Municipal ReportSurprise: citizens don't want competition ( old news - 11:02AM Wednesday Jun 02 2004) tags: alternatives · municipalAmazingly enough, a survey conducted by Cox in Louisiana has found that fifty-seven percent of local Lafayette residents are opposed to a municipal broadband plan, according to a regional ABC affiliate. Area planners are considering offering fiber optic phone, television, and broadband services to the community with the help of a local utility, and are facing an all too common public relations campaign to prevent their competitive entry into the market. The approach to eliminating municipal competition has become a cookie cutter process from state to state; either lobby for new laws banning such operations on the state-level outright, or settling for new laws that make municipal operations more difficult to get off the ground. In Lafayette's case, Bellsouth and Cox tried to push through model legislation being proposed in several states - drafted by the "American Legislative Exchange Council", a lobbying organization funded (in part) by Cox. If such legal efforts fail (SBC has made 11 attempts in four years to ban muni--operations in Wisconsin), the incumbent cable and phone providers usually turn toward trying to sway public opinion on a case by case basis; often with misleading and frequently inaccurate information. The tactics are very successful in many communities where residents are already dubious about whether or not they need broadband to begin with. Project backers claim the "push poll" used in Lafayette was designed to impact public opinion more than measure it, much like this survey issued by Comcast when a similar project sprung up in Illinois. In it, Comcast phoned local residents to ask questions like "Should tax money be allowed to provide pornographic movies for residents?" Comcast also hinted that a municipal broadband operation would usher in a new age of government surveillance with questions like: "Would a government broadband invade privacy and allow the government to listen to your telephone conversations, monitor the Internet sites you visit, and know what cable shows you watch?" This same argument, which critics argue is little more than fear mongering, was also used by Cox official Gary Cassard at a City-Parish Council meeting in Lafayette. If preying on privacy or decency fears doesn't strike a chord, the incumbents often hint that municipal operations are traditionally headed for financial ruin. In Illinois, Comcast frequently cited "municipal failures" that were in fact often quite successful. In Lafayette, Cox argues the municipal operation will be fueled by "taxpayer money", when in reality the project will be funded by long-term revenue bonds, paid off by subscribers to the system, according to City-Parish President Joey Durel. Durel also brushes aside fears that the Lafayette muni-operation would receive preferential regulatory treatment because it was a government operation, noting that it would in fact be regulated twice - once by the Lafayette Public Utility Authority and again by the state Public Service Commission. We're curious if Cox's survey reminded customers that in 2002, Lafayette was one of the few cable markets in the country where Cox raised rates three times in one year. Did it inform them that markets with more than one cable operation (muni or otherwise) usually see rates 17% lower on average? Did the survey include mention of how the 16,000 residents of Newnan, Georgia receive broadband for $25 a month via a well planned municipal operation? Any mention of the 3Mbps worth of wireless connectivity for $16 offered in a Minnesota suburb? Any offhand mention of the success Tacoma's Click! Network has had in bringing quality service and competition to Washington State? Did the survey mention the township of South Dundas, Canada, which spent a million dollars on a municipal network and in return saw 62.5 new jobs, $2.1 million in commercial expansion, and $105,000 in increased regional revenues and cost-savings (see pdf data)? While individuals obviously have a right to oppose municipal operations based on poor economic plans, the misleading campaigns being run by incumbents are only serving to confuse voters, cloud the debate, and slow this country's broadband development - all in a deep-pocketed incumbent effort to avoid having to compete. Shortly after the tri-cities Illinois citizens voted down a fairly sound municipal plan, Comcast raised rates as much as 33% in several of those markets. Such was their reward for not paying attention.
Related:- Free Wi-Fi In San Francisco Before Year's End
- Wilson, North Carolina: Symmetrical 100Mbps
- NYC Wireless Network Tackles Both Roadkill and Terrorism
- Locals Try To Keep Utopia Afloat
- FL Man Attempts to Build Citywide WiMax Network
- Municipal Broadband 2.0
- Powell, Wyoming: Population 5,500, Fiber Fed
- Lafayette Unveils FTTH Pricing
|
 vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
edit:
June 2nd, @11:13AM
| Survey done by Cox? Right....:p
57% of those voters are cox suckers. (Literally COX suckers, Im sure that poll mislead them greatly.) | |
|  | 
BIGMIKE
"I do not know with what weapons World W
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA | Re: Survey done by Cox? Right.... This survey is a joke filled in by people who have nothing better to do with their time. ! | |
| | | 
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| Re: Survey done by Cox? said by BIGMIKE  :
Right.... This survey is a joke filled in by people who have nothing better to do with their time. !
WOW! Between this and other comments, one might come to the conclusion that only a survey or vote regarding muni-broadband tells of results that say "We want muni-broadband and we want it so that the Bells and the cable companies go bankrupt!" would be considered fair and the actual opinion of the people asked!
I mean, REALLY! If (GOD WILLING!) Bush loses in November, what would happen if the Republican Party put out crap like "It's only the ignorant, stupid, bought out, lied to people that voted! If REAL people were asked, then Bush would have WON!"
It is simply the fact that MOST PEOPLE DON'T FUCKING CARE about broadband access. MOST PEOPLE DON'T HATE THE BELLS AND CABLE like here on BBR. MOST PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU!
Any attempt to belittle them makes you more unreasonable.
Boogie | |
| | 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | 57% of the people I meet still can't differentiate between "internet" and "e-mail". Lemmings are easy to push around. Mention porn, and taxes, and wave your hands around a lot and you can convince most people that dihydrogen monoxide is evil.... | |
| | | | | | | 
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Survey done by Cox? said by brandon :
Dihydrogen monoxide should have been banned a LONG time ago.
Yeah...I spilled some dihydrogen monoxide on myself once and spent hours washing if off with water.
mocycler
--
Character is what you are when no one is watching. | |
| | | 
Varangian
join:2002-12-08
Collinsville, IL | It's not?
why every time that 2H+O stuff hits me I get all wet?
Certainly this is the devils' rain!  | |
| | 
holy cow
@optonline.net
| Holy cow, a free market company trying to scare people
into thinking that competition is no good if it comes
from grass roots government sponsored programs..
If we can get faith based programs supported by fed. govt
than cheap broadband is not a bad idea as well..
they must diversify if they want to survive..
Open a theme park, broadband coasters.. | |
| 
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000 | ?!?!?! Don't want competition? That's a fairly deceptive way of putting it. Perhaps they don't want TAX DOLLARS spent on something that they don't intend to utilize. Geesh. | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: ?!?!?! said by AmeritecTech :
Perhaps they don't want TAX DOLLARS spent on something that they don't intend to utilize.
This reminds me of a more formal poll that was conducted on the citizens of Tri-cities area not too long back in which 60% of citizens voted the same way
--
Keep America Strong! Bush/Cheney 2004 | |
| |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| quote:
Perhaps they don't want TAX DOLLARS spent on something that they don't intend to utilize. Geesh.
From what I see, the Lafayette project will be funded by long-term revenue bonds, which from my understanding will be paid off only by subscribers to the system....am I missing something? | |
| | | unoriginal
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: ?!?!?! said by Minister :
quote:
Perhaps they don't want TAX DOLLARS spent on something that they don't intend to utilize. Geesh.
From what I see, the Lafayette project will be funded by long-term revenue bonds, which from my understanding will be paid off only by subscribers to the system....am I missing something?
Yes, the point that if the system doesn't turn a profit then someone will have to pay off the bonds. In almost every case it is the local taxpayers that are used to cover the costs instead. | |
| | | |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Re: ?!?!?! "Almost every case"? Can you name any muni where that happened? From my understanding that's what early viability studies are for....to determine if there's enough users interested to be able to pay off the bonds.... | |
| | | | | JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| Re: ?!?!?! The go-go DotCom investors of the 90's would love you to be mayor. They relish the idea of picking up the winnings if a project makes money and sticking the losses to the public if it loses money. Why do you think private companies other than Cox have not seen fit to invest in this area anyway? | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Smokey
I'm so much cooler offline
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: ?!?!?! Not so. Governments run on bonds. There is not a city in the US that dose not use bonds to fund items in the budget. If they default on one, they may never get a good rating again, and that means no money to build that fire station, or pave the roads. That means taxes go up to replace the needed revenues. Also, many bonds requires some level of payback even if there is a default, and be sure that the issuing agency is not going to be left holding its ****.
--
Adam is going to Athens!! Make us proud bro! | |
| | | | | | 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: ?!?!?! said by Smokey :
Not so. Governments run on bonds. There is not a city in the US that dose not use bonds to fund items in the budget. If they default on one, they may never get a good rating again, and that means no money to build that fire station, or pave the roads. That means taxes go up to replace the needed revenues. Also, many bonds requires some level of payback even if there is a default, and be sure that the issuing agency is not going to be left holding its ****.
These bonds are issued against the muncipal utility, not the city.
Thanks to the slew of laws that private companies have pushed through, a city can no longer cross-subsidize between municipal utilities and the city budget and thus the bonds must be issued against the utility as the city cannot legally use general fund money to pay off the bonds. This means that if the utility fails, there simply is noone left who can legally pay off the bonds.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Using the extreme worst case scenario like this is misleading. As halogen army points up this isn't happening.
By your logic taxpayers are ultimately at risk to bail out many private enterprises as well. If the private banking system was to collapse who do you think would be on the hook to bail it out? If the situation for the telecommunications market turned dire do you think the government and taxpayers wouldn't be the ones to pay to stabilize it? What about the energy market?
Remember the chrysler bailout? Remember the billions in grants and load guarantees that went to the airline industry in the wake of sept 11?
The fact is that taxpayers are the worst case last resort for much major economic activity, including significant markets and areas of private enterprise.
Until you can show evidence that these municipal telecom enterprises are generally failures and that the worst case is the norm, you are simply playing a deceptive game. | |
| | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs: | Re: ?!?!?! Man i think you should register you are one of the few here that make sense on this issue.
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
| | | | | 
redstepchild
Premium
join:2002-01-04
Birmingham, AL
| You can't show they are failures/ too soon I will point to Click! network in Tacoma. Their pockets aren't deep so they have to pick their technology upgrades carefully. The prospective customers who like channels that aren't as popular loose out due to "Not enough interets".. anyone who likes sports packages knows what I mean.
The failures can't be pointed out because there isn't a legnthy enough time to point out a failure. But I do know this. TACOMA public Utilities ARE the HIGHEST in the state of WA and they have a cable company... who is floating who? Find me a person who says their utility bill is cheap in Tacoma and I call them Pinochio.
Cable is cheaper but not that cheaper that it makes up for the expense of the Utilities piece.
At some point, the studies that measure CABLE and POWER prices will show the correlation and who wants to pay more on cable...
besides.. even the municipal companies have price increases... that is a part of doing business as much as we hate it.
--
I'm a Cable girl.. In a Cable World.....RedStepChild@dslr.net | |
| | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| said by Minister :
quote:
Perhaps they don't want TAX DOLLARS spent on something that they don't intend to utilize. Geesh.
From what I see, the Lafayette project will be funded by long-term revenue bonds, which from my understanding will be paid off only by subscribers to the system....am I missing something?
Who pays if it fails and can't achieve profitability? | |
| | | |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| Re: ?!?!?! quote:
Who pays if it fails and can't achieve profitability?
Isn't that what viability studies are for? Can you name any munis based on these bonds that have failed and been forced to dig into taxpayer pockets? | |
| | | | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! said by Minister :
quote:
Who pays if it fails and can't achieve profitability?
Isn't that what viability studies are for? Can you name any munis based on these bonds that have failed and been forced to dig into taxpayer pockets?
Putting the taxpayers even AT RISK of having to pay for this is unethical. Want non-corporate broadband? Fine. Form a non-profit organization, get investors, and deploy broadband which will be user-funded. Leave the government and the taxpayer out of the equation. | |
| | | | | |
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting | Re: ?!?!?! So that's a "no, I have no example of such failures" then?
The only people who care if it's a muni or a private organization are the incumbents, who know it's easier to crush the latter.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! said by JakCrow :
said by AmeritecTech :
Putting the taxpayers even AT RISK of having to pay for this is unethical. Want non-corporate broadband? Fine. Form a non-profit organization, get investors, and deploy broadband which will be user-funded. Leave the government and the taxpayer out of the equation.
Good idea. Remember that next time the telco industry wants another hand out.
Darn straight. Corporate welfare is the bane of my existence. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: ?!?!?! AmeritecTech,
There is a company here in Hawaii called Sandwich Isles
Communications. It is receiving 400 million
in USDA Rural Utility Service loans. Which will be repaid
by Universal Service Fund. The fiber-optic network will be only used by Native Hawaiians living on Department of Hawaiian Homelands 69 land areas statewide Hawaii.If you want to talk
about pork barrel monies for one group this is the poster child. | |
| | | | | | | | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! That is indeed a pretty large chunk of pork.
I simply don't understand why these things can't be VOLUNTARY. Anyone who wants a fiber network can help come up with the startup capital and they can leave the unwilling taxpayers out of it. Those who helped fund the startup get to play ball. What is so wrong with that? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by AmeritecTech :
I simply don't understand why these things can't be VOLUNTARY. Anyone who wants a fiber network can help come up with the startup capital and they can leave the unwilling taxpayers out of it. Those who helped fund the startup get to play ball. What is so wrong with that?
