McCain Fights For Municipal BroadbandThe 'Community Broadband Act of 2005'( old news - 02:14PM Wednesday Jun 22 2005) tags: legislation · PoliticsTexas Rep. Pete Sessions - a former SBC employee with a financial stake in the company - is trying to pass a law that would ban towns and cities from wiring themselves for broadband. Now Senators John McCain and Frank Lautenberg are set to propose the “Community Broadband Act of 2005" as a polar opposite. The act doesn't advocate municipal broadband, but it does protect a town or city's right to explore the option. Thanks to heavy lobbying by incumbents, fourteen states have passed laws banning municipal broadband. The SBC backed (likely even written) "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" was the first of what will be many attempts to institute a national ban. Outfits like the Free Press have slammed Sessions, claiming he currently holds half a million in stock options. His wife, also an SBC employee, holds an even larger financial stake. "Congressman Sessions is the latest poster child for corruption on Capitol Hill," says Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, who claims Sessions has "put personal greed ahead of his responsibility to the public."Since this obviously could put a damper on Intel's Wimax broadband plans, Intel has joined forces with consumer advocates in an effort to fight such legislation. McCain and Lautenberg's act would appear to be a direct result of that newly forged alliance. As it stands, it appears the act won't over-rule existing state bans on municipal broadband, but it would likely eliminate future passage of such laws. "Government should work to open doors to greater technology for the American people, not slam them shut. Our bill will protect the right of communities to offer wireless broadband access to their citizens, creating a powerful tool for education and economic development," says Senator Lautenberg.
Related:- AT&T Could Owe You $146,000
- House Democrats Fight Telecom Wiretap Immunity
- Copyright Cop Position Added to White House
- Embarq: Selling User Browsing Data 'Empowers' Users
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
|
 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Small, unintrusive government Why is this -republican- getting the federal government involved in state and local issues that the fed has no business being in? | |
|  | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI | Re: Small, unintrusive government Better question: What does party affiliation have to do with anything? | |
| | | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: Small, unintrusive government Because Republicans are SUPPOSEDLY for smaller government. Don't act stupid.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
| | | | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Re: Small, unintrusive government In case you missed the boat, it's a Republican (McCain) and a Dem (Lautenberg) taking up a side against a Republican (Sessions). Party affiliation is fairly irrelevant in this case it seems and it's other interests that are drawing the lines.
Also, I can't really believe you're at all surprised that McCain would be involved against something like this. Either that or you haven't followed politics at all in the past few years... McCain's still railing against the cableco's over ala carte' at last check. This is right in his wheelhouse.
And as for Sessions' involvement, it's well-documented why he's interested in his side... | |
| | | | | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: Small, unintrusive government more business affiliation then party affiliation.
that and he should not be able to make anything that SBC is pushing. | |
| | | | 
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | They promote smaller government when their party isn't the majority makeup of the government. | |
| | | | | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: Small, unintrusive government They also promote for-profit wars -- when their kids don't have to fight.
--
When Clinton lied -- no one died. | |
| | | | | |
IT Guy
Your God Smells Funny
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM | Re: Small, unintrusive government Didn't you know? War is good for the economy.  | |
| | | | | | | 
gomer1701ems
join:2001-08-23
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Small, unintrusive government Ferengi Rule of Acquisition Number #34:
"War is good for business." | |
| | | | 
anon7007
@rr.com
 from:
ronpin 
| "Because Republicans are SUPPOSEDLY for smaller government. Don't act stupid."
I've heard this before, but everything I have seen, the Republicans are the ones that pass more laws giving Goverment all the more control.
Its also just like the Republicans calling the Democrats liberals. When everything I have seen, its the Republicans that are so "liberal" with all the money thrown around. | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
edit:
June 22nd, @01:57PM
| Re: Small, unintrusive government This is a state and local level issue. AND it looks like a nice conflict of interest too. Imagine that... | |
| | | | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Small, unintrusive government said by JakCrow :This is a state and local level issue. I understand that. You're saying that it's ironic that a republican (who would usually advocate for state rights) is getting involved with an issue that should only concern that state. You're insinuating that there's some hypocrisy here, right?
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
iPod Shuffle=iPos
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 6200+ | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Small, unintrusive government said by Nerdtalker :said by JakCrow :This is a state and local level issue. I understand that. You're saying that it's ironic that a republican (who would usually advocate for state rights) is getting involved with an issue that should only concern that state. You're insinuating that there's some hypocrisy here, right? You are correct. | |
| | | | 
Blasterbator
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Jackson, MS
·Cox HSI
| Obviously it is not just a state / local issue right now.
Any law, whether it is for or against it makes it a national issue. It would be nice to see a law defining it as not a national issue.
--
"If PCs are hard, then Macs are flaccid" -bb | |
| | | |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Conflict of interest? Not for McCain. Conflict of interest YES for Sessions, the individual whose already trying to regulate broadband by BANNING local governments altogether from setting up their own broadband networks. Funny that an ex SBC employee whose wife owns more than $500,000 in stocks would do such a thing. McCain and Launtenberg are simply reacting to corrupt legislation, attemping to insure city's rights to set up their own utility infrastructure. | |
| | | | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Small, unintrusive government said by broadbanderexpanderc:
Conflict of interest? Not for McCain. Conflict of interest YES for Sessions, the individual whose already trying to regulate broadband by BANNING local governments altogether from setting up their own broadband networks. Funny that an ex SBC employee whose wife owns more than $500,000 in stocks would do such a thing. McCain and Launtenberg are simply reacting to corrupt legislation, attemping to insure city's rights to set up their own utility infrastructure.
Yes. Conflict of interest on Session's part. I should have made the clearer. | |
| | 
Glenn
I'D Rather Be Skiing
Premium
join:2000-10-05
Wallingford, CT | Everyone knows McCain is a democrat in disguise. | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Small, unintrusive government Yes. I've heard many "conservatives" say that of him. Though real conservatives don't make such silly claims. | |
| | | 
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| I think not..he's republican. Remember the Dems in his time were protesting and smoking dope, he was at the commie prison camp. I like McCain, he does what he thinks is right for the people and holds people accountable.
BOTH parties just want to get their own in office. The current administration plays on the religious right, the current dems play on anything that isn't Bush and republican conspiracy. Both parties lie, cheat and screw you over.
McCain has the ballocks to stand up to things he thinks are sh*t. Gotta respect that. | |
| |
anon7007
@rr.com | What we need now is the goverment to quit taking money from the RIAA/MPAA. | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| McCain ever the populist is greasing the skids for a presidential run.
Well, he might as well kiss it goodbye. He stabbed enough party faithful in the back last month to ever win any national primary.
PS- I flirted with the idea of supporting McCain in 2000 and even signed on with his campaign to receive info. | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Small, unintrusive government Well, the problem IS the party faithful. | |
| | | 
tapeloop
Triceratops - 130 dollars per bbl
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| said by bogey780 :McCain ever the populist is greasing the skids for a presidential run. Well, he might as well kiss it goodbye. He stabbed enough party faithful in the back last month to ever win any national primary. PS- I flirted with the idea of supporting McCain in 2000 and even signed on with his campaign to receive info. You mean he WAS stabbed IN THE BACK by enough "party faithful" (the Rove wing of the GOP) during the 2000 primaries. SC ring a bell?
Must...stay...on...topic...:D | |
| | | | 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: Small, unintrusive government Actually McCain's undoing in SC was his own. He spoke quite forcefully against Pat Roberts and the "Religious Right"... In South Carolina of all places, N.B.: That's why he lost.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | | |
tapeloop
Triceratops - 130 dollars per bbl
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
|  Re: Small, unintrusive government
said by LegoPower77 :Actually McCain's undoing in SC was his own. He spoke quite forcefully against Pat Roberts and the "Religious Right"... In South Carolina of all places, N.B.: That's why he lost. (momentarily throws topic to one side)
Actually in was in your state of VA that McCain spoke out against against Robertson & Falwell.
