Printable View
... small govt, intrusive government, libertarianism, but they really ACT only for corporate rights and crushing municipalities.
Telecom-Funded North Carolina House Votes To Gut Cheap And Fast Public Broadband
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/02/...orth-carolina/
Good for them.
You should be applauding the provision that they cannot subsidize the service in competition with a private industry. Tax payers should not be paying for the destruction of private industry.
I you are for that....
Fuck you, you communist pinko fag.
Hey WC, you know that many companies were already paid by the federal gov to increase broadband penetration?
Why can't you keep an open mind on these things?
:hangQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
WC exposed as a fucking ideological idiot, again.
If a community votes to provide itself, with its own tax dollars (investment bonds) and subscriber fees, with non-profit broadband Internet, where's the problem?
For WC and the Repugs, Corporate-Americans have the exclusive right to operate in UCA.
Any "community organized", non-profit activity by Human-Americans is strictly VERBOTEN as anti-corporate and socialist.
Here we have state GOVERNMENT INTRUDING in municipal affairs, to protect and enhance the profits of Corporate-Americans.
Aren't Repugs supposed to be AGAINST intrusive, overbearing, regulating government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Undoubtedly, municipal public works are bolshevism at its worst.
Anyways, if a local community wants to provide it for itself, what's the problem?
It's easier to buy a legislature than to buy the voters.
Much cheaper, and more reliable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I don't have a problem if it was voted for by the public, and with their tax dollars like paying more in property taxes or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Do you think this had a public vote? I think not. I'll bet it was something similar to what Portland, OR did with the free wireless internet service. The liberal city council members just decide to do it, and did.
Keep fighting the good fight for your rich corporate overlords, WC. You're a good useful idiot, and my stock portfolio thanks you.
Do you even know what the bill is about, or do you just read the headlines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Also note the vote was 81 to 37.
HOUSE BILL 129
Who will have to answer to the voters. If the public wants it and is willing to pay for it, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Weren't the city council members voted into office by the public? Isn't that the way democratic government is supposed to function? I vote for someone whom I believe will run the (city, county, state, national) government in a way that I approve?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Don't you imagine that governance could/would become somewhat messy and expensive if everything that a city council might decide had to go to the voters in a separate referendum?
It better be a clear majority. I still have a problem with government harming private industry by undercutting their price, and replacing them with government jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Do you like that concept?
The bill is a good bill. It states than government cannot give such services at a loss. There is an exception that allows them to do so in areas that are less than 50% covered by the communications companies.
Why do you want to increase tax parer burdens?
Grand. Let's replace state governments with colonial corporations just like in olden times.
Do I need to add that big telcos received a boatload of subsidies from the govt to actually deploy that broadband and it never materialized?
lol the private industry 'competing'...
OK, so two wrongs equal a right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm beginning to figure you out.
So, they're not competing against your run-off-the-mill private industry...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I have you figured out a long time ago.
They are regulated, and I do think they are over priced.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Why are you changing the argument? The intent of the legislation is to keep tax payer dollars from paying for the service, except where the service does not already exist.
It does not say the cities cannot undercut the monthly cost. It just says they cannot operate at a loss.
If you allow government to undercut the private sector with forced losses, what does that say about your morality?
I'm not changing the argument. You're simply wrong when you state they're competing against 'private industry' (in this case). They're competing against a private industry that was granted heavy subsidies to do something they never did (thus the reason you see community-based broadband deployment). Now that they see there might be a market, they want to take over it without actually competing for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So what's the big deal? Being unable to operate at a loss means that they won't be sucking tax-payer dollars. What do you mean 'undercutting'? That they could potentially offer a better deal than the corp? That's better value for the consumer, without them having to spend tax dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sounds that what you're really afraid of is of some actual competition. If government-run stuff is so bad, there should be nothing you should be afraid of.
Forced losses? What are you babbling about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The government-run service has to provide the same service as the corp, or just as good, otherwise people will flock the other way. And they have to do it without showing a loss.
That's very anti-competitive and authoritarian of you. Morals have nothing to do with it.
That's right ElKnowItAll...
Don't address what the bill actually does.
---EDIT---
Looks like you may actually be supporting my view on this. You have me confused.
You explained it very well already. A profit-neutral, government-run service provider, that cannot operate at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not sure why you don't want the Free Market decide who runs a better service. If your claim that anything government-run is inefficient and bad, then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.
As far as the consumer goes, more competition should bring better value, right?
The OP is a complaint about the legislation. The legislation is what requires that the government run services cannot operate at a loss. Without this legislation, the government can harm the private industry by forcing them to operate at a loss also.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What side are you on?
I'm on the side that promotes competition. Unfortunately, a lot of places like these paid with taxpayer dollars to subsidize broadband access to these companies, and they never received it. Also, a lot of places like this only have a monopoly as the only non-government option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I wouldn't be opposed for limiting the potential losses to the same amount of the subsidy that the private company received or still receives. At that point, they would only be on equal footing.
If you read the legislation, you will see it isn't anything like the OP suggests. It does not go overboard in protecting the cable companies. There are provisions for the local governments to build and operate at a loss, in areas that have less than 50% coverage by the cable companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I see no problems with the legislation. Do you?