Telco Sues City For Plan To Roll Out Own Broadband 681
Syngularity writes 'MaximumPC is featuring an article about one broadband provider's decision to sue the city of Monticello, Minnesota after residents passed a referendum to roll out their own fiber optic system. TDS Telecommunications had earlier denied the city's request for the company to provide fiber optic service. During the ensuing legal battle, which prevented the citizens from following through with their plans, TDS Telecommunications took the opportunity to roll out a fiber system.'
That'll learn 'em. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That'll learn 'em. (Score:5, Interesting)
Easier said then done..
Outside of large metro areas where we might be lucky if we have 2 options, most smaller areas are outright monopolies. I personally do not consider DSL broadband anymore, then again I have FIOS :) ....
I believe that the municipalities should put in the backbone connecting all the housing and business infrastructures of an area with their choice of networking, then lease that to the telcos and ISPs, that way, anyone who wants entry into the market just has to provide the infrastructure up to the municipal peering locations.
That would provide competition.. and easier entry for non incumbents...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...then lease that to the telcos and ISPs..."
FAIL
"...then lease that to whoever wants to provide service..."
FIXED
That's the kind of thinking that gets you into these constricted agreements.
Perhaps some building owners would like to contract for service. Around here (Phoenix), Qwest bundles DirecTV with DSL and POTS to entice us to jump ship and kiss cable goodbye. A complex could certainly negotiate a deal.
Of course, in Tempe, the municipal WiFi failed spectacularly. The provider didn't complete the net
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that the municipalities should invest all of the capital in the costliest part of rolling out broadband, then lease that to politically connected telcos and ISPs at costs so low the bonds used to build the network in the first place will never be repaid, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I could tell you about American Alarm in Orange County, CA who writes contracts seemingly with 1 length filled into a blank on the front but then a blanket 5 year term overriding on the back.
They have this fat, ugly, semi-female "non-lawyer" (I wrote that for her benefit since she routinely scours the internet looking for negative news about American Alarm so that she can bully sites into cleaning it up... Hi, you ugly piece of crap that was obviously raped as a child to do what you do and look like you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.
What was given by the government, can be taken away by the government.
It is just sad they do not do so when the other side has so clearly violated the terms of the exclusive contract.
Corporate welfare state (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.
Exclusive deals usually go sour before the ink is dry. It's not a new problem and if it were easily solved, it would be solved by now. Here's the obligatory quote summing up the problem:
It's tenacity probably owes something to shortcomings in human nature and the inability of society to self-correct in those areas.
Re:Corporate welfare state (Score:5, Informative)
Your Google-fu is weak my son. Apparently the quote really is from Heinlein's first published story, "Life-Line" [nielsenhayden.com], written in 1939.
Revoke TDS' exclusive license (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem solved. Actually I bet just the threat alone would be enough to make TDS fall on its knees and obey the government.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry I am not a tinfoil hat person but even I think this asking for trouble.
Re:Revoke TDS' exclusive license (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate your fear and concern about government run communications networks, but there are constitutional and other laws in place to ensure that whatever the government does in terms of snooping or investigating is available to public scrutiny. One way the government uses to get around this is by asking non-government entities to do the spying for them.
I think the concerns are the same regardless of who is running the show. But in this case, especially, it was the community at large who pushed for the creation of a fiber infrastructure. I think there would be less to fear from this particular government body than from the typical self-appointed/self-anointed government players we typically see day-to-day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>there are constitutional and other laws in place to ensure that whatever the government does in terms of snooping or investigating is available to public scrutiny.
>>>
Those constitutional guarantees didn't help this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com]
Or this guy (note this happened *nowhere near* the border): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc [youtube.com]
Actual footage of INNOCENT citizen being beaten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgejD6c-9YA&feature=related [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Though your point is fair, the other side is what you have now. Bottom line is (short term) profit measured in dollars American, not customer satisfaction or cultural significance or being leaders in the online community or any of that socialist crap. Shiny green dollars.
So what if you live in a moderately large city without a good deal on dsl? So what if your neighboring city does have decent broadband? So what if your connection is flaky? There is no competition due to the exclusive license and the way to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>How is a corporate monopoly (accountable only to their own profit) better than a government monopoly (accountable to voters)?
