typically regulate cable service providers, but this is done through cable franchises that implement well-defined federal policies and standards. Local governments rarely, if ever, impose more onerous conditions on a private cable provider than they impose on their own cable utility. For one thing, local governments typically have master cable ordinances that apply equally to all cable operators in the community. For another, to head off potential claims of bias, local governments today typically subject themselves to substantially the same terms and conditions as the incumbent cable company
Holy cow... lets not forget alot of issues that can and will come up from this.
#1, doesnt the state and federal government still carry jurisdicition over towns? I mean you do still pay federal and state taxes in each town.
#2, each town/city has a hearing on renewing the rights for a company to be in their town. Citizens do have control for gods sake, EXERCISE IT
#3, every time a company has to dig or add wiring, they need permission from the city or municipality. Can anyone see an issue here? If not.. read again.
Im really done with the interview right now... but basicly to sum it up. Underhandedness is not just in the private sector. I mean you see "money" going to politicians all the time. What if a non-profit municipality wanted to enter another city? What do you think will happen?
There are alot of "ifs" to be considered.
But the underlying factor here is that, a municipality is government run, it is illegal for the government to compete with private companies (entertainment companies to say the least), and there is no "national security need" for this. It does not help any citizens gain anything except more taxes and headache.
Just give the current municipalities time and note the issues that come up.
Now who am I? I worked in the DSL industry, I worked in the cable industry, I worked in the government industry. I take everything in before I make a judgement call, and I am a person who is in the middle, politically.
--
guycad: It may take you days and large clumps of hair to get it to work,CyberSchnook:I am so screwed--I haven't had large clumps of hair for years.  | |
| | | | 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
| Re: Its all a dream anyways Goo? said "But the underlying factor here is that, a municipality is government run, it is illegal for the government to compete with private companies (entertainment companies to say the least), and there is no "national security need" for this. It does not help any citizens gain anything except more taxes and headache."
Are you stoned?
How is it illegal for the government to compete with private companies? See »www.tricitybroadband.com/city_owned.htm for a list of munis currently providing some sort of telco service.
Taxes? Most muni systems are self supporting entities that do not require any taxes. They may use bonding to initially build the systems, but pay the bonds off with revenues from user fees (read: only those who use the services pay....the entire local economy benefits.) | |
| | | | | bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Its all a dream anyways It is illegal for a government to own and operate any buisness that competes against private buisness. It is a law, I believe at least at the federal level.
I guess that since they are on a city level of government they can get away with it, but its still illegal to me. This would mean that any city could suddenly compete with your company, driving your company out of buisness and you out of a job. This is why that law is in effect.
No Im not stoned, and no my nickname is not goo?
--
guycad: It may take you days and large clumps of hair to get it to work,CyberSchnook:I am so screwed--I haven't had large clumps of hair for years. | |
| | | | | | 
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Re: Its all a dream anyways said by bigbeartech :
It is illegal for a government to own and operate any buisness that competes against private buisness. It is a law, I believe at least at the federal level.
I'm interested in knowing what Federal Statute this is that you are referring to.
--
Click here to visit Tri-City Broadband | |
| | | | | | 
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| Well I've never heard of such a Law and unless You are prepared to "Quote the Actual Law" down to the paragraph, Then I'd say You are Full of It! And I would hope some would question what motivates You. Municipal run Cable Operations are ok, As Private run Cable Operations can't do everything as They have to make a Profit, Municipal Cable Operations don't and are self funding and are accountable to the People where They are based. Besides I thought that Government was Of the People, For the People and By the People Part of the Gettysburg address by President Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America. And not by those who would restrict the Government & the Peoples Freedom to be innovative in solving problems where Private Industry can't or won't do It. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| said by bigbeartech :
Jim, the interviewee is an obvious representative of the current 'utilities' providers. So his information needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because obviously, he and his firm are making money off of this.
I agree. That is why I said it would be interesting to have another interview with incumbent Cablecos and Telcos.
said by bigbeartech :
Also, as he states in his first answer the multiple municipal power plants availible in the US, but he neglects to tell you about the multiple privately owned power plants that are still in exsistance today. One would wonder why.
Not sure I understand. Municipal ownership is a rarity so it makes sense to mention it. He also did not mention the sun comes up every day.
said by bigbeartech :
So the second question asks a good question, why is it growing? Probly because people are now becoming impatient with the big corporations upgrades and availibility. Yes, its a big problem. I actually purpously moved to get broadband. About two years later it was availible where I was and where I was was out in the boonies.
I agree people are frustrated at the pace of broadband deployment. But I think the issue is much deeper. People feel a lack of control; faceless bureaucrats and businesses make decisions that affect them. Building a municipal network is about the community regaining a level of control of important infrastructure.
said by bigbeartech :
Then he states that cable is a limited technology. Erm, where does that come from? With a current cable connection, the max someone can get is 22Mbps both up and down. Then when DOCSIS 2.0 comes out it will be 100Mbps and allow VoIP via the same modem. So there is some disinformation thats already displayed by this "representative".
This isnt even covering whats in future for DSL, which I only hear wispers about.
Both Cable DSL Internet service required clever engineering to adapt the networks to do something it was not designed to do. Kudos to the engineers but it results in an ugly dead end design that is only a stopgap. Not sure where the 100 Mbps number came from, Cablelabs the consortium that wrote the DOCSIS spec list the following capability.
said by Cablelabs :
DOCSIS 1 delivers about 45 Mbps down (toward the subscriber) and 5 Mbps up. DOCSIS 1.1 increased upload to 10 Mbps, DOCSIS 2 increased upload to 30 Mbps
These are pretty impressive numbers but one must keep in mind they are shared by 100-500 subscribers on a cable segment. Still pretty impressive for surfing or Voice over IP (VoIP) but woefully inadequate for streaming media or heavy file transfer. This is the main reason the Cablecos demonize “bandwidth hogs” and the Telcos do not. Cable technology places severe constraint on total thru put.
Lets see what happens if demand based streaming services become popular. VoIP requires about 100 kbps for G.711 toll quality encoding. Various type of compression can be used but tend to degrade quality and increase latency. DOCSIS 2 support 300 G.711 voice calls, the limiting factor is upload performance.
Demand based video can be delivered over digital cable or over DOCSIS using IP. A typical cable system has 80 broadcast channels bumping cable bandwidth to 1 GHz providing about 40 additional digital channels. Each digital channel can carry 12 compressed standard TV channels or two HDTV programs. So depending on mix Cable can deliver between 80 – 480 video on demand channels. BTW this is why the Cablecos have been aggressively fighting FCC must carry TV rules. The network is easily swamped if it has to deliver HDTV.
Standard TV requires about 3 Mbps when compressed and delivered digitally, HDTV about 20 Mbps. This means DOCSIS is capable of delivering between 2 and 12 TV channels.
Now lets look at DSL. As it the case with Cable engineers used clever techniques to piggyback digital data on a 100-year-old copper telephone network. Current technical sweet spot for DSL is about 1500 Mbps down and 768 kbps up at about 12-15,000 feet. Work is underway to increase speed at the expense of distance. For example as part of the IEEE 803.3.ah Ethernet in the First Mile specification the goal is 10 Mbps over several thousand feet of voice grade copper loop. As with the Cable discussion this is an impressive engineering achievement but falls woefully short of broadband nirvana of 100 Mbps per household.
These incremental modifications are costly. Money invested in incremental improvements must be recouped before moving to the next stage. Ultimately this approach is much more costly then simply building the next generation network from scratch.
More important is that both the Cablecos and Telcos have strong business incentives to delay and if possible never roll out open high-speed access. In the case of the Calbecos high-speed subscriber access undermines their value a content aggregator. With enough bandwidth content producers could interact directly with the end user. In the Telco case cheap DSL puts tremendous downward pressure on lucrative Business T1 (DS1) and other high-speed services. Service level agreements are important to businesses but so is the 10:1 difference in cost between T1 service and DSL or Cable.
said by bigbeartech :
The fourth question (Third question is being talked about here) is about this fabled "bottleneck". Well lets see. What is going on with the internet now? Multiple people are doing just fine right now with what they have. Who is wanting more? Well lets see, those who want to host servers (if everyone has the same bandwidth and services, why would someone pay you to host a server off your connection?) for gaming, websites, ftps, and whatever else they want. Wont this, in it-self cause this "bottleneck"?
The internet itself can only handle so much bandwidth, but people want to blindly add more so that some people can hog it? Isnt that why ATT @Home died out? Come on use your heads.
This is a catch 22 question. People don’t need faster connections because there are no applications that require them. Developers can’t develop more demanding applications because much of the population has low speed access. Internet access providers interpret this to mean the status quo is fine.
The most expensive bandwidth is short-haul first-mile access. Beyond the first mile network cost per user per Mbps drops and will continue to drop as demand increases. One of the reasons for the Telcom meltdown is long distance providers buried lots of fiber anticipating rapid demand growth that did not happen. Deploying FTTH will help these companies return to profitability.
said by bigbeartech :
BBR: Can't we rely on the private sector to get us to FTTH in the foreseeable future?