Not only that, it would have been rather difficult for those comments to affect his SC numbers, since he made the speech on Feb. 28--nine days after the SC primary was held.
And it wasn't so much an attack as a declaration that the GOP shouldn't be turned over wholesale to the hardliners (which, no matter how you slice it, Pat Robertson is.):
I am a pro-life, pro-family, fiscal conservative, and advocate of a strong defense. And yet, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. I believe in the cause of conservative reform....The Republican Party will prevail because of our principles--because that's what it's about, my friends--principles, not special interest money or empire or ego.
...
Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. Of course, not pandering to the Christian right is a sure way to lose a nomination...which McCain proved. 
But you'd be remiss to think that Rove's "whisper campaign" had no part in McCain's primary defeat in SC.
(picks topic up again, dusts it off, sits down to tea)
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
| | | | | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: Small, unintrusive government I stand corrected. It was SC where he spoke out against Bob Jones and damned himself there. His subsequent attacks on Pat Roberts (irrespective of how we feel about him) in VA ensured his loss in a number of other southern primaries.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | I wonder how many astroturfers are posting on this website.
I see alot of stupid anti-muni comments.
REP. Sessions has a financial stake too. He might be posting antimuni comments here also. | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| To stave off bills like sessions, which was introduced in the US house of representatives.
There is lobbying going on at the federal level so the ilecs and cablecos don't have to fight this in every state, hence the necessity for a federal response. Thats the way this works. These companies fling shit in every direction and expect that something, somewhere, will stick.
| |
| | t3freak
join:2004-04-11
New Port Richey, FL | "Why is this -republican- getting the federal government involved in state and local issues that the fed has no business being in?"
Because any fed law stomps a state law. Like the medical pot excuse. | |
| |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Again, to clarify, I was refering to Sessions attempt to be "big government" man. Not McCain. | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net | I apologize for misunderstanding | |
|
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
| Good news! McCain so much more than many of his colleagues has such a bipartisan head on his shoulders when it comes down to the issues. Allowing cities the chance to set up their own broadband networks can only increase the opportunities and interest in ther American broadband market, particularly in areas where people currently "don't need" broadband, but would be quite pleasantly surprised with its positive results. I think that if rural cities can set up their own broadband it might even create a flock of business back to the midwest and a create a far more integrated agricultural market as well. Kudos. | |
| 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Rife With Corruption! Mr. Pete sessions needs to step down and release the rains to someone how doesn't have a conflicting interest. | |
| 
FTCXtreme
join:2005-03-14
New Braintree, MA | Mccain ready for his presidential election run... Its true. He putting himself everywhere. I myself like Mccain, he's very moderate, and not super right wing. We need a president whos neither left nor right, we need a man inbetween, and thats why I say Mccain 08! | |
| |
See 21 replies to this post | |
23153443
join:2001-01-13
Westminster, MD
| Get 'em, John. Times like this make me have at least a glimmer of hope for both the Republican party and those in government. Pete Sessions is a bought and paid-for tool, and the feds have no business telling local municipalities how to waste their own tax dollars. That's for the overtaxed residents of those municipalities to decide.
I'm not a big fan of muni-funded utilities (if you can call it one) but McCain is right. It's not the business of the Federal Government.
At some point, can we just give Texas back to Spain? That would solve a lot of problems... | |
| runlevelfour
join:2002-06-12
USA
| ? The government is filled with businessmen who have large and/or controlling shares in many companies through the country and world. To point out a single conflict of interest is similar to pointing at a puddle of water during a rainstorm. Is it really any surprise that the wealthy elite who make up the vast majority of "the people's representatives" routinely do not go along with what the people want or is good for them?
Democrat, Republican it does not matter. Theyre two factions of the big business party whose needs/wants are completely antagonistic to anyone who works for a living. So much attention is focused on the executive branch that people forget that congress and the senate are filled with the same elite.