I would flip that around and ask (given recent events like healthcare) - How is a government monopoly (which routinely ignores the voters; can suck money directly from wallets, or send you off to die in Iraq or jail)..... better than a private monopoly like Comcast (which consumers can simply ignore and not buy the product)??? I think the gov't monopoly is far, far worse
1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Depart (Score:5, Funny)
For too long now, fire departments across the United States have been SOCIALIST organizations, resulting in TAXES on the American people.
FACT: Most Americans never use the socialized services of the fire department. We have the best fire departments in the world in the US, but that doesn't mean that anyone (even non-US citizens) should be able to dial up and have fires put out, etc. There are private companies (Halliburtion, Etc.) who could step in tomorrow and take over every fire department in America and charge the consumer directly.
This is AMERICA. NO FREE FIRE SAFETY.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in asbestos and carrying a fire hose."
This is THE new political movement in America. The Birther movement and The Teabagger movement have FAILED. We are The Flamer movement, and we are succeeding at tearing down ALL forms Socialism - starting with our Fire Departments.
Please tell everyone you know about this group.
When it comes to ObamaFireCare, remember, we are: Taxed Enough Already For American Red Truck Socialism.
"This is America. Pay to Spray." - Member Susan Weinberg
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1 Million Strong Against our SOCIALIST Fire Dep (Score:3, Interesting)
When I had a house fire a few months ago, the first truck on the scene was from a volunteer fire department, and they got there something like 3 minutes after 911 was called. Damn efficient, and at no cost to the taxpayer.
You're argument is a strawman (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, (and I'm getting more off topic) disease is a lot like fire. America will probably get a single payer health insurance plan after a plague does for health care what the London fire did for firefighting.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that the distinction? (Score:2)
Are you against parks, roads, post office, etc.?
This public safety distinction is entirely your own. Adam Smith wouldn't support it, neither would the founding fathers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"By your logic food should be provided by the government."
Haha, wow bro, have I got some news for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_stamps [wikipedia.org]
I would have taken the lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast did a massive advertisement campaign against the system and how if it failed we would foot the bill. They also had techncians out for three weeks straight installing new lines across the town. When it came to vote in my city of the three city's it failed 6000 votes to like 7500 votes, the funny part is, if the 6000 people who voted yes bought into the system and the system lasted for 5 years it would have paid itself and would have become self-sustaining.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha! (Score:4, Informative)
My company actually did some of the design for this. Now I know why they wanted such a fast turn around time on it.
The People's Republic of Burlington, VT (Score:3, Interesting)
Privitization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privitization (Score:4, Informative)
I used to live near one of those in suburban Chicago. It was still called Plank Road. An excerpt from a local paper (http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=5946).
"The roads were financed by private, state chartered corporations, in which stockholders expected to make a profit. Tolls, generally a penny a mile for a one-horse buggy or wagon and an additional half-cent for every other animal providing the power. Up in Wisconsin, driving from Milwaukee to Green Bay via the plank turnpike cost $3.78—a not inconsiderable sum when government land was selling for $1.25 per acre.
Here in Kendall County, Oswego was the target for two plank road ventures. According to “A History of the County of DuPage Illinois” published in 1857: “The Naperville and Oswego plank road was laid through the central part of this town [Naperville]. The projectors of this road thought to facilitate the communication between Oswego, Naperville and Chicago...The road was completed from Chicago to Naperville, but no farther. The project was a failure; the stock was worthless, for people would travel by railroad. The material of which the road was constructed is now being torn up and converted to other uses.”"
Re:Privitization (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't have to imagine what the country would look like - there's actually a neat historical example in Germany for this. At the end of the 18th century, Germany was splintered into many local city states, and had approximately 1800 customs barriers. The impact on traffic and goods was so blatantly obvious to everyone that the states voluntarily abandoned their individual independence and formed toll coalitions.
The people who argue for privatization of everything are merely ignorant of history. Most of their ideas have been tried already, and abandoned because of their catastrophic impact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so creepy when you know that the founders of Second Life read Snow Crash and intentionally tried to build the system described in the book.
Same with Google Earth.
Can someone explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
... on what grounds TDS sued the town? This is not explained in the article.
Wiring is infrastructure (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm as free market as anybody, but wiring is infrastructure, and I don't have a problem with infrastructure being provided by the government. Let the local government, through the power utility, run fiber optic to everyplace that receives power, unless a private company provides a 100MB connection to the house for less than $20. That 100MB line should have low enough latency to provide live TV and VOIP phone connections. If the private companies won't build a better product than can be provided publicly, they shouldn't expect protection from competition.
Shooting themselves in the foot... (Score:2)
free market (Score:4, Interesting)
So, they're not friends of competition, are they?
50-100 years ago we had this collective dream of free markets, capitalism, solving our problems.
Then, corporations found out that the actual free market is bad for profit margins. Once they grew powerful enough, they started changing the game.
Events like this should have the capitalists and free market supporters up in arms. But it doesn't. Why?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Separate delivery from production" doesn't solve anything.
Say we do that, and three water companies provide water to some common pool, and one water distribution company sends that water around.
What have you solved? You still have a one-company bottleneck - the distribution company - that can charge whatever it wants to deliver the utility, because the one thing you definitely don't want to do is install two identical delivery systems.
So let's look at it from a customer's perspective: Jim wants water, so
We've covered this before (old news) (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
< waves hand > This is not the dupe you're looking for
Greenlight (Score:4, Informative)
FTTP, up to 100 symmetric bandwidth, and the telecoms threw a freaking fit, and did their best to annihilate municipal broadband, and failed to stop it.
To All The Constitution Advocates (Score:5, Informative)
The Constitution defines the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. All other powers are reserved for the state. Nothing, even in looking at the founding father's writings imply that LOCAL GOVERNMENT cannot compete with private industry. The City of Monticello is not, despite the suprising ignorance shown here this topic, part of the Federal Government.
The City is more then capable of telling you what colors you can paint your house, where you can and cannot plant trees, and so forth. The issue building permits and license everything from the number of dogs you can have to how often you can water your lawn. They also can restrict businesses from opening from granting licenses to zoning requirements.
Cities and Counties and even States run and operate businesses as far back as the 13 colonies. We have Police Depts, Fire Depts, various inspectors (electrical (state), building (city), surveyors (county), assessors, DNR, etc... All of which can be hired in the capacity of a business in the form of permits and special services (Fire dept. will burn a building down for you, police can be hired for security for special events, etc.)
The sheer ignorance and lack of understanding of what the Constitution of the United States actually does is astonishing. The fact that when I was in high school and we were required in social studies to actually read the federalist papers compared to the teachers now that, "that stuff is nothing but a bunch of lies" thank you teachers union in district 622 here in MN speaks on how much misinformation exists on the purpose.
Of course I expect little from my home state now, we've elected a wrestler and now a bad comedian. Perhaps Louie Anderson can run against Frankin... Hell I'd be happy to have KKKKAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN! KKKKKKKAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN!!!! tossed out...
For those that do understand the Constitution, kudos for keeping the arguments rooted in reality.
Re:To All The Constitution Advocates (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't knock the comedians. Most comedians are very intelligent people, and as knowledgable or more than the averaged informed person. They are so intelligent, in fact, that they long ago realized that the best way to put out controversial statements is through comedy, that the best way to combat ridiculousness is not by shouting it down, but through ridicule.
You can't say certain things and get away with it, but comedians can in their routine. Why do you think the Daily Show and Colbert Report are so popular? They say the things that we're all thinking, but we can't say for fear of the repurcussions. You don't see people calling Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert unpatriotic when they constantly derided Bush and co. But any other public figure would've had hell to pay had they said the same thing, on or off the air.
So don't go knocking comedians. They make people think while making them laugh.
Re:To All The Constitution Advocates (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Franken wasn't elected because of his comedy work exactly. Starting with Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot he used his comedy celebrity to engage in political advocacy. You may disagree with his politics, but he does actually stand for something, and if you read his books and listen to his speeches he'll let you know exactly what he stands for.
