Nearly Half of Colorado Counties Have Rejected a Comcast-Backed Law Restricting City-Run Internet (vice.com) 128
bumblebaetuna shares a report from Motherboard: In Tuesday's Coordinated Election, two Colorado counties voted on ballot measures to exempt themselves from a state law prohibiting city-run internet services. Both Eagle County and Boulder County voters approved the measures, bringing the total number of Colorado counties that have rejected the state law to 31 -- nearly half of the state's 64 counties. Senate Bill 152 -- which was lobbied for by Big Telecom -- became law in Colorado in 2005, and prohibits municipalities in the state from providing city-run broadband services.
Some cities prefer to build their own broadband network, which delivers internet like a utility to residents, and is maintained through subscription costs. But ever since SB 152 was enacted, Colorado communities have to first bring forward a ballot measure asking voters to exempt the area from the state law before they can even consider starting a municipal broadband service. So that's what many of them have done. In addition to the 31 counties that have voted to overrule the state restrictions, dozens of municipalities in the state have also passed similar ballot measures. Including cities, towns, and counties, more than 100 communities in Colorado have pushed back against the 12-year-old prohibition, according to the Institute for Local Self Reliance.
Some cities prefer to build their own broadband network, which delivers internet like a utility to residents, and is maintained through subscription costs. But ever since SB 152 was enacted, Colorado communities have to first bring forward a ballot measure asking voters to exempt the area from the state law before they can even consider starting a municipal broadband service. So that's what many of them have done. In addition to the 31 counties that have voted to overrule the state restrictions, dozens of municipalities in the state have also passed similar ballot measures. Including cities, towns, and counties, more than 100 communities in Colorado have pushed back against the 12-year-old prohibition, according to the Institute for Local Self Reliance.
That's odd (Score:2, Insightful)
What could possibly motivate state legislators vote for a law that restricts the ability of communities to compete with companies?
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
In some ways, that's worse. Bribery is at least logical, and can be outlawed. The cult of the free market on the other hand cannot be reasoned with, nor can you jail someone for it.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Bribery is at least logical, and can be outlawed. The cult of the free market on the other hand cannot be reasoned with, nor can you jail someone for it.
Bribery can be obfuscated, and the strongest "cult" is the one with the most money to build the biggest church on the most valuable piece of property. Politician say "GOVERNMENT NO MAKE JOBS!!!", corporation/fat-cat say "Good boy, now roll-over while Daddy pays Super-PAC to produce vicious attack-ads to run at all hours on all channels of his big cable network spanning every district."
Politician say "Big cable GOOD! Big cable GOOD!"
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
lobbyists are just blatant baksheesh in Washington DC
FTFY ;^)
Re: (Score:2)
lobbyists are just legalized bribery in Washington DC
Oh really? Do you care to qualify this? I mean *ALL* lobbying can't be legalized bribery, can it? If I go to DC and ask my senators for clean air and water does that mean I've committed some kind of legalized bribery?
I'm sure that there are solar power lobbyists in DC right now. Wind power lobbyists too. Lobbyists for public education, blood and organ donation, drunk driving prevention, drug legalization, drug crime mandatory minimums, nuclear power, anti-nuclear power, and lobbyists for lobbyists. Re
Re: That's odd (Score:1)
Asking by talking is not the same as asking by giving the politician money. Giving the politician money so they will listen to you is the same as legalized bribery. The politician listens better to the larger donor, so yes, votes are purchased.
Re: That's odd (Score:1)
Because there are exceptions doesnâ(TM)t mean a comment is not substantively correct. As one who has been part of the process, buying laws that are not good for the majority of constituents is easily 90%+ of lobbying in my opinion. At least in the USA. you donâ(TM)t get a say unless you are quite wealthy. Well, you have a say, itâ(TM)s just that nobody listens.
Re: (Score:1)
Many times, Comcast and friends aren't using the 'free market' excuse because they have a monopoly over the county. They use the 'socialism is bad' (which, strictly obeyed, would ban the municipal government), or the 'privatisation is the answer' (no-body ask what the question was) arguments.