Well, the only minor flaw is that you cannot make it exclusionary if you use the public right of ways unless you are a muni. The main reason the Hawaii project is exclusionary is because a federal law takes presidence. Other than wireless, trying to get around the ROW rules is pretty annoying.
One way to pull it off is that you can require new users to pay for the full cost -if- the density is under a certain amount (normally around 20 households per fiber mile). This is a much lower density than it sounds though and the amount you can make them pay does not offset the full cost of laying fiber.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
edit:
June 6th, @04:11AM
| Re: ?!?!?! Sandwich Isles Communications is using public right of way
but is providing service to only DHHL areas. I tried to
convey the fact this project was exclusionary to USDA RUS,
FCC,Hawaii PUC, USF etc but all I got was the runaround.
SIC applied to be a RuLEC and evidently the USDA RUS loan
PRECLUDES them from serving non-DHHL areas. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: ?!?!?! said by AmeritecTech :
said by marigolds :
said by AmeritecTech :
I simply don't understand why these things can't be VOLUNTARY. Anyone who wants a fiber network can help come up with the startup capital and they can leave the unwilling taxpayers out of it. Those who helped fund the startup get to play ball. What is so wrong with that?
Well, the only minor flaw is that you cannot make it exclusionary if you use the public right of ways unless you are a muni. The main reason the Hawaii project is exclusionary is because a federal law takes presidence. Other than wireless, trying to get around the ROW rules is pretty annoying.
One way to pull it off is that you can require new users to pay for the full cost -if- the density is under a certain amount (normally around 20 households per fiber mile). This is a much lower density than it sounds though and the amount you can make them pay does not offset the full cost of laying fiber.
The municipal authority can still grant a non-profit exclusive right to hang fiber on existing utility poles. This can be done without costing the taxpayer a dime.
Right, but when that fiber is used to provide services, those services must be made available to every resident of the city, not just those who invested in the startup. That's the part I was saying was a minor problem.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Batavia, IL
| Re: ?!?!?! From »www.tricitybroadband.com/failures.htm
Tacoma, Washington
This is news to the folks in Tacoma, whose municipal broadband utility is operating IN THE BLACK and has not resulted in a tax hike. What has happened in Tacoma is that they are not reaching their projected market share as quickly as they predicted. But the utility is alive and well and making money. Check out their public utility. Click the "Click! Network" link on the left side of their page.
And read this recent article in Wired News about Tacoma ...
The Charge: To pay for increased capital costs for their fiber system, Tacoma Public Utilities imposed a 50% surcharge on local electric bills.
Response From The Utility: " I am aware of your citizens group, your upcoming Tri City Broadband Referendum and the aggressive media campaign by those in opposition to your efforts. I review DSL Reports regularly and would like to set the record straight about Click! Network, for those who are interested in facts rather than propaganda.
Click! Network was constructed primarily for the utility’s use, and would have been built whether we deployed commercial services (cable TV, Internet services and data services) or not. I’ve attached a document with a brief history, in hopes the accurate story about Click! will be shared.
To date, Click! serves 21,500 cable TV customers (32% of the homes the network passes), 6,500 high-speed Internet over cable modem customers, and several dozen businesses with high-speed data lines. Our commercial revenues are covering our operating expenses. Efficiencies to the utility have been considerable since Click! facilities are connected to remote terminal units on utility poles around the city. Electric technicians can monitor the health of the power network and dispatch repair crews to exact locations, in a fraction of the time it use to take. Eventually, the utility will be able to automatically connect and disconnect power services and read meters, increasing operational efficiencies.
Attempts by others to thwart competition should be examined carefully. Competition in Tacoma has meant increased customer service by all providers, lower prices, more choice and a boost to economic development. Since Tacoma Power’s investment in Click! Network, the City of Tacoma now markets itself as “America’s Most Wired City” and has lured high-tech businesses to the area.
An important note, those opposing your efforts have erroneously connected Tacoma Power’s surcharge during the energy crisis with Click! Network, when in fact the two have no connection at all. At the beginning of the energy crisis (winter 2000), Click! was already constructed in Tacoma and Tacoma Power had over $100,000,000 in cash reserves, which is triple the amount we carry on an operating basis for contingencies. The utility was determining the best way to invest it when the energy crisis hit. Unfortunately the $100,000,000 was not enough, and the utility chose to initiate a surcharge.