So what your saying is, progress comes at a price and it takes time? Wow... what an intuitive comment. This is exactly what causes problems in the USA. People want it now and want it cheap. Would that be why AOL and Microsoft and other companies are sending tech support to India? Damn straight it is. So how could the US economy support itself if all the jobs are in other countries, including municipalities?
What is wrong with wanting it now and wanting it cheap? This is what drives progress. If people were happy with the status quo nothing would change and capitalism would collapse.
said by bigbeartech :
Er, compairing broadband internet to sewers, water, and electricity... What?!?! First of all sewers are in place for sanitary issues, secondly water is in place because it is a basic necessity, and electricity is needed to help with heat, cold, and to run critical things like the tv, radio, and internet which carry warning messages that the government needs to get to the people.
All the services you enumerate were once considered luxuries in many cases only available to the wealthy. As society progressed they became necessities and in many cases citizens decided the best way to deliver them was to have to government do it or private enterprise with close oversight by the government. Internet access will likely follow the same course. Today high-speed access is a luxury used mostly by early adopters. In 10 years it will be difficult to participate in society without it.
said by bigbeartech :
But they do not pay for the radio, the internet, the tv, or the specific electronics that go with them. Why? Because they are entertainment.
The Internet is much more then entertainment. That aside I’d argue the test of whether private or public ownership is most appropriate is whether or not effective competition exists.
Speaking about entertainment there is strong public support for limiting consolidation in the media and entertainment industry. This flies in the face of FCC’s goal to eliminate industry cross ownership restrictions.
said by bigbeartech :
he also states that hospitals and buisnesses need the fiber connection for their buisnesses and to attract buisnesses to them? Er ok... they already have broadband. If the buisness needs it, it will pay for it, fiber install and all. Moot point there Jim.
Business expenses are no less affected by cost as individuals. As businesses become more information intensive the cost of communications becomes an ever larger portion of overall cost. Reducing cost is good for everyone. Businesses move to locations that reduce their cost.
said by bigbeartech :
BBR: How do you answer the charge that municipalities should not compete with the private entities that they regulate?
Holy cow... lets not forget alot of issues that can and will come up from this.
#1, doesnt the state and federal government still carry jurisdicition over towns? I mean you do still pay federal and state taxes in each town.
#2, each town/city has a hearing on renewing the rights for a company to be in their town. Citizens do have control for gods sake, EXERCISE IT
#3, every time a company has to dig or add wiring, they need permission from the city or municipality. Can anyone see an issue here? If not.. read again.
1) It depends, some state allow home rule others not. In some states the only thing towns are allowed to do is what the state specifically allows, in other states local jurisdictions are allowed to do anything not specifically forbidden by to the state. Not sure I understand your tax citation. The town has nothing to do with collecting state and federal taxes.
2) I agree. If citizens want municipal broadband they ought to be allowed to do it.
3) I have no idea what you mean – please explain.
said by bigbeartech :
Im really done with the interview right now... but basicly to sum it up. Underhandedness is not just in the private sector. I mean you see "money" going to politicians all the time. What if a non-profit municipality wanted to enter another city? What do you think will happen?
Local municipality has no standing outside its local jurisdiction. If multiple municipalities want to enter into a cooperative agreement they could structure ownership of the network so each community owns a portion of it. I’m not very familiar with all the business issues of municipal broadband perhaps one of our other members could comment.
said by bigbeartech :
There are alot of "ifs" to be considered.
But the underlying factor here is that, a municipality is government run, it is illegal for the government to compete with private companies (entertainment companies to say the least), and there is no "national security need" for this. It does not help any citizens gain anything except more taxes and headache.
Just give the current municipalities time and note the issues that come up.
There is no inherent prohibition against local or state government competing with private enterprise. Here in “live free or die” New Hampshire we have state run monopoly in the liquor and lottery business.
In some states the Telcos have been successful in getting laws passed that prohibit localities from operating networks.
said by bigbeartech :
Now who am I? I worked in the DSL industry, I worked in the cable industry, I worked in the government industry. I take everything in before I make a judgement call, and I am a person who is in the middle, politically.
Good, as someone in the middle politically I assume maximizing local power is something you are in favor of. In some instances municipal networks may make sense in others private enterprise is a better solution. Let the locals decide. | |
| | | | |
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Re: Its all a dream anyways said by tschmidt :
I agree. That is why I said it would be interesting to have another interview with incumbent Cablecos and Telcos.
Don't hold your breath. The Incumbents know that their position here is virtually indefensible. They'd wind up looking like that Martin Short character; the nervous, sweaty lawyer answering questions on 60 minutes.