Re: (Score:1)
You're suggesting bribery, but I think a lot of state legislators are/were simply motivated by the religious belief
They were perhaps more motivated by the logic that allowing cities to cherry-pick broadband service and compete against the same company that they regulate to be unfair. The city has created a contractual agreement with Comcast or other cable service to provide a list of services to the city residents, but will not have the same rules or requirements for the service they provide. They will also not have the costs or the losses, since any losses will be taxpayer reimbursed.
It's not like there's a monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
The city and their stockholders, I mean residents, are happy to make 1% or less profit. What private company is going to be happy with that?
Re: (Score:1)
The city and their stockholders, I mean residents, are happy to make 1% or less profit.
The city is happy to operate at a loss. The "stockholders" who want cheap internet are happy to let the other stockholders who don't cover the loses. It's an involuntary stockholder relationship.
What private company is going to be happy with that?
If ANY private company could operate at a profit, they'd be trying. One cost that a private company doesn't have is the public employee pension system, so they should be able to profit if the city can break even.
But, of course, the city will just regulate the competitor so it cannot make a profit, either. That's
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
From a plain language perspective, it's pretty obvious that government can make jobs. At a minimum any government official is holding a job position that wouldn't exist without the government. Those officials will likely create a lot of other government jobs as part of a bureaucracy in service of those initial jobs, much like a company has administrative assistants, HR departments, and plenty of other staff that don't have anything to do with the core business of the company. Similarly, the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies all need staff. The Department of Homeland Security certainly created a lot of jobs in order to fulfill the purposes it was created for.
But here's the funny thing. Government doesn't create jobs, but neither do companies. Sure a company can employee people for some task just like a government does, but the company can't just create any job at its whim. I could pay a few hundred people to create sculptures of 16th century philosophers fashioned entirely out of their own shit, but I could scarcely afford to for very long. It's consumer demand that ultimately creates jobs, and not any one person's particular whims about what kind of labor should be done. Unless you have customers willing to pay for your products, any job you might create is extremely temporary at best.
The notion that governments can't create jobs isn't about whether or not they can pay people to perform some activity. It's plainly obvious that they can. What is really meant by the phrase is that governments can't hope to direct the economy because they cannot possible imagine what it is that people actually want and value most. The Soviets and many others tried and failed miserably to direct economies no matter how much effort they devoted to central planning. That is also plainly obvious from history.
The difference is that a free market system allows for participants to see the kinds of jobs created that they're willing to pay to maintain rather than have them created by government decree. Furthermore, a government ban on municipal services is against free market principles. Also long as a city municipal internet company does not have any unfair competitive advantages by law, there's no reason why that option shouldn't exist. A free market cannot possibly exist if the government has legislated a monopoly.
If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses. Government jobs tend not to go away once created, even when most people wouldn't want to buy those services in any form. Look no further than the TSA for an example of where the government is forcing something down consumers throats when you'd be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to voluntarily purchase that kind of service.
Re: (Score:2)
If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses. Government jobs tend not to go away once created, even when most people wouldn't want to buy those services in any form. Look no further than the TSA for an example of where the government is forcing something down consumers throats when you'd be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to voluntarily purchase that kind of service.
There's broad community support, particularly from those that don't fly or at least don't fly often, for the TSA. People do want to /feel/ safe.
Trouble is most people get really annoyed about the government interference that stops them pissing in the stream, but really think something should be done about those folks up the hill pissing in the stream.
Re: (Score:2)
If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses
That's a compelling argument, I've never thought about it that way.
Two points though:
One: Saying "Government doesn't create jobs" is a fucking lie then. The statement should be "government doesn't create jobs that go away," except that would of course make it sound like a good thing.
Two: That's a pretty big generalization that doesn't hold up. Government funded scientist jobs get cut all the time. Many government jobs, including municipal broadband workers don't go away because the need doesn't go awa
Re: (Score:3)
What is really meant by the phrase is that governments can't hope to direct the economy because they cannot possible imagine what it is that people actually want and value most.
When it comes to things like consumer goods, government is ill-suited to satisfy consumer demand. Tastes change, and innovation is critical. Both are better handled by private entities.
When it comes to basic utilities like water, power, and now Internet service, government does just fine. The product is absurdly simple and demand is more-or-less universal. And before the "must sell all public utilities" cult took over, government delivered those utilities at a lower cost than the now-private utility com
Re: (Score:2)
Governments have already created monopolies, that's how Comcast got the upper hand in the first place. Forbidding municpal broadband would in essence be the same as supporting the Comast monopoly. Except for those people who somehow don't believe that monopolies exist or that they can last long because their free market religion forbids such heresy. People in the real world however know that the free market screws up all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The Citizens United verdict made bribery a perfectly legal item, as money is considered free speech.
The CU decision reiterated what was existing law. That law said that corporations have the right to free speech, because corporations are made up of people who have the right to free speech. Money is not "free speech", but money is necessary for effective speech.
The taxpayers should not be paying for Internet access.
Yep. And the government should not be in direct competition with companies that they regulate, especially when the government is cherry-picking the services it provides.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, government should step in with Colorado. The taxpayers should not be paying for Internet access. Companies who know what they are doing and can provide top tier service and support should be doing this. Not government bureaucrats who can't even spell "TCP/IP".
In reality, Coloradans are excited about having additional options for broadband that compete with commercial offerings without touching taxes. For me, this means faster speeds from a company that is not using their profit to lobby against my values. If the the "market" provided this service, we wouldn't have voted for local government intervention.
reason.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because the legal power to force you to pay for a service whether you want it or not is not competition? If a private concern did that, you'd rightfully howl.
Are you going to exempt people who continue to buy the better private service? What? Nooo?
What surprise!
To give you a hint of what's to come, Detroit Metro airport built a massive new parking structure, staffed it, and nobody came. Private shuttle services to lots a mile or more away were more than worth it. So the government passed a "government
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, didn't GM dump its bankruptcy on the government?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you know companies do exactly the same thing.
No they don't. Cable and utility services are natural monopolies [wikipedia.org], and will be abused if not regulated. But airport parking is NOT a natural monopoly, and in this case the monopoly was imposed by government coercion. That is not "the exact same thing".
Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense. If the government builds a park, everyone pays even if they will never use the park, because they still benefit from rising property values since the park ma
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense
Perhaps, but this point is moot if other local governments in Colorado use the model that the city of Fort Collins just approved. Our plan creates an "enterprise fund" whiose funds "can only be spent on a specific purpose and rely on charges and user fees generated by the service to recover cost." [private communication from city manager's office]. Users of competing broadband providers will not be taxed in any way to subsidize the city's program.
Re: (Score:3)
Users of competing broadband providers will not be taxed in any way to subsidize the city's program.
What happens when the fees don't cover the costs? And who is paying to install the infrastructure before there are any fees being collected to pay for it?
Taxpayers are always on the hook for city services. If any service doesn't collect enough fees to cover costs, taxpayers have to fill in the deficit.
[private communication from city manager's office]
Politicians are scum who lie every time they speak, unless they say something we like. Then they are speaking gospel truth. If you listen carefully to what he said, you will note that it does NOT say that the
Re: That's odd (Score:5, Informative)
What happens when the fees don't cover the costs? And who is paying to install the infrastructure before there are any fees being collected to pay for it?
Taxpayers are always on the hook for city services. If any service doesn't collect enough fees to cover costs, taxpayers have to fill in the deficit.
First, let me say this. We won. You lost. Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
I know that was childish, but it actually does make me feel better and may well be the best way to address your misinformation and conspiracy theory.
OK. Here's the deal. Ft. Collins taxpayers have agreed, by vote in this election, to allow the city to issue bonds for the broadband enterprise fund, to be repaid by network subscribers. In doing so, we collectively agreed that the benefits outweigh the risks, and we implicitly accept that in the unlikely event of failure we will cover the bonds or face city bankruptcy.
Your objection has been noted, but you have been outvoted,.
If there aren't enough "enterprise fund" monies to cover the costs, the general fund is the next stop.
You are plainly wrong here. The new utility is an enterprise fund [msrb.org], which, in this case, has its finances separated from other city funding.
You've also forgotten, what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. Our Fair City has set up lots of "funds" that are intended for a special purpose, only to wind up with a change later that puts the money into the general fund for general spending, or even better, to change the "special purpose" that the fees are spent on. ("Temporary road use fee on the water bill to pay for repair of two sections of road the contractor screwed up" has morphed into "permanent general road repair fund so we can spend the general fund money on something else", for one example.)
Well... Taxation is constrained by TaBOR [wikipedia.org], so I would not be surprised to learn that some creative redirection has been enacted. But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.
Re: (Score:2)
First, let me say this. We won. You lost. Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
This is what mods call "informative"? Wow. By the way, I didn't "lose".
You are plainly wrong here. The new utility is an enterprise fund, which, in this case, has its finances separated from other city funding.
Did you bother to read your link? I did. It says that the funds in an enterprise fund are "generally" sequestered for use for that service. It does NOT say that losses experienced in that service will not be covered by other sources of money, such as the general fund. The cite you give is explicit to that. Let me quote it for your information: "In some cases, however, the governmental entity may be permitted to use funds in an enterprise
Re: (Score:2)
But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.
What a disingenuous statement. Nobody said that non-participants have to pay the "fees charged" by the city internet. The issue is that they have to pay the TAXES that back the service and cover the costs that the fees don't. They've already had to pay the taxes that went into the $20 million DORA grant funding. They'll have to pay the taxes that fund the bonds during system construction. So no, the "fees" are not the issue at all, but you probably know that.
And if the incumbents have to increase prices based on lower subscriber numbers (fixed costs spread across fewer payers, basic economics) that is, effectively, a tax on users of that service because the increased cost was directly due to government competition. That's also an issue.
Read my lips: no internet taxes! At least not for Ft. Collins, Longmont, and cities like them. I'm not going to explain debt (bond) funding here, which you plainly do not understand, but in my city's case the bonds are funded by fees not taxes.
Regarding Colorado's DORA Broadband Fund: This fund supports underserved areas of the state which cannot obtain adequate internet connectivity. Personally, I think this is the right thing to do. DORA grants are not going to cities like mine.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why the telecom lines should be treated as public infrastructure. This was true after the breakup of AT&T, all the competing new phone companies were allowed to make use of AT&Ts existing infrastructure, even those companies that were not originally a part of AT&T (ie, Sprint and such). The infrastructure created by monopolies like Time Warner and Comcast should be opened up to allow competition under the same rules as for telephone companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Private concerns do it all the time. They get "redevelopment funds" to build out the infrastructure, but then it is privately owned. You, the taxpayer, end up paying for it whether you use it or not, but you don't get the benefit of the government continuing to own the infrastructure and getting to benefit by leasing it to ISPs. Private infrastructu
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of unreasonable regulatory hurdles from incumbent ISPs, new fiber providers kick the living crap out of the incumbents cost-wise and service-wise,
Quite right. A city operated ISP without those regulatory hurdles will always win over a cable system that has to follow the franchise contract. A city "company" that has to provide only ISP services can certainly operate more cheaply than a cable system that the city mandates must provide ISP, cable, and other services. (That's what is meant by "cherry-picking". The city picks the services it wants to provide; the cable company has a contract with the city to do all of them.) That's why the city should not
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast starts with good connections to each house, and so internet service is not that difficult. Having a city infrastructure (which will typically build connections to each house) is going to cost a lot of money.
Cable TV at least used to make money, which is why cable companies went to all that bother to get the franchises. Forcing someone to bundle a profitable service in with another service that uses most of the same equipment doesn't sound particularly onerous.
Now, if you like your Comcast ser
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast starts with good connections to each house, and so internet service is not that difficult.
"Internet service" on the level that Comcast operates (national) is much much more than just a wire to the house. It is a complete network infrastructure, including hardware to piggyback a network service on top of a cable television service.
Having a city infrastructure (which will typically build connections to each house) is going to cost a lot of money.
Yep. But it cost Comcast a lot of money, and on an ongoing basis, to build and maintain its internet service, too.
Cable TV at least used to make money, which is why cable companies went to all that bother to get the franchises.
Cable TV still makes money or Comcast wouldn't be doing it. No company can operate at a loss. Undercutting the existing ISPs by selectively removing costs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money. Michigan just had a little episode involving a Senator from Comcast. Michele Hoitenga introduced a bill to block any township or municipal funding of community broadband initiatives state wide. She did this because there are some now voter approved plans to wire up a few semi-rural townships that Comcast et al. can't be bothered with, and because the telcoms and cable outfits are funding her campaign.
People are clued in though; she withdrew the bill [stopthecap.com] after enough people noticed and let her know.
