Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver AT buni.org>]

that's a lot of ranting and raving but not much in the way of a 
constructive alternative.  This bill imposes (or the last version I 
read) profitability constraints that many ventures can't manage to 
fulfill in the timeline it required.  I think what most of us want is 
local governments to have the option to create networks when citizens 
aren't being well served.  I also am also for local control (not the 
state --where I have less say-- telling my local government -- where I 
have more say -- what to do).  Don't worry you'll still have that 
wonderful time warner network and wonderful customer service they're so 
known for.  Just there may be alternatives as well.  If you are in a 
municipality that wants to create one you can vote against it or the 
people that support it.  Meanwhile your neighbors will be more prosperous.

Rather than fighting this uphill battle to convince all of us that 
preserving the exclusive franchise of cable and telco is better than 
having one more alternative should folks vote (given that we haven't all 
adopted your moral views towards involuntary taxation) -- come up with a 
practical* alternative that will help bring high speed networks to rural 
communities that desire them (which promotes economic growth) and  frees 
us from the tyranny of Time Warner's monopoly.

Its easy to be "against" but what are you "for" rather than some 
half-baked untested political ideology -- give me a *practical* 
proposoal to free us from the crappy assed service of TWC and BellSouth 
etc.  This is the crux of the problem of the libertarian party and 
professed libertarians in general, they give us nothing to support until 
we completely buy every bit of your ideology...which is unlikely (and 
most people's views soften when they have kids anyhow).  Run on the 
issues, nearly no one cares about the ideology.

-Andy

* Not all of my neighbors can run fibre and BTW I can't even use a dang 
soldering iron ;-)

Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Turner wrote:
> > Word today in the blogosphere is that the N.C. House's Local Government 
> > Fair Competition Act (HB 1587) has been effectively killed! The voices 
> > of the citizens were louder than the big telecoms!
>
> So a bill-  which would have given the citizens *more* voice by
> requiring public hearings, more transparency, and (in one incarnation) a
> popular referendum for municipal wireless - dies and that somehow
> demonstrates that "The voices of the citizens were louder than the big
> telecoms?"
>
> I'm not sure how this follows....  how exactly was this bill
> ever in favor of the big telecoms?  Are we reading the same bill?
>
>
> My reading of it shows a bill designed to A. make sure that
> the citizens have a voice in the matter, and b. make sure that
> the local govt. utility doesn't grant itself an unfair monopoly
> and block out competition.  How is any of this a bad thing?
>
>
> TTYL,
>
>
> Phil
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGpqY6dkzqYMZbBuwRAkJaAKCke0Q0rTisxixh7X2UWfkWTGeNAACePlfC
> qbM0kaXeTTgfDRz0FoHwnf8=
> =vPXI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers


--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature