|
Post by Azalea on Feb 8, 2007 8:39:43 GMT -6
I'm not fearful of LUS or LCG. I fear the mega-corporations that suck money out of a community to further enrich billionaires in who live in Texas or Georgia.
Have you ever tried getting an answer from Cox, or getting a problem resolved? It may well take a couple of days of trying just to get someone on the phone -- someone who, at best, can read you a script from a handbook to "take care of" your problem. On the other hand, I know where Joey Durel lives; I know how to get Terry Huval on the phone; and my councilman returns my calls. I FAR prefer spending my telecomm dollars within a local system (that WE own!), where people who actually live here can and will be held accountable for the services provided, and where the profits generated through the sale of services will be used to enrich THIS community -- rather than to buy yet another vacation home for some nameless, faceless CEO.
"I think there was no valid legal ground to file a suit because the City was making no money whatsoever, and would not compete w/high speed internet available through BellSouth or Cox." How does installing a FREE system not compete with Bell's desire to make money? The teleco's whole interest in the municipal issue is to make SURE they will reap the biggest possible profits, and if you think a for-pay municipal service would be a threat to that goal, why wouldn't you think FREE municipal service would be a threat? Bell has already spoken on the issue, making it VERY clear that they oppose N.O.'s free service and were willing to go to court on this one.
BTW, the city does not operate a "forced monopoly." Any other electricity provider can come set up shop here and attempt to sell power to us. None has, perhaps because LUS gives us such fair prices that no other company thinks they can make money here after building the needed infrastructure (look it up -- we pay low rates). In fact, very few places in the U.S. have a choice of electricity providers, just as almost none have a choice of cable TV providers. We'll be one of the very few to reap the benefits of cable competition -- lower prices, more choices, better customer service -- plus the speed of fiber.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Feb 8, 2007 13:28:49 GMT -6
I have twice lived in an area of this fair city that became incorporated and twice been forced to switch from SLEMCO to LUS. I do not know where the "choice" that you speak of comes in, because I had none. The infrastructure was SLEMCO's, but I believe they are forced to sell their right of ways, poles, cables etc to the LUS monopoly.
Call LUS today and tell them you choose to switch to Entergy or SLEMCO (who actually rebates profits back to shareholders annually, unlike LUS who spends it) and see what choices you have. None.
Yes, I know where Joey D lives as well; at the end of a private road that will be built for him by a large developer.
It is wonderful to see a citizen who places so much faith in the goodwill and largess of government. I simply do not share that faith. I also am old fashioned enough to believe that I know what to do with my money better than government, and in a free society, I should have that choice, for better or worse.
Perhaps, as has been discussed previously in this forum, there are some who think government should operate liquor & tobacco stores so control of sales could be better controlled. And why stop there; how about LUS gasoline, so those high paid CEO's in Texas won't get our money. Maybe grocery stores as well. Maybe illegal drugs too. Hey, let's do away with Wal-Mart too. The argument that elimination of profit motive is removed from the economic cycle sounds good to some under any circumstance. The Soviet Union,China, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany. Denmark, Sweden among others have tried this. I think the results speak for themselves.
The argument about calling Cox and getting immediate attention as opposed to calling government sounds reasonable, but is no different than calling Mobil Oil or the federal or state government. The bigger an institution is, the more difficult it is to access people in control; that is a fact of life.
If one is so concerned about the pay of CEO's, one should also be concerned about the generous leave pay and such granted to local government employees. I have a problem with my tax dollars (subsidized by LUS "profits") being doled out so generously. Perhaps I am in the minority in my beliefs, but that makes me no less fervent in my opposition of government foray into the business world.