Competition... (Score:2)
Is GOOD right?
What would Comcast be afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
Before you spend our time contemplating your assumptions, you could have taken 3.2 minutes (I timed it) to come up with this:
But ever since SB 152 was enacted, Colorado communities have to first bring forward a ballot measure asking voters to exempt the area from the state law before they can even consider starting a municipal broadband service. So that's what many of them have done.
Re: (Score:1)
How did it take you more than three minutes to read the summary, only to come up with a quote that does not explain HOW they can exempt themselves from the law?
I mean, I can vote to exempt myself from shoplifting laws, but umm ... that's not gonna work.
Re:How is it possible? (Score:5, Informative)
The law itself has provisions allowing for exemption mechanisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you didn't read TFA or the law. Otherwise you'd understand. Maybe spend a bit more time on it? 3.2 minutes seems to be enough.
Re:How is it possible? (Score:5, Informative)
PART 2
CONDITIONS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES
29-27-201. Vote - referendum.
(1) Before a local government may engage or offer to engage in providing cable television service, telecommunications service, or advanced service, an election shall be called on wether or not the local government shall provide the proposed cable television service, telecommunications service or advanced service.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Should not people be governed most by those nearest to them? Especially on matters that affect them the most? I'm also quite sure that these votes were allowed within the state law, although that might not have been clear in the article. The state law said that if a city government is to create a broadband internet provider it must get permission from the citizens first in a referendum. That makes sense to me.
It's not like Colorado doesn't have a history of telling a distant government to go to hell, th
Re: (Score:2)
Owning a gun is potentially a crime.
So is owning a lot of other things.
Owning an ISP is not.
That's potentially a crime too, such as a local Colorado government obtaining or creating one without first getting permission to do so from their constituents.
You may question the wisdom or purpose of these legal conditions on ownership of an ISP but that's the law in Colorado.
Suck it, Comcast. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DMV is far more responsive to complaints, and operates at a lower cost than my ISP.
It's not like a private monopoly is going to give a fuck about keeping customers happy, and at least I can vote on who is in charge of the DMV.
Re:Did the communities actually build a network? (Score:5, Informative)
The ballot initiatives that will allow the communities to build their own networks were only passed yesterday.
They're going to need more than 24 hours to build their municipal networks.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who lives in a community in Colorado that just passed it's exemption I can tell you that SB 152 is highly unpopular. (Our SB 152 exemption passed by 84.5%.) For many small rural mountain towns, treating internet as a utility makes sense to people. It also allows towns to provide free wifi in public use areas such as shopping districts or parks.
What the article does not mention, is that DORA has already allotted $20 million in grants for community/government broadband in CO. But in order to qualif
Re: (Score:2)
What the article does not mention, is that DORA has already allotted $20 million in grants for community/government broadband in CO.
Assuming you mean "Department of Regulatory Agencies" and not "Dora the Explorer", you're saying that there's already $20 million in taxpayer money going to build these systems. And yet, we are told, the taxpayers won't be paying to build or operate these systems, it will all be done with user fees. I'm confused. Or maybe not.
Re:Did the communities actually build a network? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's one thing to huff and puff, it's another to take action. Did these communities that "rejected Comcast" actually build their own networks, or are they still using the service that they supposedly rejected?
The communities did not reject Comcast - they voted in favor of allowing the city to provide Internet access (alongside all existing providers.) It's now up to the city to put together a plan to fund and provide that access, and get approval for that plan. In Longmont COs case, once the city voted to exempt itself from the ban, the city proposed floating a bond to fund the build-out, which was approved by the city in yet another vote. The city then did in fact built out a gigabit fiber service. And it's awesome.
Love-hate relationship with the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony of this--Colorado rejects Federal drug laws and goes rogue because the "war on drugs" has become nothing but pork for the prison-industrial complex. Now their counties reject the state's law because it's just pork for the telecoms.
My love is that there's a fight back against these things. My hate is that we even got here in the first place.
Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony (Score:4, Interesting)
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
This discussion led me to go look up the Tenth Amendment Center website. They are certainly big on letting people shoot and smoke all they want. If you think that the "war on some drugs" is just something to prop up the prison industry then what do you think of the "war on some guns"? I believe that it's going to be hard to tell people that they can smoke what they can grow but not shoot what they can build. If you think it's silly for someone to go to prison for three years for growing a common weed then would it not also be silly to put someone in prison for playing in their garage with some scrap metal?
