Minn. Supreme Court Upholds City's Right To Build Own Network 252
BcNexus writes with news from Minnesota that may have significance for cities around the US where municipal networks are either in place or planned: "Here's the latest development in a fight pitting a telecommunication company against government competition. The telco, TDS, took its fight all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court because it thought the city had no right to serve people's internet, voice and television needs with its own network, but has failed."
Also from Minnesota today, BcNexus writes "The State of Minnesota was the first to blink and chose to avoid a court showdown when it dropped its attempt to block online gambling sites."
Re:Free markets (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, according to all I've heard about this, this will not have any tax dollars put to it. It's financed off non-government bonds, which it will pay back through its own profits.
Re:Free markets (Score:3, Informative)
Our electric company (CWLP) is city-owned, and we have the cheapest electricity in the state, and far better service and uptime than any corporate utility in the state (possibly in the region or country). If the city can run a power company, why can't it be an ISP?
Oh yeah, I guess beciase we're not Minnesota. Different state, different laws, different constitution. The city planned on a high speed internet here, but somehow it never hapopened. I suspect it's because it IS in Illinois and ComCast bribed the right political figure.
Good (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Minnesota and worked in Government IT for a decade. I have to say that the state of broadband is sad. The consumers lack the freedom of choice in most areas of the state. Comcast and Quest in the Twin Cities and Charter almost everywhere else. There are a few smaller providers here and there with a minimal market share. The large companies have a monopoly in their respective territories. Although they deny this fact at every turn. A perfect example of this is Charter, in towns where they are the only player you will be charged at a rate that is much higher than in a city where they have direct competition. When this is pointed out they deny the fact and claim the difference in cost is due to the "cost of doing business in that town". Please. A few years ago in Rochester, MN the Public Utility (RPU) decided they wanted to test ethernet over power lines. As soon as word got out Charter had a melt down and had reps at all of the city council meetings crying unfair competition. The phones at city hall rang off the hook and the behind the scenes threats were made. The project was killed. You figure it out...
Re:Fail? (Score:4, Informative)
Except if the city's residents vote overwhelmingly to build their own fiber network, well, at some point democracy needs to kick in.
(What was the number again? 75%? We can't get politicians elected by that wide a margin unless they're unopposed...)
Re:TDS tactics work! (Score:4, Informative)
That would be precedents. Very different thing than precedence.
Used to run an ISP in Monticello, MN (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Gov't does not have 'Rights' (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fail? (Score:4, Informative)
There is no either or. You can have Comcast, AT&T, the local city, AND some others. This is more or less what we have here in cologne. And the EU is suing Germany, because the Telekom (ex-government) did not open up its net for others.
The result is, that I can have a 10 Mb flat (and I mean a real flat, without an invisible cap, where your contract is terminated.), with digital TV and phone flat, for 25€. :)
Or a 100 Mb flat with a phone flat for 35€
I call that a pretty fair price.
Re:TDS tactics work! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Gov't does not have 'Rights' (Score:3, Informative)
Please review your copy of the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So trotting out the federal constitution is not particularly relevant here, as this is a municipal project and a ruling (or lack thereof. They declined to hear the case) by the state supreme court. Look to the Minnesota state constitution.
Re:Fail? (Score:2, Informative)
Electricity -- I've never lived in an area where the city controlled it.
I do - Santa Clara, CA
http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/
Cheaper than the regional commercial provider, PG&E. And when PG&E had to implement rolling blackouts a couple of years ago, SVP did not.
Interestingly, the city is also now provider of free wifi internet access.
Re:Fail? (Score:3, Informative)
Electricity -- I've never lived in an area where the city controlled it.
In Austin, TX the city runs the electric service. The residential rate is 3.5 cents per kwh for under 500 kwh, and 7.5 cents per kwh over 500. Providers adjacent to Austin average about 10 cents per kwh. Near Dallas (no city power company) the average is about 15 cents per khw.
Keep in mind that Austin Electric transfers about 10% of their revenue to the city's general fund. The service is good and the rates are significantly less, even when siphoning off that 10%.
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Informative)
No, you misunderstand how bonds work. If there are no profits, the bondholders lose. Once the money is borrowed, and collateralized by the profits, it's no longer the responsibility of the tax payers.
-t.
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Free markets (Score:3, Informative)