The fact remains, you can run government in a "businesslike" fashion, but you cannot run government like a business.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 8, 2007 13:57:03 GMT -6
Great responses Zoe! Hey azelea or whoever you are, this statement of yours scares the hell outta me...I'm not fearful of LUS or LCG. I fear the mega-corporations that suck money out of a community to further enrich billionaires in who live in Texas or Georgia... For one, the stupidity of it (who are the billionaires in Texas?) and secondly I will alweays trust the private sector over the public sector when it comes to delivering a tradtional private sector product. Wow I think you would love Cuba. BTW keep posting azlea, it keeps me smiling. Is your office on the first or second floor of city hall?
|
|
|
Post by A on Feb 8, 2007 17:31:57 GMT -6
Private corporations like Cox and Bell support a tier of very highly-paid executives who make millions. That comes out of the company's profits. They also pay out m millions in dividends to shareholders -- that too comes out of profits.
LUS Fiber won't have any executive who makes millions, and certainly won't have several of them. It will pay out no hundred-million dollar retirement parachutes. It won't hand out any millions in divididends to shareholders. It can't, because it's a publicly-owned entity.
The money you and I pay for our cable, phone, and telephone -- IF we choose to use what LUS provides, and we certainly won't have to -- will be plowed back into improving the services, paying in lieu of tax (which goes into the public coffers for infrastructure projects, and helps our property taxes stay lower), and paying Lafayette people decent wages.
This is a win-win for Lafayette. People who stay with Cox will see better service and lower prices because of the competition. People who choose LUS will get fiber-optic speed and capacities. There's just no down-side to this, except for people who think the rights of businesses to make a profit supercede the rights of citizens to tend to their own needs.
|
|
|
Post by Azalea on Feb 8, 2007 17:34:28 GMT -6
No connection to city hall, either in the past or currently. I'm someone who moved to Lafayette after retiring, because I have family here.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 8, 2007 19:04:03 GMT -6
Oh you are a government employee who retired I see. I understand now. Are your children also government employees?
|
|
|
Post by Aza on Feb 8, 2007 22:41:25 GMT -6
No, never worked for the government. Why?
|
|
|
Post by TBEAR on Feb 8, 2007 23:45:07 GMT -6
Azalia, I work in the middle of the city, we have LUS fiber, it is slower than my 7.0 cox at home, and as I can see you are also a Cox user, you should be getting the same with speed for the $39.95 which is pretty fast to me.
BTW, if you want to keep posting why dont you go ahead and join its free, then you dont have to keep typing A, Aza, Azalea etc then everyone can keep up with your posts and doesnt have to guess who's talking.
Feel free to continue, but if you dont join use the same guest name for each post, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Azalea on Feb 9, 2007 13:41:38 GMT -6
Sorry for the name thing, TBear, I just hit the return too fast!
Apparently you don't have the same problems with Cox service that I do, but my internet goes out ALL THE TIME. Cox has checked it more than once and can't find any problem. When you can't even log onto the net reliably, what the heck's going on? Also, with things like streaming video (YouTube, etc.), I wait and wait and wait for the videos to load -- sometimes 3 or 4 minutes for a video that's just a minute or two long. Yet Cox insists there's nothing wrong, and that I've got the fastest, most reliable service they have to offer. I have problems with getting to internet sites also -- I often time out before I reach the site (common sites, like Yahoo and Google).
But even if I didn't have these problems with Cox service, I think competition from LUS is going to improve things for everyone. Cox will tighten up, pay more attention to complaints, probably lower their rates, offer more desirable cable packages, etc. because they'll know we can walk away from them if they don't keep us happy. And LUS will be aware that they don't have us in a chokehold, either. Competition is good!
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 9, 2007 16:09:12 GMT -6
Ya know,I have a problem with everything you have said. Just something there that just doesn't add up. Nah something wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by Azalea on Feb 9, 2007 17:49:20 GMT -6
abbd, do you have something to say? Because these vaguely leading or accusatory statements you're making, that don't develop into anything real, are weird.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 10, 2007 5:42:45 GMT -6
Do what? You talking to me? What are you talking about? What are you accusing me of?
|
|
|
Post by Azalea on Feb 10, 2007 10:27:07 GMT -6
With people like you hanging around here, no wonder it's virtually a ghost town.
No offense to Chloe and TBear - - thanks for the posts, you two. Ciao.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 10, 2007 10:53:21 GMT -6
Nah, you'll be back probably with another guest user name.
|
|
|
Post by citizen on Feb 19, 2007 19:18:02 GMT -6
Todays story in the Advertiser is exactly why the government should not be in business. They lie. After lossing court battle after court battle on subsidizing FTTH, Joey blames it on others. Two years ago they all knew exactly what the law said, but chose to ignore it. He then goes on to say how fortunate we are for the time delay caused by LUS loosing in court, because the rapidly changing technology has already reduced the cost of FTTH, while they put in wireless for LUS.
Then they spin a tale of how NUCOM moved here because of their Fiber to the Home initiative. Of course the more than 2 million in subsidy didn't hurt. Yet no one can point out how NUCOM will benefit from Fiber to the Home or how they will use it. That's because they didn't move hear because of fiber to the home.
So they want us to forget the millions paid to consultants, lawyers and ad agencies and just listen to the spin people. The ad agency writing Joey's copy should be charging more, they are good.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Feb 21, 2007 0:19:12 GMT -6
The tradgedy here is the Daily Disappointment fails to follow up on the obvious and ask Joey to be honest. Yes, the administration knew it could not subsidize a telephone company or a cable company with utility income, just like Hundley knew he could not wiretap. They simply thought they would get away with it. And so far, they have. The Administration keeps referring to the people's will, you know, the 60% of the 10% that voted. I would like to see that vote today with all the facts on the table, not just the LUS propoganda.
As for NUCOMM, they will lease a T1 or better for internet. FTTH had no bearing whatsoever on the location decision, we all know that.
The best mayor Lafayette ever had ! Can I interest you in some beachfront property in Arizona ?
|
|
|
Post by April on Feb 21, 2007 20:19:56 GMT -6
I too have noticed that the Daily (Disappointing) Advertiser has a tendency to simply report whatever a politician says, as though it were gospel. It is obvious to me that a "reporter" would inquire why the City does not just lay fiber cable and charge a fee to Cox or BellSouth to recover cost. There is nothing in the law to prevent that. But I suppose that would require "out of the box thinking", a cornerstone of this administration.
A good example of the lack of reporting was on the front page of the newspaper today: Sheriff (Dr) Michael Neustrom was espousing what a good Christian he is, and how Lent is a time to reflect on self improvement, family, God, and serving the public. Dr Neustrom is the same cad who discharged 29 people because he felt their political views differed from his. Several people had over 30 years of law enforcement service. He tried to prevent some from certain retirement options. Another of the discharged persons had cancer. She lost her insurance coverage (she is no longer with us). One discharge was husband & wife. The point is this person disrupted 29 families lives in an arbitrary and capricious manner and went out of his way to hurt them financially. Where was all this Christianity then. Paper should have asked. I hope he is retired at the same time as Governor Blanco & Raymond.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Feb 22, 2007 19:21:33 GMT -6
Well, looks like Durel/Huval will get their wish, and plunge Lafayette into the telephone business. I wonder how long before Mr Huval proposes the utility rate hikes ? I still think LUS should br sold and use the money for roads and overpasses.
I too read that front page blurb, and as an aside to the good Sheriff, he is not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well. The grief and hardship he placed on those families is indeed reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by abbd on Feb 23, 2007 5:50:07 GMT -6
Yes Z the dunce is now officially a fool. We now embark on a mission to put our selves ina billion dollar debt so the fool can have a legacy. I thought his sudden change of address fromSteiner rd to robert daigle blvd would suffice but I was wrong .LOL Now, what blurb appeared concerning newstrom? I wanna read it and did not see it.
|
|
|
Post by zoe10850 on Feb 28, 2007 12:56:41 GMT -6
Bottom of front page, Feb 21. Joey was quoted as well. A feel good article concerning our parish leaders and their religious connection to Lent. Propaganda at it's finest.
|
|