I mean, if we're going to have a "no celebrities in politics" rule, then obviously Ronald Reagan should never have been president, but often the same folks who vilify Senator Franken for being an ill-informed celebrity are the same folks who wanted to name an airport after Reagan.
Just too greedy (Score:2)
It's like the electric companies taking the city to court for allowing a band of citizens from using solar panels to get their electricity.
Seriously, they are way too greedy, and need to be reminded how this works. If citizens bought the optic fiber and lay it down at their cost from house to house, to share within their own network , the advantage of using optic fiber, then so be it, how can you say they do not have the right, especially if it was voted on and passed as a bill by the council themselves. Th
TDS does suck (Score:4, Funny)
My available options for broadband in my home?
Comcast and TDS.
And yes, I get better customer service from Comcast. Which should tell you something about TDS.
Link to the Decision (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0906/opa081928-0602.pdf [state.mn.us]
What we need here is... (Score:3)
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're against public roads then.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least public roads are directly funded by those who use them (drivers). If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
That should be true of all government-provided systems. You want to send a letter: you pay the cost of the stamp. You want to ride the subway or metro train: you pay the ticket. You want to build a house in Nowhere, Virginia: You pay the installation costs. There should not be any subsidization for these services by non-users. Not one single dime.
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Gas taxes cover the costs on repairs, and the more expensive the fuel. The more expensive gas, the more the input revenue is. You know what the real problem is? All that money is put into general revenue, not for roads. So instead of paying directly for what it should be. That gas tax money is paying for in most cases education, or services.
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Interesting)
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains. I've sat in the State House and seen the vote for myself - money taken from the road fund and used to build a new rail line from Tysons Corner to Towson.
The senior minority leader had a fit, saying it was a misappropriation of funds, but of course he was unable to stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Annual maintenance is only part of the cost of public roads. There is also the cost of building the roads, and many other associated costs. Gas taxes alone do not cover all of these costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an entirely bad thing.
(You live in Oregon too, right?)
Now it would suck for those who live outside the metro areas, but I actually find that when I go into Portland, I prefer the MAX (train) to driving. Once you total up gas costs, parking fees, aggravation from driving down there... the train makes a hell of a lot more sense.
It's not just in metro areas anymore, though - unlike most states, Oregon is also expanding the lines outward from PDX - I'm hoping they stretch 'em out to the coast, down t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Once you total up gas costs, parking fees, aggravation from driving down there... the train makes a hell of a lot more sense.
I agree! in Chicago I use the train almost exclusively. The problem is that most people from around here freak when I say that.. One mother of a friend of my daughters said, "The train? and have to be around all those icky poor people?"
Most people here in the USA are bred to be against public transportation. They think it's "icky" and they see them belching black smoke so it's "di
Re: (Score:2)
False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains.
Show me a "light rail" in my state and I'll eat it. Light rail is just a tease in most places. Where I live, I subsidize gasoline (actually gasohol blend) with my general taxes. That's right -- you get a state-subsidized discount (around 20 cents/gallon) if you buy blended gas/ethanol.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that gas taxes do not even come close to covering the costs of building and maintaining the road network. Public roads are heavily subsidized.
So you want higher gas taxes?
Well, yeah. I want higher gas taxes -- and correspondingly lower general taxes. We're saying that the roads are paid for by the users, except they're not, so that would be the way to correct that.
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
As a second point everyone benefits from good roads not just those who drive on them. Police and fire departments can respond better on good roads. Less congestion means better air quality. Better roads also bring in more business which means more jobs. The road infrastructure is tied into almost everything we do. Thus everyone helps pay for it. Your precept that only those who drive benefit from roads is both short sighted and incorrect.
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't drive, then you don't pay the "use fee" collected at the pumps.
Your kidding, right? Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax. Do you purchase food at local stores? Guess how it got there.. You pay more as a driver, but everybody helps pay for it. But mostly, Look at water.