It amuses me that through the cold war we americans constantly blasted the USSR for having a one party state. As if we really differ at all, there is not much difference between dems and repubs and I feel most americans would agree. There are liberals and conservatives on both sides, and none are truly on any of our side. Look at a lot of the laws that get passed, the ones that arent televised and broadcast everywhere.
At best congress and the senate are harmless, at worst we the working class get shafted, and the poorer you are the more you feel it. Welcome to america. Land of the "free". But im sure im completely wrong about everything. I mean, this is a democracy right? Things like this CANT happen in a democracy, they teach you that in government controlled school. | |
| |
broadbanderexpanderc
@66.100.x.x
from:
tapeloop
| Re: ? Well, being someone who used to be of your persuasion (paranoid ranting about how America is really a fascist one-party media state controlled by the shared interests of "big business") I can say, now being someone who lives and works in Washington D.C. NOT for the elite but monitoring issues as a journalist on one specific issue, utility concerns (who has NEVER been instructed how to write by any of his superiors, though has been told his "spin" was too left or too right when bias on my part appeared), that there are two parties and they are often vastly different. Environmental issues are one of the gaping differences. Democrats vote to have things like emissions cut all the time. More often than not, democrats are anti-clear skies and don't like the idea of "paying" for emissions violations. They thing you just shouldn't "violate" them. Most republicans contend that there's really not much evidence either way about what emissions or if global warming would actually cause a strictly negative affect on the environment. Plus, republicans are very often involved in oil industry. Of course, so are a lot of democrats, but its not their interest group that pays them. No, democrats receive their funding from lawyers and medical groups (doctors and hospitals). No surprise then that democrats interests are often geared towards those interests.
The point is, even if much of what motivates the parties is funding, that still in no way reduces the fact that they are funded from very different interests and often have very different views. Nagalaz, you also seem to think, from your post, that somehow "big business" is one party, which is really just not the case. Big business conflicts with itself all the time. What's good for the petrol industry is not good for the hydrogen industry. What's good for telco and bad for another. For example, municipal broadband is supported by companies like Dell and other hardware/software distributors, because more broadband means more stuff for them to sell to people. Broadband ISPs don't like it, because, well, they can't charge whatever price they want whenever they get around to installing networks based on a perceive demand.
Nagalaz, I wish the issues were so simple. I wish that senators and congress were harmless. It would be very clear then who to blame for the world's problems. However, the United States is the third largest country in the world and as such has incredible diversity in almost all ways. I suggest living in some foreign countries and observing how their governments and cultures collide/coalesce before attempting to understand the US. Compare our minimum wage with the minimum wages of countries with workforces of comparable sizes. Compare sexual equality in America with sexual equality in the far East (Japan in particular, most misogynist culture I've ever lived through).
The US is complicated because we have so many people or so many different lifestyles bringing so many voices to the marketplace. If you think McDonalds and Hollywood run OUR lives, just see how much those companies have succeeded in dominating the lives of others around the world.
However, that's not the US. Those are US companies. And there are plenty of French companies that do similar things (a French-owned label gave us that lovely role-model of unintegrity, Britney Spears, not to mention plenty of other entertainment phenomena that did their fair share of damage to the American psyche).
Anyway, the point is, the poor feel it anywhere. No, its not their fault. People are exploited all over the world for sex, resources, man power. Believe it or not, people are exploited less here. Especially women.
Yeah. | |
| | | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
edit:
June 23rd, @12:10AM
| Re: ? Nice take, broadbanderexpanderc
Yes, we're a country of many different cultures, opinions, ect..
We're also a Republic(I.E. reprepsisitentive government) to where all views are heard.
That's what people seem to forget.
They seem to feel that they are at the mercy of THEIR government. That's because the majority of voting age Americans DON'T vote.
Now, as far as this thread goes, let the individual municipalities decide for themselves for local broadband issues, and leave the "feds" out of the loop.
The breakup of "MaBell" back in the early 1980's is a great example. Now we have SBC, Verizon, and all the rest. What happened to "the baby bells"? They got assimilated("we are the Borg. Resistance is futile).