--
Click here to visit Tri-City Broadband | |
| | | | | bigbeartech
Goo?
join:2001-09-23
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Its all a dream anyways er, k, state your side too then. | |
| 
Varangian
join:2002-12-08
Collinsville, IL
|  Bought and paid for legislatures
They wish to tie the people's hands to prevent them from establishing service without ruinous payment to the cartels.
They're like Wendel Wilke, FDR's opponent on the eve of WWII
He had been gouging the rural residents of Tennessee and Kentucky for electricity during the depression and was put out of business by the fabulous TVA project.
[text was edited by author 2003-05-23 18:12:16] | |
| |
zabes63
join:2003-04-05
Batavia, IL
| Re: Bought and paid for legislatures You mean that TVA that helped the US to... Oh I don't know... Win WWII!?
That was just another pinko, Kommie, big gubberment waste of our tax dollars.
--
Click here to visit Tri-City Broadband
[text was edited by author 2003-05-23 18:35:11] | |
| | | Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| Let's rip-up the roads too. Government shouldn't own anything. Plain and simple.
Private Enterprise ALWAYS works best. Our new road companies can simply build elevated roadways over and under themselves. That's got to be the better way. It's good for business.
I mean, look what that model did for the Railroads. They're WONDERFUL!!!!
[/sarcasm] | |
| 
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| It's time to eliminate campaign contributions... ...from special interest groups, corporations, and individuals. I believe that each candidate, from each party, should receive the identical amount of funds for campaign purposes, to be paid by the taxpayers. Some may look at this as increased taxes, however, I feel the benefits far outweigh higher taxes to help insure our legislators are not influenced in a way that is both costly and detrimental to the good of the people, and of this country.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| | Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| Re: It's time to eliminate campaign contributions... Money Talks.
Telecommunications sure is Revolutionary.
This issue could certainly be one for tomorrow's history books.
"The Photon Wars (2002-2010), and the Peasants who Fought Them."
An Analytical Look at Corporate Greed and Self-destruction. | |
| | 
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI | Chart is misleading. Is something missing?
Why is Telephone Utilities listed as $1,117,535 when Verizon alone contributed $1,266,585, and Comcast added $372,950.
What is the source of your data? | |
| | |
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| Re: It's time to eliminate campaign contributions... said by birdfeedr :
Chart is misleading. Is something missing?
Why is Telephone Utilities listed as $1,117,535 when Verizon alone contributed $1,266,585, and Comcast added $372,950.
What is the source of your data?
Open Secrets quote:
"Leading industries" shows the top 10 industries contributing from within the state. Totals include contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving more than $200 to federal candidates or political parties.
"Top contributors" shows the state's top contributors giving PAC, individual and soft money donations to federal candidates and parties. Except for soft money, the contributions came not from the organization itself, but from its PAC, its individual members, owners, or employees, and those individuals' immediate families.
Totals listed under "top contributors" represent only those dollars raised within this state. They do not necessarily represent the total for the organization nationwide.
--
Anything that ever was, was once a dream... | |
| | | dpdub
join:2003-05-23
Alexandria, VA
| About "Cold One"...
Yes, and how did we let him slip by listing "Democratic / Liberal" as #8 without pointing out that nos. 1-7 and 9-10 fall under the general heading of "Republican / Industrial / Conservative / War-Profiteer / National Security / Fascist"?
PW | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| all that money keep in mind these amounts of money are just for one state; multiply this by however many states in their area, then add contributions at the national level. And don't forget the army of lobbyists and lawyers and other costs of litigation and lobbying.
Wonder what all this money could buy in terms of upgrading equipment, paying service reps more money (and requiring more knowledge) and hiring more service reps? | |
| | Tom Zachman
join:2002-12-01
Dodge City, KS
| Re: all that money It's only 140 MILLION (per year) for a 50 state figure.
I don't know the Federal numbers (to include FCC 'fines'), but I am going to just match the state's figure.
280 MILLION per year, so.....
Just for fun; what kind of Loan would 280,000,000 per year amortize?
So.... let's take this 280M (again-per year) and add HONEST INCOME to be paid by SUBSCRIBERS for SERVICE at the extremely low rate of $120 per year from 50 Million Households (no businesses).
So..... without any income from businesses, we would have $280 MILLION per year that wouldn't have to be wasted on POLITICIANS and another $6,000 MILLION per year available to pay the damn thing off. What kind of loan could be serviced with $6,280,000,000 per year?
The only negative I see is that POLITICIANS just might have to do without. | |
| | | | | |
|
|
·
What a joke
from:
high priced broadband