You know, other easy to make comments aside, you have no idea how much we take water for granted in the US. The vast majority of Americans are given very clean drinking water, and their waste is treated, by the government. We take that for granted, but many illnesses that used to be very common are exceedingly rare in the US. People talk about bottled water, and how much it makes for the companies, but its usage pales in comparison to a single days output from a municipal system. If you want to see the errors in your very conservative logic, go read about south America, where several nations (bolivia comes to mind) have "sold" the exclusive rights to make drinking water to a private, profit driven company. Make sure you read about the riots, protests, cost increases, and even how some protesters were killed. Meanwhile, we take it for granted here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Informative)
Do you ride the bus? Buses run on Diesel (mostly.) which pays road tax.
No they don't. Special pumps owned by the city, filled with gas on which the taxes are not paid, same for all other city vehicles.
Re:Not government's job - call the wambalance (Score:4, Insightful)
what happnes when you dont drive - dont pay for the road and you have a heart attack does the ambalance have to drive cross country because YOU never contributed to a road in your life?
Should someone come and take all the pavement and street lighting etc up at your your house?
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Police are not babysitters. They are not there to protect us from ourselves. They are there to defend property and citizens from each other. For those reasons they are important.
If thugs go after some ethnic group that isn't yours you should not have to pay for their protection.
What does ethnicity have to do with anything? They are people too and would get the same protections of property and self as any other ethnicity.
If some indigent gets sick or insured you shouldn't have to pay for their care. Let them die if they don't have the money.
In a perfect and ideal world, no this would never happen. However ( and this is the point that everyone in the healthcare debate seems to miss ) It costs money to prov
Re: (Score:2)
So, I no longer wish to pay for lights in areas of town that I will never visit, refuse to pay for schools because I have no children, can see no purpose to having my tax dollars pay for the Interstate Highway system in New Hampshire as I will never go there, will not subsidize additions to my local airport as I do not fly and refuse to subsidize the building of fire houses except in the area that I live in.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is a Social Contract?"
Correct! For $1000!
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
It is called a trade off. When the government spends money on infrastructure it isn't throwing it away. That money will provide jobs to people in the US those people will buy stuff and provide more jobs and all those people will pay taxes. Some of that stuff may be education for their children or themselves which will pay more benefits.
Think about the rural electrification project from the 1930s. That paid huge benefits to the country in increased productivity and quality of life in rural America
In the end things like roads, phone lines, and now data lines are used by everybody. The more people that have access the more benefit to everybody. I know that it is may be unpopular to say it but $300 spent on infrastructure will benefit the US a lot more than that same money spent on a game console made in china by a Japanese company.
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
Except in this case the citizens *asked* the government to perform this service (hence the part about the referendum). This isn't the government "dabbling" in other services. This is a government doing exactly what it's citizens are asking it to.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same argument that the incumbent carriers used to fight the municipal fiber optic system in Chattanooga TN. The carriers lost that battle in the courts and Chattanooga is well on it's way with the deployment of fiber everywhere in the city.
The tactic used is to make the legal costs so high that the municipality or district will just give up (they have had some successes with that technique).
I am not against free enterprise, innovation and competition but the incumbent telephone and cable TV carr
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a valid point (it's called "tyranny of the majority" to squash the minority underfoot). But I can not lay my hand on any part of Monticello City's constitution that forbids them from creating a fiber-optic company. Can you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're against the post office? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And just what is the internet, if not an extremely advanced post system?
Seems to me that it's not inconceivable that an ISP functions as a sort of post office...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you READ the article, douchington, or do your Ayn Rand superpowers render that unnecessary? The private company refused to provide a service that the residents wanted, so said residents passed a referendum to do it themselves. The private company turned around and used the court system to hold up the process while it built a system, and is now butthurt because the city might offer competition.
And yes, TJ is rolling over in his grave - because idiots like you try to invoke his name.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Insightful)
This is capitalism at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. Their town; their decision.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine. Their town; their decision.
But rather than have government do the job, I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it." Corporations have the expertise and experience to do the job, which politicians lack, so let corporations handle it.
Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic. Sometimes something is of the collective interest of everybody, then, in general, there are no differences. When everbody agrees (more or less) is when you create a governmental postal system, fire dept., health care, roads, and in this case communication. There should always be private alternatives and they should never be banned, as that would be anti capitalistic as well. But adding the artificial constrain on a market which means prohibiting the formation of a governmental company does not foster sane capitalism. There should be fair grounds though, but that's easily arranged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Preventing the creation of a governmental company, no matter what line of business, is anti capitalistic
Yeah I agree.