Those with questions about Click! Network can find additional information at our web site at www.click-network.com. Sincerely, Diane R. Lachel,Government and Community Relations Manager, Click! Network, Tacoma Power"
--
»www.tricitybroadband.com | |
| | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| said by AmeritecTech :
Who pays if it fails and can't achieve profitability?
The bondholder pays, since they do not recover their investment. The city cannot legally pay off the bonds from the general fund, so the city will not be on the hook to pay the bonds if the utility fails.
The bigger risk of a failed utility is probably that the city will have worse services than if they had never created a public utility at all.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
| | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Maybe these older people don't intend to utilize it, but for dammed sure the tech savvy kids these days will grow up and utilize it.
So build it now for the future generations, instead of asking a bunch of old people what's best for themselves, and not what's best for the future generations to build on.
My great-grandfather refused to buy a car, he relied on his horse and buggy, and you couldn't get him to buy a car. Yet his two sons both drove Cadillacs as soon as they could afford them.
Just becuase a certain age demographic has no need for technology (having grown up just fine without it), doesn't mean that their kids will want to grow up the same way.
--
"The three most dangerous things are a programmer with a soldering iron, a manager who codes, and a user who gets ideas." - Unknown"A computer is like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy." - Joseph Campbell | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| People continue to assert this and it isn't true. Most of these projects are NOT being funded with tax dollars. People who don't utilize it are NOT paying for it(which was even stated in the news post).
At what point should people be able to conclude that some of you are not acting in good faith? | |
| | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! said by asdfdfdf:
People continue to assert this and it isn't true. Most of these projects are NOT being funded with tax dollars. People who don't utilize it are NOT paying for it(which was even stated in the news post).
At what point should people be able to conclude that some of you are not acting in good faith?
And if the system fails and cannot achieve profitability, who pays for all the equipment that was bought? Why do these things have to be done by the government? Why can't some people assemble a non profit organization and borrow money from investors and deploy a network? Why must it be MUNICIPAL broadband? | |
| | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: ?!?!?! Where are all these investors that would be willing to front the money for the significant up-front costs required to roll out such services, especially for a non-profit organization?
I wouldn't be opposed to such a thing. It would be wonderful if such a thing was possible and the world worked like that, but it simply will not happen. Sure, perhaps in some small neighborhood with a peculiar grouping of individuals, but that will never be a feasible solution to compete with telco/cableco duopoly in any broad way.(Clearly even though these are frequently areas where the major players have little interest, they are suddenly willing to throw money at subverting attempts by others to build such services).
The reality is that only a few companies with billions in capex are going to bring about ubiquitous broadband or the government is going to fill in the voids. The telecom market is in bad shape and there is little inclination to risk money. There aren't going to be start-ups jumping in with robust venture capital support. This is 2004, not 1998. The only entity, other than the major ilec/cableco players, with the power and access to funding/resources to bring about such a thing is government, just as it was for the highway system and widespread electrification. | |
| | | | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! said by asdfdfdf:
Where are all these investors that would be willing to front the money for the significant up-front costs required to roll out such services, especially for a non-profit organization?
I suppose they're the same people who would buy local government bonds for broadband deployment, hm? | |
| | | | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: ?!?!?! "I suppose they're the same people who would buy local government bonds for broadband deployment, hm?"
Anything is possible.
I'm not convinced, though, that the type of investor willing to invest in a municipal bond, with its tax advantages, would be the same type of investor willing to put money into a non-profit cooperative of concerned citizens?
I hope you are right and I'm wrong. | |
| | | | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | | ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | I don't use the county parks of public libraries but I pay for them. I don't use the public school system but I pay for someone's kid to use them. | |
| | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| Re: ?!?!?! said by ParanoiaInc :
I don't use the county parks of public libraries but I pay for them. I don't use the public school system but I pay for someone's kid to use them.
That's all correct, and that's a travesty. Why should you have to pay for someone else's kid to go to school? | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Correct me if I wrong quote:
Comcast also hinted that a municipal broadband operation would usher in a new age of government surveillance with questions like: "Would a government broadband invade privacy and allow the government to listen to your telephone conversations, monitor the Internet sites you visit, and know what cable shows you watch?" This same argument, which critics argue is little more than fear mongering, was also used by Cox official Gary Cassard at a City-Parish Council meeting in Lafayette.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Cox able to do most of the same things with the exception of monitoring your phone calls? If they are able to who are they really kidding here? I am not for another government bureaucracy but I mean let's be real here. Cox arguments are not only fun |
|
|
|
·
Re: ?!?!?!
·