http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=578716
I went ahead and moved this since it's a good news posting. :D
Wow, local governments really love keeping their hands in that cookie jar. I just love how they make additional fees (that the customer will end up paying for) look as if it's benefiting the poor poor consumers.
QuoteMurphy said aldermen wanted to be sure any deal with AT&T protects the revenue the city gets from the Time Warner franchise. That 17-year agreement took effect in 1999.
Similarities to the mob are astonishing. This is all in IMHO of course. ;)
Quote from: Mark Strube;38538I went ahead and moved this since it's a good news posting. :D
Wow, local governments really love keeping their hands in that cookie jar. I just love how they make additional fees (that the customer will end up paying for) look as if it's benefiting the poor poor consumers.
Similarities to the mob are astonishing. This is all in IMHO of course. ;)
I was thinking the same thing, the thing is, maybe the city is entitled to a little cash since I think they own much of the infrastructure these systems are built upon. At the same time Gov. should not immediately seek ways to continue to get revenue from citizens if something comes along that might save us money.
Quote from: Absopo;38542I was thinking the same thing, the thing is, maybe the city is entitled to a little cash since I think they own much of the infrastructure these systems are built upon. At the same time Gov. should not immediately seek ways to continue to get revenue from citizens if something comes along that might save us money.
Most of the right of ways where the FTTN's are placed are already in agreements for things like Power/Teleco Poles, and in some situations on private property. I really don't think saying the Municipality owns much of the infrastructure is a fair statement.
The local government controls the right of way within three feet of your property line if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others in the vicinity from getting those services.
Quote from: tencom;38576if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others in the vicinity from getting those services.
As they should be able to... they should even be able to charge for using land that they own. (Just as now the gov't is charging these companies for using land that they own... I use the term "own" very lightly in this case, since we all "own" that land through coercive taxation.) Freedom can be a scary thing to some people, but I'm a fan of it.
...IMHO. :)
Quote from: tencom;38576The local government controls the right of way within three feet of your property line if this wasn't the case a landowner, could prevent a utility from crossing there property with telephone, electric , cable or gas lines and prevent others in the vicinity from getting those services.
Not Exactly. They don't have a right of way, they have to apply for a Utility Easement. It is a rubber stamp process unless someone objects and can prove their case. I had a right of way revoked to get a telephone pole that was 30" from my house removed since the house it was designed to service had been torn down decades ago. Sometimes utility companies don't consider the area they are working in, and pick a route that is bad for the overall area. They will listen and reconsider, but you have to get to them early because once the crews arrive, you are pretty much stuck with it.
However, many newer subdivisions do include Utility easements into the project. In that case, there is pretty much no chance of getting things changed. I think that is what you are referring to.
Quote from: Mark Strube;38581As they should be able to... they should even be able to charge for using land that they own. (Just as now the gov't is charging these companies for using land that they own... I use the term "own" very lightly in this case, since we all "own" that land through coercive taxation.) Freedom can be a scary thing to some people, but I'm a fan of it.
...IMHO. :)
Amen, brother.
As long as the big box isn't in my front of the house, taking up yard space I need and they work with me, I don't care...the darn utility will work WITH me.
Talking to our mayor in Kenosha, a friend of mine said they are coming in soon to the city and honouring the requests for box placement is foremost on their minds, including the fees for having it in the city to match TWC's.
(I have seen a box from AT&T on Sheridan Road just south of 75th Street in Kenosha).
These boxes are big and ugly and these makes me think it is a rather "primitive" method, IMO, of getting IPTV by doing it the cheap(er) way vs. what I experienced in Tampa with FIOS.
Maybe soon, AT&T will get its fiber "act together" before it gets to my neighbourhood.:)
I never saw any big boxes anywhere FIOS existed there and was surprised at them being here with this teleco.
Quote from: Doug Mohr;38586Not Exactly. They don't have a right of way, they have to apply for a Utility Easement. It is a rubber stamp process unless someone objects and can prove their case. I had a right of way revoked to get a telephone pole that was 30" from my house removed since the house it was designed to service had been torn down decades ago. Sometimes utility companies don't consider the area they are working in, and pick a route that is bad for the overall area. They will listen and reconsider, but you have to get to them early because once the crews arrive, you are pretty much stuck with it.
TENCOM
Not exactly right. the utility only has to apply for an easement from the landowner if the utility has to go beyond the three foot right of way limit to place their wires!
For the utility with-in the three foot right of way, has to apply for a franchise from the local municapality. before the start of construction
Quote from: tencomNot exactly right. the utility only has to apply for an easement from the landowner if the utility has to go beyond the three foot right of way limit to place their wires!
For the utility with-in the three foot right of way, has to apply for a franchise from the local municapality. before the start of construction
Are you talking right of way from the street side? I was referring to the side and rear lot lines.
We may be in different municipalities and under different rules :huh?:
Quote from: Doug Mohr;38609Are you talking right of way from the street side? I was referring to the side and rear lot lines.