Texas Rep. Pete Sessions-you need to get a clue, Sport. Representative Government(and I mean at the city level)-not Socialism, will bring Broadband to the masses. Let the local folks where they live decide if they want to pay for Broadband HOWEVER THEY WANT IT!!!! It's their choice, not yours(or your wife's).
P.S. broadbanderexpanderc,
If you're poor in the United States, that's only because one is a lazy M.F., look'in for welfare! | |
|
upidstay
@204.251.x.x | Texas Uhh, I think Texas was last owned by Mexico.
 flame flame flame | |
| joshpo
join:2002-09-24
Philadelphia, PA
| Can't please everybody Good for McCain and Lautenberg. The federal government is the legislative arm of big business and two guys make a real effort to preserve state and local rights and people complain about the government sticking their nose everywhere. This drives me nuts. We need more people in the federal government who are willing to give big business the finger and show that they actually have principles besides raising campaign money. | |
| creeperz
join:2001-03-03
Max Meadows, VA |  Question for karl
| |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Question for karl My parents were both killed by an SBC remote terminal, setting me on a path of vicious righteousness. I'm still working on a costume.
Kidding.
I'm really not. I don't see municipal broadband as a panacea by any means.
I am anti muni-bans. They're miserable anti-competitive greed based initiatives that fail to serve joe consumer in any way. I think communities should have the right to decide these issues for themselves. | |
| | | 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Question for karl Remember this is election year they will do anything to gain points or endorsed. | |
| | | 
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
edit:
June 22nd, @08:59PM
| said by Karl Bode :I am anti muni-bans. They're miserable anti-competitive greed based initiatives that fail to serve joe consumer in any way. I think communities should have the right to decide these issues for themselves. I agree with you on this. It's not that I have any love for government doing something that could be done more efficiently and for less money by private enterprise, but what we have here is a case of the greedy bastards at SBC, Comcast, Verizon, and other similar companies who in many cases don't want to offer broadband service to a community until they are damn good and ready, and when they do finally decide to provide it, it will be on their terms (which means probably about two or three times what it would cost in a truly competitive market).
Very often these smaller communities realize that broadband in the 21st century is like the railroad in the 19th century - if a neighboring community has it in their town and your town don't, it can put your town at a serious economic disadvantage. Just as the smaller towns sometimes helped build "feeder" railroads to get themselves access to the nationwide rail system, today the voters of some communities want to be able to construct their own broadband systems, so the people of their communities have speedy access to the communications backbone of our nation.
Unfortunately, it appears that SBC, Comcast, et. al. are taking a page from the railroad baron's handbook, and think they and they alone should decide whether and when a community gets broadband access. While the lack of broadband may not have the potential to turn a town into a "ghost town", the economic consequences may be similar. Towns without affordable broadband will have a very hard time attracting or keeping any significant business enterprises. People may still live there (the ones that can live with slow dialup access, or who don't use the Internet at all), but businesses (along with the people who consider broadband access important for themselves and their families) will seek out areas where there is good connectivity.
The question is, do we want the baby Bells and large cable companies, and their stooges in Congress, conspiring to shut out certain communities in favor of others the way the railroad barons did back in the days of the "iron horse?" Seems that true corruption never dies, it just changes form.
One other comment, seems that some people haven't yet figured out that there isn't really any significant difference between Republicans and Democrats. They may do a lot of public posturing as to what they favor and what they are against, but in the end they are all right there whoring themselves out to the big corporations and whoever else will throw money their way. I don't think an honest politician could even get elected to any state or national office anymore.
OT: I didn't save the web page address (unfortunately), but I read something not too long ago that proposed that just as we now (supposedly) have separation of church and state, perhaps what we really need is a law or amendment establishing separation of corporation and state. The idea was that at the time our constitution was written, in many places organized religion had too much control over local and national governments. Well, we still have that problem in some places in the world, but in the U.S. an equal threat is that of the large corporations gaining far too much influence over our lawmakers. Major corporations were virtually non-existent when our Constitution was written, but if they had been, the thought is that their influence would have been limited in the same way that the influence of organized religion is (supposedly) limited. And for the nit-pickers, I am aware that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Bill of Rights, but the courts have inferred the principle from the First Amendment - which of course has led to endless arguments over whether organized religion has too much or too little influence over government, but at least most of us agree that there is a limit somewhere, and there should be a similar limit on corporate influence.
Edit: After posting the above, I found the article I'd read. It was actually an entry in a blog called "Minding The Planet":
August 05, 2003
On the Separation of Corporation and State
Should there be a formal separation of Corporation and State that is similar to the separation of Church and State, in our Constitution? This is a subject I am thinking about a lot lately. It occurred to me while I was listening to President Bill Clinton's speech at the 2003 Fortune Brainstorm conference in Aspen last week...
Imagine what our nation would be like if there were no Separation of Church and State? This basic principle has ensured that our American democracy has remained unbiased toward any particular religion; it has also protected religions from getting overly involved in politics. When our Constitution was formulated it made sense to add in this protection, because the Church was one of the main political forces of the time and posed a very real threat to democracy. But when our Constitution was designed corporations had not emerged as a major political force. For this reason no protections were added to the Constitution against manipulation from corporate interests.
However today we live in a very different world, a world of giant global corporations with billions of dollars to lobby with. Is the integrity of our democracy threatened by the influence of corporate special interests? Are our national decision-makers being influenced by corporate entities? And if so, is this really democratic; are We The People really being represented fairly in this process? It may be time to introduce the notion of a formal Separation of Corporation and State to protect our democracy from being overrun by corporate influence. I have written a full article on this subject which, if it doesn't get published elsewhere, I will post to this Bog. | |
| | | | stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA
edit:
June 23rd, @12:29AM
| Re: Question for karl Hmmmm..
The movie "Rollerball" comes to mind here.
And I mean the orginal with James Caan back in 1975.
Bring on the Coporate Wars, baby!!!!!
 | |
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Im for it if... I am all for it if this law includes the following:
•Fair voting - Disallow ILECS/CLECS from interfering in the proposal (ie. providing falsified information or exreame opinions - Like telling people that the gov will monitor and limit content)
•Allows for fair competition (only by way of pricing or extra services) - If the businesses have not built yet, tough, get moving! If the businesses have no plans to build there, then butt-out!
•Dissallow price gouging due to being the only ultra-high-speed and/or video services provider in the area.
•Disallow limiting of services (NO CAPS)
If the businesses don't want to give us higher speeds (or at least in the CUSTOMERS timeframe, or high speed at all (as in some areas), then I think that Municipal buildouts should be allowed; even if the businesses have not built-out yet.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Why? Why is it that Sessions is lambasted for being in bed with SBC, while McCain and Lautenberg are lauded for being in bed with Intel? | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Why? Firstly of all is there any reason to believe that mccain is doing this because he has a large amount of intel stock? Is mccain in intel's pocket?
Secondly sbc is trying to limit competition. Intel is not in a dominant market position in communications and is trying to open up competition, not close it down.
So I think it is specious to argue that an occasional confluence of opinions and interests is the same as being systematically corrupted to protect market control.
You are refusing to recognize very major distinctions. | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| put another way mccain is not "in bed" with intel. There is not likely to be any hanky panky between the two, they simply are on the same side of this particular issue.
Nor is mccain being "lauded" due to the fact that intel and he are on the same side here. | |
| | | footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Why? said by asdfdfdf:
put another way mccain is not "in bed" with intel. There is not likely to be any hanky panky between the two, they simply are on the same side of this particular issue. Why is Sessions automatically assumed to be on the take, then? He worked for years as a bell employee, his wife works as a bell employee, he knows the business. Can it not be that he simply agrees with the bells because he thinks munis are wrong, not because he has stock options? All management employees of SBC got stock options a few years ago, are they all then corrupt? | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| " Can it not be that he simply agrees with the bells because he thinks munis are wrong,... "
Is it possible. yes. Is it likely though?
