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."
A fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Insightful)
But then I thought to myself, "Looks like high schools have let out for the summer".
I think it's time for a hiatus for me for a while...
Re:public broadcasting (Score:5, Insightful)
It already is, goto a public library and access the WWW.
Fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Will it fail just like municipal electric, water, sewer, and telephone?
At some point I thought all of these private corporations suing the government because they can't compete with the government for efficiency would cause some light bulbs to go off. As long as it's implemented and controlled at the county level, doesn't prohibit the existence of private offerings, and pays for itself, what exactly is the problem?
Do you really want to choose the tyranny of Comcast or AT&T over that of a local city or county meeting?
Re:Minnesota doesn't affect me (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you also whine when Slashdot posts stories about the UK, Australia, etc.?
Not to worry! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:public broadcasting (Score:3, Insightful)
It already is [free], go to a public library and access the WWW.
A public library where the internet is provided by a telecommunications company. I think GP wants a Public Non-profit Telecom.
TDS tactics work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:public broadcasting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really want to choose the tyranny of Comcast or AT&T over that of a local city or county meeting?
I have no idea how private companies run their business meetings or make decisions but I do know how my local cities do and honestly, based on how they choose to spend MY money to support the various overreaching services they already do ($5 million on a new LEED certified municipal liquor store [lazylightning.org] or $20 million on an empty performing arts center which is in danger of losing over $1 million this year [lazylightning.org]), I have to say that I'd prefer that these ventures remain at the private level where my tax dollar input is minimal and generally only if I choose to subscribe to the service myself.
We really don't need yet another venture owned and operated by the city (in one way or another, whether that be through a third party management company or not) that loses money because they are operating a service that they really don't know how to.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The network will be paid with municipal bonds ($25M), these bonds will be paid by the tax money of future residents. This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
How, exactly? In my state, general obligations bonds are funded by the property tax, and it seems like property taxes go up regardless...
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Is the idea that anyone who votes against participating in something shouldn't have to participate it when they are outvoted? Because that's not how government generally works...
A municipality has no right to exist, much less to pile on debt that it will repay by stealing future residents.
Why does it have no right to exist? Also, I assume you meant stealing future residents' taxes...
This is wrong by practically any standard of morality, expect the one where you grant magical super moral powers to governments.
It might be unwise, and you might disagree with the course of action, but why is it morally wrong, by practically any standard of morality? Considering the projects that many grants that are funded by bonds go to, I'd rather see GO bonds go to something that has broad appeal and use.
Re:Free markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, free market is good. And, when there is no market, the city should be allowed to enter the market. That sounds pretty free to me!
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This lowers the value of the real estate in the municipality.
Sure it does. Just like all the other taxes for all the other services. Police, fire protection, roads, parks, libraries. It's well know that funding any of these lowers property values. It's a fact. Go look it up.
A municipality has no right to exist...
Right. People have no right to form a local government in order to provide the amenities of civilization. Wait, you do know how municipalities come into existence, don't you???
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A quarter of the voters rejected the plan, they are being looted.
Wow, 75% of people supported the idea, and you're claiming it's somehow anti-democratic and immoral? Geez. I mean, if it had been 51/49 or something, I could see the issue, but a full three quarters of the population supported this measure. That's a mandate by any standard.
Besides, if that 25% don't like it, they should move to a more conservative municipality. They voiced their opinions. They lost. I know, it's tough, but they should suck it up, leave, or fight to change the system through democratic means. That's the way the system works (well, save for things that are fundamentally human rights issues, in which case you have to balance tyranny of the majority against the rights of individuals... but this is definitely not one of those cases).
Re:Fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is a choice of Comcast and AT&T vs a local city or county meeting, then I'll have Comcast and AT&T.
If it is a choice of Comcast or AT&T vs a local city or county meeting, then I'll have the local city or county meeting.
Private monopolies are generally worse than government monopolies, but private competition is better than both of those.
Re:Fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are unfortunate, but good examples of what to privatize and what not to. I don't think utilities and liquor stores and performing arts centers are apple to apple comparisons.
How does your city do with utilities? If they were owned by a private corporation, do you think you would have more or less influence on them? Would they be more or less expensive? Are these good or a bad things for your community? Those are the important questions to ask.
Re:The Gov't does not have 'Rights' (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows government to build roads and bridges, either - but I bet you're happy enough to use them.
Re:Free markets (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh good god. There are steaming piles of tax money in the telcos and cablecos, not to mention their monopolies. Tough titties if they can't deal with a little competition.
If you want to be an idiot at a city council meeting, maybe you should bitch about all the wasted billions we've paid for telecom infrastructure that is now falling apart?
Re:Fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't agree. When a locally controlled government operates a utility, it's not really a monopoly, is it? The job of connecting people to the internet goes to a more open and transparent organization of people that will probably to the same quality of work, but have no incentive to screw a person over for money.
On a more practical level, what's the incentive for a county level internet provider to charge $100 for installation if they only need $50 to cover the cost? What's the incentive for a for-profit organization to do the same thing? Is that money likely to be used to improve your installation or give the boardroom another bump in bonuses?
If you feel the county charge is too high, you can complain to someone who can actually change things instead of getting bounced around a call center in India. You can get your friends to attend the committee meeting, sue the government, and even demand to see their books to see if they are charging a fair rate. If it's AT&T you're just shit out of luck.
Hang on. (Score:1, Insightful)
"he would object in principle to the use of government funds for anything other than the protection of property rights"
DOES NOT gel with:
"no entity should have the right to tell a person what to do with his or her effort"
If I whup your ass and win your property, why should the government tell me what I can do with my effort???
Re:Fail? (Score:4, Insightful)
For a project like municipal wifi, where you could have significant swaths of people who neither use nor benefit from it in any way, I submit that the percentage probably ought to be 100%.
i guess you'd have to take a look at what exactly constitutes a benefit. if the competition from the municipal system causes broadband rates to be lower across the board, then the beneficiaries of the system are more than just those who use it. everyone in the town with a broadband connection benefits, and the number of people with broadband connections will increase, that number probably being larger than those who will connect to the municipal broadband.
of course, I'm kind of hardened in this case, since qwest recently told me that i could only get the 7mbps service out of the remote dslam i'm connected to if i use qwest.net as an isp, instead of the third party dsl isp i'm using [the-four-horsemen.org]. nevermind the fact that if i were able to receive a connection direct from the co, i'd be able to choose my isp.
Re:Fail? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the choices are:
Comcast - offers you Internet service at $75 / month
AT&T - offers you Internet service at $70 / month
Municipal system - offers you Internet service at $30 / month (which is enough to pay for the system)
Private options in a competitive market can be beaten in all senses by public options if a few conditions are met:
1. The public organization has to be accountable to their customers via an electoral process.
2. The public option is required to break even (over a period of time).
3. The people who go to work for the public option do so because they genuinely want to do a good job. That includes management.
Something that you need to be very aware of is that oligopolies (e.g. you're left with a choice between Comcast and AT&T and no other options) do not behave in the same way that competitive markets (e.g. lettuce at your local farmers' market) do, because each seller in an oligopoly has a significant amount of pricing power. For instance, airlines used to regularly raise their fares on Friday at 4:45 PM to give all their competitors time to follow suit before Monday morning when the travel agencies opened.
how are private ISPs any better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since companies like AT&T have already indicated their willingness to do unlimited surveillance for the government, even when it violates laws, I don't see how the situation isn't already how you describe.
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Insightful)
Then the taxpayers pay through the nose. Much like we're paying through the nose for a lot of failed businesses anyway.
I love libertarians (Score:3, Insightful)
Those guys are called telecom companies.
Remind me, who was it that paid billions to build their infrastructures, give them right of way, and virtual monopolies?
It rhymes with axeplayers.