What is this "bump stock" that so many congresscritters want to ban now? It's a piece of plastic on a threaded pipe, that's about it. What's a "silencer"? According to the ATF it can be a piece of metal that's got male threads on one end and female threads on the other, as in it can fit a common oil filter to the end of a rifle barrel. What is a "machine gun"? According to the ATF it can be something as simple as a length of string with a loop on each end, people have actually got these "machine guns" registered with the ATF.
I believe that what we've been seeing happen with federal drug laws will soon also happen with federal gun laws. It appears I'm not the only one. I went to the Tenth Amendment Center website and found a couple interesting recent articles on this debate over federal control on guns and drugs. I know lots of Slashdot readers don't like Second Amendment advocacy groups like the NRA, but if you are not a fan of federal prohibitions on marijuana possession then you need to have a different attitude on the NRA. The legal constructs that prohibit marijuana possession are the same constructs that prohibit the possession of silencers. If one goes then so does the other.
Here's just one example explaining this connection between gun laws and drug laws, the connection is the Tenth Amendment.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.co... [tenthamendmentcenter.com]
There is one important distinction though between gun laws and drug laws, gun laws have an additional amendment in the US Constitution that makes them problematic while drug laws do not. If you believe that Colorado can "go rogue" on drug laws and expect a federal ban on bump stocks to hold up in court then I believe you will be disappointed in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs: Potentially dangerous to yourself.
Guns: Potentially dangerous to those around you.
Notice the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing guns are dangerous to those around you, that's kind of the point, is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still prefer someone shooting heroin to someone shooting a gun. It's easier to dodge a needle.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wishing not for states rights; but for laws based on the will of the people as opposed to corruption.
Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything you know about the NRA you must have learned from Whoopi Goldberg.
What's the argument for legalizing marijuana or any other drug? It will be something like the benefits outweigh the harms, states' rights, personal rights, federal government over reach, or so. All the same arguments apply for the right of self defense, or most all anyway.
What kind of restrictions are people expecting for marijuana possession? I mean even the marijuana legalization people aren't expecting a free for all. Largely the argument is that marijuana should be regulated like alcohol. Only adults can possess marijuana. If allowed for children (I emphasize *IF*) then it must be under adult supervision (parent, physician, other person responsible for the health of the child). Sellers must be registered, inspected, and trained. Buyers must present an ID. People in prison or a mental institution will not be allowed access with perhaps exceptions for medical need. All of these same restrictions are called for by the NRA and would at least be tolerated by most Second Amendment advocates, any medicinal claims excepted as I am unaware of any medicinal use of a firearm.
I recall a Second Amendment Foundation official that addressed a "gun show loophole" bill by proposing this alternative, everyone that entered a gun show must have a background check done at the door, no exceptions. This background check would be done through the same FBI database as used by licensed firearms dealers. The groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" rejected this. Why? Because it didn't require the registration of the firearm transfers. This proves beyond a doubt that this is not about background checks, this was an attempt to create a database of all firearms and who owns them. Why would any government want a database of all firearms and who owns them? Ponder that, and look at what history taught us about previous firearm registries.
Whatever you can think of that would apply to removing restrictions on marijuana would also apply to firearms. You think I don't know that the government might ban bump stocks? Of course they are going to try, they might even be successful in passing that into law. Here's the thing, this will be just as successful as previous bans on marijuana, alcohol, and "assault weapons". If I wanted marijuana then I'm pretty sure I know I could get some by this weekend. I don't because I have respect for the law. Those that lost respect for the law have their drugs, and guns, and alcohol, and bump stocks, and silencers, or whatever else the government thinks that they can make disappear with a law. Marijuana is a weed, people will get it. A bump stock is a piece of plastic, people will make them. A silencer (at least according to the ATF) is a short piece of threaded pipe. A machine gun (again, according to the ATF) is a piece of string. These laws don't keep the criminals from having them. All they do is put good people in prison, because if a piece of string is a machine gun then the government can put anyone in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but there's lots of people who say there should be no restriction on owning guns without going for a cost-benefit analysis. They often cherry-pick studies that support their point of view and make up stories to make it seem more i
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need to ponder it? The intent was stated,namely to deter straw purchases, prevent thefts, and insure proper taxes were paid.
The stated intent was met by the alternative proposed by the SAF. With the alternative being rejected outright, without discussion or debate, means that there was an unstated intent for the background check law. What was that unstated intent? SAF knows what that unstated intent was and so they were not surprised when their proposal was rejected. SAF offered a solution that met all their stated goals, meaning the SAF was in agreement with the need to keep firearms from the hands of the criminals, mentall
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the state tell cities they can't do something
Because 'the state' actually consists of a bunch of legislators. Who can be bought really cheap. I guess Comcast could buy the voters. With something like decent broadband service. But that would be too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I guess the legislators must be quite cheap hos if they're cheaper than providing a decent enough internet service that the apathetic voters shrug their shoulders with a "don't give a fuck who gives me my porn".
Not super relevant after 2022 (Score:1, Funny)
In about 2 years 5G wireless will begin rolling out and most Americans will start getting competitively priced, high speed, fixed point-to-point wireless broadband service offered to them. The cable monopoly will be ending for everyone with line of site to a wireless base station.
Just FYI.
Re:Not super relevant after 2022 (Score:4, Funny)
And we'll call it WiMax. And we'll sell it under a name, like Clearwire [wikipedia.org]. And since it isn't encumbered by that nasty last mile problem, like it's FTTH competition offering 1G speeds, it will be great.
Fooled me once.
Re: (Score:2)
One word:
Saturation [of the wireless link].
I'll leave you to contemplate the consequences.
I support this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as a free market supporter, I can't help but think that certain services that are a requirement to provide goods and services MUST be run either by government or with relevant regulations to ensure a level playing field. Gas, power, water and yes, today internet, are a requirement if you want to open a business yourself and having access to them at the same conditions as some large corporation means that you can actually compete with them. If these services are not available or only available at h
Re: (Score:2)
I would also support state single payer health care, and any other social program as long as it is done at the state, or lower, level where the people actually have a say in what is going on.
Btw, there's a technical problem with this. States can't run deficits.
That's a problem because demand on these services increase greatly during an economic downturn. At the same time, tax receipts go down because of the economic downturn. The state must now cut jobs and other spending in order to pay for the increase in services, which means the state must lay people off and cut other spending. Which makes the economic downturn worse. Which lowers tax receipts and increases demand on these programs. S
Anyone ever wonder how this stuff gets passed (Score:2)
They ran commercials everywhere (seriously, I kept seeing them on Youtube) with a bunch of old people sitting around a table talking about something vaguely scary. At the end of the commercial they told you how to vote. No details whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to explain what you mean. Because based on what I know about the solar industry, such a law would not be ridiculous. If you say the law was ridiculous, are you arguing that power companies should have to buy back power from home solar at all?
Power buy back doesn't make sense to me anyway. And that's for several reasons. First, peak solar production does not correspond with peak demand. So what is the power company going to do with all the extra generation when it's not needed? It's not easy
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you know anymore than I do. I'm puzzled why you would opine in turn. You know nothing about what I do or do not know, but I assure you what I have said was given to me by others who are quite acquainted with the industries in question.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information about peak demand from. Certainly in areas where industry and datacenters are located, you'd probably be correct. But in many urban areas, peak demand is in evenings. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I've seen
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't it make you pause and think when voting for "Communism" makes people richer? Now when has that ever happened?
Comcast is driving people to Communism (Score:2)
This company is evil. Have you seen what happens here? Their service is SO crappy that people start to think even a Pinko Commie idea like having the government run something is better than relying on them.
It's time we shut that fifth column down NOW!
The state can intervene to fix competition (Score:2)
I'm sure some minimal government supporter out there already exploded and graffitied "socialism" on the idea, but the state should be able to intervene and fix competition even if that means starting one or more state-run companies. The state-run companies should be privatised by IPO after a while, and the state should deny merger requests on competition grounds if necessary. Let's call it "Investment of last resort". It is possible that just hinting of starting such a company would make incumbents scramble
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How does the government foster competition in a natural monopoly situation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, how DARED Pai and Trump do this back in 2005!