Do you really, however, believe that the fact that he has half a million dollars in options(and apparently his wife has more as well) and that sbc is his second biggest contributor aren't key motivators, but that he just feels strongly enough about muni activity to take it upon himself to introduce such a bill? Knowing what we know about human corruption can we say it is likely that he "simply agrees with the bells"?
I think that, in such situations, we go with what is probable, given what we know about human nature, rather than simply what is possible. Imagine the circumstances were the same, but that you had no idea what the subject of the bill was, who was involved, or what their political affiliation was. What would you conclude about the likely influences and motivations driving such a person?
It is reasonable to say that there are corrupting influences here that are not present with mccain relative to intel. So I think the attempt to draw a parallel between the two is not just. | |
| | |
People123
@NYU.EDU
| Re: Why? Can't you McCain bashers all see that you're wrong? McCain is trying to PROTECT local governments from the federal intrusion that Sessions's bill works. It's classic Republican: Those of you impugning him should think more closely before making accusations and allegations that are both baseless and demonstrably false. | |
| 
signmeuptoo
Barak Obama 4 Pres. CHANGE
Premium
join:2001-11-22
Tardis in TN
clubs: 
·EarthLink
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
 ·Packet8
·AT&T Southeast
| What ought to be, and thank you Sen. McCain! After reading this thread I am fascinated by the sides, ideas, opinions, and concepts given. Well spoken, guys!
But here is the thing:
As some of you have pointed out, McCain is a war hero and a very brave and resolute man. Every democrat I know likes him a lot and have said that they would vote for him. Sure, many of the core population of the right are leaning left because of disillusionment right now. I am one. Not because of the action in Iraq, because I happen to think that liberating a people and given equal rights to women is a key responsibility to our bountiful nation. Somebody *has* to be the hero, or there are NO heroes. Someone *has* to attempt to make a difference.
Now, carry this concept over to what Lautenberg and McCain are trying hard to do: Doing what is heroic, something that someone, anyone, *has* to do. As always, Mr. McCain is being a blessed soul and doing his best to affect a proper outcome. Sure, he is not a perfect man, all men have been corrupted, no man is innocent (at least *this* Christian believes that), but he tries to do things when they must be done.
Now, think for a minute, guys (and ladies if, God willing, some of you are here too, there are too few of you):
What if most of those involved in this issue, most of those in government, the voters, people here and in this thread, etc. etc. are failing to see an obvious needed concept!
The ideal solution to getting FTTH (fiber to the home/office) isn't necessarily a thing where only one company has to do and profit from. You guys and everyone else seem to be forgetting something: This is optical fiber, and this is the web/internet!!! Here, let me explain a (hopefully) rational concept, a wider and more competitive look at an alternative that takes advantage of the scope of the debate here:
But before I do, one small comment... Smaller government is something that should always be sought after, where it is effective and serves the people, the businesses, the children, and the infrastructure. However, since smaller government does NOT always serve the people, and I site this example of what dirty Mr. Sessions is doing, a larger government oversight tactic must be undertaken until such time as it takes for the "natural process of people and things" takes control again. Oversight is always a needed option, Republicans are always open to this and have very often explained that it IS the Federal Government's job, otherwise, there would be no raison d'etre for the US HOR and Senate, let alone the Supreme Court and the White House branch of the US Government. It is very simple, and it is silly to site what most Republicans say that they are seeking and then seeing them do what is necessary, as being hypocrisy, it isn't. That would be like calling a doctor a hypocrite if he let someone gently pass away instead of suffering any longer. All of life is full or gray, NOT black and white. And THIS is a good spot to segway into what I think is the obvious way for Munis, business, government, and the people to live through this complex but easily simplified issue:
Let's say that Lautenberg and McCain win the fight, and God I hope they do, with passion! Let us say that those two men are intelligent and visionary enough to see things that other people don't, much as Einstein saw Relativity when the rest |
|
|
|