So what's that have to do with my original statement, that I think a private corporation like Verizon FiOS would do a better job? This is no different than if the U.S. Army says "we need more tanks." They don't build the tanks themselves. They ring-up Lockheed or Northrop or some other corporation and have them build the tanks.
Also: I don't agree with your premise that a gover
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Interesting)
The Citizens of Monticello request several times to TDS Telecommunications that they upgrade the cities connection. They kept saying "Soon, we'll get to it" That is when the citizens, not the government, passed a referendum to install a city run fiber network.
It was only after the city started installing that TDS Telecommunications sued the city and tied them up in a prolong court battle, which prevented them from continuing their install. During that time they started laying fiber of their own, by the time the city won the law suit TDS Telecommunications had completed their project and now offer 50mb to every household there for about 50$ a month.
I guess this just shows if you want your ISP to upgrade your connection, pass a law to get the city to do it and force their hand.
Re:Not government's job (Score:4, Insightful)
Goes to show the biggest enemy of the free market is...the free market.
Re:Not government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
The government runs pipes all the time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Municipality can run water pipes, sewer pipes, and gas pipes.
Please tell me why the Internet pipe is any different from these other pipes.
Re:The government runs pipes all the time! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few roles that government must play. It must provide its citizens protection and a working legal framework. But when the government decides to dabble in providing other services, especially ones in which there already exists private enterprise, there is nothing gained but bureaucracy and government bloat.
Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.
You might want to study a little history, Thomas Jefferson's economic policy was a disaster which put the US deeply into debt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jefferson and his colleagues wrote the federal constitution, laying out the powers and operation of the federal government with other powers reserved to the people or the states. The constitution they wrote placed considerable
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wish the system could do something good for o (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't relate to the article, but I can't not respond to the parent.
You're complaining about the youth offenders system in Australia? On /. ? People complaining about short jail sentences, particularly for young offenders was why I had to stop reading the forums on Canadian news sites. Canada and Australia both have extremely low crime rates because the criminal justice system has reasonable sentences, especially for young people. I'm tired of the "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality; it focuses on vengeance rather than prevention.
The role of the criminal justice system is to make streets a safer place, not to make you feel better after crimes have been committed. If you make it impossible for offenders to find jobs or otherwise become part of society again you limit their options and increase the likelihood of a re-offense. Certainly a strong punishment is necessary for the enforcement of laws but longer sentences are not the solution to crime; they're a simple campaign line for politicians because everyone loves to hear it. The only important factor is making sure that the fewest possible crimes occur.
I plan to move to Australia later this year. Don't fuck it up before I get there. (It already seems to be the only developed country with worse internet service than Canada, which makes me sad, although the weather looks better.)
Re:I wish the system could do something good for o (Score:4, Interesting)
Well if killing were always wrong, you'd have a point, but there are times where its justified.
Personally, I think its a great way to deal with the dregs of society; eliminate the ones causing problems, and you'll only be left with people who aren't causing problems.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Light Yagami, is that you?
Re:I wish the system could do something good for o (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I wish the system could do something good for o (Score:4, Insightful)
Fucking prick.
Re:I wish the system could do something good for o (Score:5, Informative)
TFA sucks and sucks hard. Ars Technica has a far better article [arstechnica.com]. The suit is over, it started two years ago and the telco lost.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ridiculous, there should have been a "stay", "restraining order", or whatever, to stop either party from building infrastructure until a ruling could be made.
But preventing the Telco from doing it would be *gasp* SOCIALISM!!!!!11!1!1
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think they're just thankful to have the service at all - I recall many of the monopolies in Minnesota are not terribly competitive. You have Comcast, the cable monopoly that aggressively goes after the high speed network market and offers high priced TV packages (compared to satellite) and anyone that uses the Qwest or Covad backbones and neither of those providers sees any reason to keep up with Comcast. Nearly everyone I know in Minnesota uses Comcast for high speed internet, and last time I checked B