3 ms·

That's been attempted. Many municipals have tried to roll out their own broadband to be sued by the industry to prevent it. Although eminent domain is an inter

by talmand 12y ago

That's been attempted. Many municipals have tried to roll out their own broadband to be sued by the industry to prevent it. Although eminent domain is an interesting argument, not that I agree with it necessarily.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
> Although eminent domain is an interesting argument, not that I agree with it necessarily. Why? Public funding and a government-granted monopoly were the reasons local ILECs have the power they do; they'd be given fair value for their gear in the ground.
- talmand 12y ago
  Well, my feeling on the matter stems from the fact that eminent domain is an incredibly powerful tool that can potentially disrupt a large number of people's lives. Like all such powerful government tools it is easily abused. It is especially terrible when it is abused because it essentially, and legally, removes people's property rights. Many think property rights are a cornerstone to personal freedom. Essentially, eminent domain should be used as a last resort in all cases. No matter how trivial or non-invasive to the public the seizure may seem. If a local municipal moves in to seize something like that, any other company may think twice of implementing a similar service in the future. If they perform the seizure and it works out, what else could they seize for the greater good? I would rather they remove the government-granted monopoly to open competition and perform an audit to make sure the company fulfilled their part of the bargain in receiving public funds. If they fail the audit, request the money back.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > I would rather they remove the government-granted monopoly to open competition and perform an audit to make sure the company fulfilled their part of the bargain in receiving public funds. If they fail the audit, request the money back. We are in agreement then.

by talmand 12y ago

toomuchtodo 12y ago

> Although eminent domain is an interesting argument, not that I agree with it necessarily. Why? Public funding and a government-granted monopoly were the reasons local ILECs have the power they do; they'd be given fair value for their gear in the ground.

talmand 12y ago
Well, my feeling on the matter stems from the fact that eminent domain is an incredibly powerful tool that can potentially disrupt a large number of people's lives. Like all such powerful government tools it is easily abused. It is especially terrible when it is abused because it essentially, and legally, removes people's property rights. Many think property rights are a cornerstone to personal freedom. Essentially, eminent domain should be used as a last resort in all cases. No matter how trivial or non-invasive to the public the seizure may seem. If a local municipal moves in to seize something like that, any other company may think twice of implementing a similar service in the future. If they perform the seizure and it works out, what else could they seize for the greater good? I would rather they remove the government-granted monopoly to open competition and perform an audit to make sure the company fulfilled their part of the bargain in receiving public funds. If they fail the audit, request the money back.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > I would rather they remove the government-granted monopoly to open competition and perform an audit to make sure the company fulfilled their part of the bargain in receiving public funds. If they fail the audit, request the money back. We are in agreement then.