6 ms·

Consumer friendly would be making telecoms pay for it, not taxpayers.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Telecoms do pay for it. They pay for hardware, install, and rent for the pole space. This ruling just limits how much local govt can charge for pole rent. It is consumer friendly because it helps accelerate a stable roll out and keeps costs down. It also limits the ability of NIMBY cities to block rollouts by over charging.
- ztjio 8y ago
  Ignoring the local economics is the same as getting a huge discount which is the same as the taxpayers paying the difference.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > keeps costs down For the telecoms. They're only regulating how much municipalities can charge telecoms, not how much the telecoms can charge consumers. But I'm sure the benefits will trickle down.
thereisnospork 8y ago
It is not very consumer friendly to allow every tin pot municipality to price gouge and stonewall infrastructure development. The local control you are arguing for is the same that has caused the underdevelopment and monopolization of the current internet infrastructure (to say nothing of housing and mass transit). So please explain how it is in my interest, as a consumer, to let my town - present and future - extort or strangle* service providers? *These are not hypotheticals, see Mill Valley, CA where cell phone towers cause cancer and 5g is persona non grata.
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  These are the same companies the govt gave our airwaves away to for free remember. And we still have the worst Internet of the developed nations.
  - thereisnospork 8y ago
    > So please explain how it is in my interest, as a consumer, to let my town - present and future - extort or strangle* service providers?
    - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
      Because land selling for its fair value is good for human society. That land is for all of the public. Why should corporations get a deal that doesn't apply to all people?
      - thereisnospork 8y ago
        who's talking about land? This is about antennas on preexisting poles, which exist for the purpose of literally supporting infrastructure. Furthermore any asshole (such as myself) can register an LLC and thus be one of those 'evil corporations' you speak of. So this regulation you seem so dead against would actually be protecting your right to place a 5G antenna. Since you mentioned 'fair value' for land -- why is it you are arguing FOR rent seeking? That's extortion, not fair valuation.

Telecoms do pay for it. They pay for hardware, install, and rent for the pole space. This ruling just limits how much local govt can charge for pole rent. It is consumer friendly because it helps accelerate a stable roll out and keeps costs down. It also limits the ability of NIMBY cities to block rollouts by over charging.

ztjio 8y ago
Ignoring the local economics is the same as getting a huge discount which is the same as the taxpayers paying the difference.
deogeo 8y ago
> keeps costs down For the telecoms. They're only regulating how much municipalities can charge telecoms, not how much the telecoms can charge consumers. But I'm sure the benefits will trickle down.

thereisnospork 8y ago

It is not very consumer friendly to allow every tin pot municipality to price gouge and stonewall infrastructure development. The local control you are arguing for is the same that has caused the underdevelopment and monopolization of the current internet infrastructure (to say nothing of housing and mass transit). So please explain how it is in my interest, as a consumer, to let my town - present and future - extort or strangle* service providers? *These are not hypotheticals, see Mill Valley, CA where cell phone towers cause cancer and 5g is persona non grata.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
These are the same companies the govt gave our airwaves away to for free remember. And we still have the worst Internet of the developed nations.
- thereisnospork 8y ago
  > So please explain how it is in my interest, as a consumer, to let my town - present and future - extort or strangle* service providers?
  - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
    Because land selling for its fair value is good for human society. That land is for all of the public. Why should corporations get a deal that doesn't apply to all people?
    - thereisnospork 8y ago
      who's talking about land? This is about antennas on preexisting poles, which exist for the purpose of literally supporting infrastructure. Furthermore any asshole (such as myself) can register an LLC and thus be one of those 'evil corporations' you speak of. So this regulation you seem so dead against would actually be protecting your right to place a 5G antenna. Since you mentioned 'fair value' for land -- why is it you are arguing FOR rent seeking? That's extortion, not fair valuation.