We may be in different municipalities and under different rules :huh?:
I believe it applys to all property borders the local municapality controls the right of way within a three-foot span, on either side of the lot line and I believe its engrained, in state law. However I doubt that the city or town would allow no more then two sides If their was no laws governing this, it would be impossible, to have any utility placements because, an errant property owner could keep a whole neighborhood from being served by utilities. Such laws are over a hundred years old.
Quote from: tencom;38614Such laws are over a hundred years old.
Just because an invasion of property rights is
old doesn't make it
right. In a hundred years we'll be able to say "Hey eminent domain is 100 years old! Come on!" I'm not saying this law is quite as serious or problematic as that... but it was a step towards this direction, and my principles don't allow me to support it. There are plenty of old bad laws we've gotten rid of... take a look at the south.
All IMHO of course. :)
Quote from: tencom;38614I believe it applys to all property borders the local municapality controls the right of way within a three-foot span, on either side of the lot line and I believe its engrained, in state law. However I doubt that the city or town would allow no more then two sides If their was no laws governing this, it would be impossible, to have any utility placements because, an errant property owner could keep a whole neighborhood from being served by utilities. Such laws are over a hundred years old.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is as intrusive as you have stated. My neighborhood is over 150 years old, many homes are within inches of the lot lines (including mine) and within a few feet of each other. That would make it a little difficult for a utility to erect poles, dig trenches, etc. Since the houses were built before gas, water, and electric were around, everything entered through the front of the house from the poles on the right of way along the street.
Since the city has the right of way along all streets, I can't see how any one person could block a neighborhood because all services can still come in from the street. I think it has become a convenience for people and for utility companies to come in from the rear, not necessarily a utility's right by law.
I'm down at WE Energies today, I'll wander over to the infrastructure department and see if I can get a definitive answer.
Doug
Would you like to see utility poles ,placed in the middle,of the street or streets dug up to place utilities. Come on have a little common sense eminent domain isn't aboslute. Think in terms, for the common good of all!
Huh? They're using eminent domain to take people's houses and replace them with shopping centers and higher priced condos. That's far from electric poles. Why in the world would electric poles be placed in the middle of roads? People are used to bending over to government laws, so I'm sure they wouldn't have any problems bending over for the utility companies when they're offering either payment or discounts for using their property to place poles etc. (And hey, if they did have to put them in the middle of streets - that would force them to do some re-paving. A lot of area roads could use that. Yet another quality government program!) How can one have so much faith in government and so little faith in the free market? One consistently works, the other consistently screws things up.
QuoteMark Strube
If the property owner has complete control over his domicile as you suggest they should have and the govermment has no right to tell him or her how to use that right and can force every utility to negotiate a contract, for the placement of utility hardware with each landowner, what would be the alternative other then to use the street as the only viable right of way.
My Point only applies to utilities so all citizens, can have access to services, that utilities, can provide and any ot of your other concerns, such as shopping centers are inmaterial to this discussion.
I only used eminent domain as an example of bad laws, and then you responded with the electric poles in the middle of the street thing. I wasn't saying eminent domain was the same as the gov't controlling a couple feet of your property... however I disagree with both.
I think he may have misunderstood my avatar/tag line.
I have had that ever since the Supreme Court ruled that the promise (not even a guarantee) of tax revenue from private developers satisfies the "for the public good" requirement of the constitution.
It is something I now ask all local political candidates during public Q&A sessions.
As for the poles in the middle of the street, that was a bit out there. My point was that the government already has right of way along every street, ranging from a few feet to over twenty feet. That allows ample room for utilities to place infrastructure. Since every household must be accessible from a public road (Fire Code) , every household can be serviced through the existing right of way.
I did talk to a friend who woks in Pole Management and mapping and in the City of Milwaukee, there is an easement along each public street and alley. If they cannot safely service the customer from either of those locations, the first step is to place a Private Property Pole on that customer's property. If that is not possible, then a utility easement is applied for and approved by default if no objection is made.
Now SBC and TW may have other procedures and I wasn't able to get any underground service information, but the pole policies seem quite reasonable IMHO.
Quote from: Mark Strube;38654How can one have so much faith in government and so little faith in the free market? One consistently works, the other consistently screws things up.
Because there is no such thing as the "free market", it does not exist.
Companies exist because of laws saying they exist. What allows this existence? Government. In the United States, what is government? We the People.
So forgive me for having more faith in We the People than They the Privileged.
Corruption exists in Government, sure... And should that be dealt with? Of course. But it also exists in Corporations. And what's the difference? The main concern of corporations is profit, they aren't accountable to We the People. Since when is capitalism a political system?
I of course 100% agree when it comes to eminent domain, the government shouldn't be taking your house to allow a developer to build a shopping mall... but let's explore the issue of this so-called free market. Sams Club pays their private police department $100,000,000 a year (Hey, you said this is a free market). You pay them $5 a month. Sams Club wants to take your house to build another location. Your police department refuses to continue protecting you because Sams Club is offering the more money, and Sams Club sends their private army to forcefully turn over your property. Who is your private police department accountable to? The dollar. Sounds like a stellar plan.
Damn, Government ain't looking so bad after all.
Same story over and over again. Conservatives claim again and again government is the problem... and I'll agree with them to a point... it is, when they're in control. They don't properly fund government programs, and then say "see, it doesn't work", and then they give a huge, no-bid contract to a private corporation. (See Walter Reid, among many others).
The free market exists in spite of the government. Supply and demand, competition, these are all some of the essential things that end up being in favor of the consumer.
Businesses do not exist because of laws saying that they do. They are not that nebulous. Sure the government puts needless hurtles in the way of starting a business such as licensing, but they do not exist thanks to the government. I believe you're confusing companies with corporations. Now corporations do exist thanks to government. This is the method of separating your personal finances from your business's finances, so if it goes down the tubes, you lose nothing. This is only possible with the protection and laws of government, and this is what has allowed the corporate corruption and being unaccountable to your customers that you speak of.
Now about your over the top Sam's club example... the government is already doing what you're talking about anyways, I'm sorry to say. THEY answer to the almighty dollar, wouldn't want to lose their federal funding! No matter how crummy of a job they do, they still get their funding no matter what... you can't choose not to pay taxes (according to them). The more they fail, the more money they get for that program, because look! It failed! It can't possibly be because government is incompetent, it's obviously the money, even though the private sector can always get the job done for half that money or less. Businesses (without the protection of the corporation) are forced to be answerable to both the dollar and their customers. It wouldn't look too good to their customers if Sam's club suddenly started going and forcefully taking people's homes. I'm quite sure in a situation like this, all kinds of competition would crop up "K-Mart... we don't steal your homes!" It just wouldn't last. In the case of government doing this, they have the force of guns and unlimited funds, answerable only to themselves. (Ever heard of an "internal investigation"? Yeah I bet those are consistently thorough.)
Finally, I'm not a "conservative"... or at least what the popular meaning of conservative is these days. I'm a Libertarian. All of these problems you talk about are still problems thanks to government control, which I want to get rid of. Government programs aren't worthless because of lack of funding... just take a look at any government program where, in another location, a completely private business is doing the same thing (and not because of some no-bid contract)... in every case you will find that the private business was more efficient, getting more done for much less money. Government programs are worthless because they're government programs. I'm not interested in "privatizing" allowing them to give no-bid contracts, because that still means some jerk "conservative" or jerk "liberal" is in "control"... they should allow the free market to flourish and get their fingers out of things that they have no right being in.
This is already way off topic, and my better moderator sensibilities would make me lock this thread, but I don't want it to look like I'm trying to get the last word or anything. So, if a higher up feels this should end, I'll let them take care of it. :)
Quote from: Absopo;38542I was thinking the same thing, the thing is, maybe the city is entitled to a little cash since I think they own much of the infrastructure these systems are built upon. At the same time Gov. should not immediately seek ways to continue to get revenue from citizens if something comes along that might save us money.
If this is a way to keep Public Access TV in the community, meaning local citizens creating their own TV shows and putting them on the community TV station I am all for it. I know many of you balk against Public Access TV, but my involvment with Muskego's Public Access TV ch. 14 is one I really enjoy and a great hobby in which I would miss terribly if it gets shut down. I basically program the channel and the content and the way it is programmed pretty much fair closer to the regular broadcast channels. I bit far better programmed and operated then the average Public Access TV channels. Programming on it is very much like what airs on PBS, as well as horror movies hosted by Dr. Destruction's Crimson Theater out of Kenosha.
I surely hope that local governments don't loose franchise fees rights. Since the cable is strung thru teh city and Time Warner is offering (they have to by law) pay the franchise fees, what exempts AT & T?
If there will be 2 or more cable TV services in Muskego, hopefully each one will carry MPAG-TV, whether on ch 14 or some other channel.
Same goes with the other access channels, the Muskego/Norway ch. 13 and Muskego Government ch. 25.
I should also speak for MATA in Milwaukee on channels 14 and 96. Ch 25 in Racine and Ch. 14 in Kenosha and many other communities.
-John L
Such as to not take this thread further off topic, I'll link to a weird source considering my political views... but I'll admit it makes a good read, and leave it at that:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
Whoever wrote this article needs to have a conversation with an intelligent Libertarian. Many of his points look like he just read a Wikipedia article about Libertarianism and then browsed a few crackpot websites the night before writing this article. :)
(He does make some good points, but those problematic ones stuck out like a sore thumb to me.)
I went ahead and posted the article on another forum... it's getting some interesting responses!
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=12659.0
As long as this thread stays civil, you guys can take it as far off topic as you want. :)
Quote from: Tom Snyder;38717As long as this thread stays civil, you guys can take it as far off topic as you want. :)
My cat's breath smeels like cat food. :wave: