[TriLUG] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!

[Matt Pusateri]

In theory if the bill was to protect and increase jobs, one would think it would create more jobs to build  and maintain a new infrastructure, than for a corporation to extend their existing infrastructure....  So I'm not how that logic works. Seems to me to be a fear tactic by a large corporation.

Matt P.

On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:41 AM, matt at noway2.thruhere.net wrote:

> This bill has some parts that are bad for the customer but great for
> corporation.  In general terms, it ensures that any sort of public-sector
> pricing advantage is negated.  If the public sector can and is willing to
> provide a service at a price point better than a private company can or
> will, the duty should be to the citizens of that area, not to the profits
> of the corporation.  By way of example, based upon my personal
> experiences, if you live in a city that has municipal garbage collection
> you probably pay on the order of $10 per month.  If you live in a city
> that does not, you can expect to pay a private company on the order of $75
> a month for the same service.  I don't know about you, but I would just as
> soon pay the city $10.
> 
> Take for example the following items from the bill:
> Shall not air advertisements or other promotions for the  city-owned
> communications service on the city's public, educational, or governmental
> access channel, use city resources that are not allocated for cost
> accounting purposes to the city-owned communications service to promote
> city services in  comparison to private services  ...
> 
> (So they can't adverise on publicly media).
> and
> 
> Shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the
> service, including any direct or indirect subsidies received by the
> city-owned communications service provider
> 
> (see the example on garbage collection)
> 
> and
> The city shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount
> equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider
> would be required to pay the city or county
> 
> (they must pay CORPORATE TAX RATES on a public service - to up the price
> tag, this keeps getting better).
> 
> Also, it prohibits the community from OWNING the infrastructure.  Sure. it
> must be OWNED by a PRIVATE company and LEASED to the city.  Renting is
> almost always more expensive than owning.
> 
> As far as "deeply invested in pornography", well that sounds like a bunch
> of right-wing rhetoric along with "this bill will create and protect
> jobs."
> 
> -- 
> This message was sent to: M. Pusateri <mpusateri at wickedtrails.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web	: http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/mpusateri%40wickedtrails.com
> TriLUG FAQ          : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions