"Regardless, I think you would find it much easier to complain to a local city alderman and getting them to take your phone call rather than trying to get some member of congress to help you out because the assets are owned by the federal government."

I currently find it easier to call up TWC and complain. And if they don't respond, I call up ATT and order DSL again. And if they dont respond, I move over a cellular solution for a while. All are less than $50/mo. Even the various cellular options out there are decent in my area. I live in an area where I have a few options.

It took me 5 weeks, numerous requests via the city's web interface and numerous phone calls before I FINALLY got my missing greens trashcan replaced. A process they CLAIM takes 2-5 days. My tax dollars at work. I logged the time I spent doing this. Took over 7 hours of my time. I've never been on the phone with twc more than 20 mins to get something resolved or scheduled. Or ATT (before I jumped ship to cable). Or any other service I subscribe.

Of course they do. The solution isn't to have the government take control.

Back in the day, ISPs would have usenet servers within their network and would update THAT rather than have users pull that kind of data across the peering connection. Let netflix or whoever is offering huge bandwidth service put hardware and pay for it within an ISPs network so high volume streams ("Walking Dead" for example) don't cross the peer.

"And please don't try to argue "government management BAD" in a municipal utility"

And why would you want to remove a valid argument from the discussion? Unless you have nothing to defend it.

"as a hole they are far better than their private counterparts".

I disagree.

DWP in LA is an example. Every year they kick back a ton of surplus cash to the city of LA that goes straight to the general fund. They keep demanding rate hikes due to increase costs. Yet they have money to kick back to the city?

http://www.citywatchla.com/arc...

"And there are pretty easy solutions to that sort of thing too. "

Come to California and implement these "easy solutions".

If there is an enormous amount of evidence of the public sector universally botching infrastructure, you are basically just wrong when you say they are "far far far" more accountable. It's simply not true.

Elected officials just need to finish their term and move on before a 'disaster' hits. Tony V, our ex mayor was in the hot-seat when a few "chickens" came home to roost on his watch. He lost his shot at moving on to Governor.

No I mean like the 90 years it'll currently take to repair the sidewalks of Los Angeles. Or the potholes in the roads and highways causing residents to sue city and state to repair car damages. Or the bursting of 100 year old water pipes that haven't been maintained.

Yes ... "far far far" more accountability at the local government level.

"This AC was modded as troll, but I think ve is just assuming that politicians would try to take advantage of the infrastructure... in my opinion improbable, as it would be a much more explicit level of corruption than the regulatory capture we have nowadays."

I'm less worried about direct corruption and much more worried about neglect. Privately owned, there is an incentive to fix damage and maintain infrastructure. Publicly owned, the money that would otherwise be used here would be redirected to someone's pet project.

Of course I can ignore words. But some words matter, and some don't.

Please tell us again how Jimmy Carter wasn't elected.

Wow. You think I distorted the meaning of "elected" by pointing out the fact that Carter was elected.

You're a completely pathetic liar.

(And no, I didn't read the rest of your comment. It's a shame you spent so much time on it and no one will read it.)

You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words. You're wrong. And you know you're wrong; we know this because instead of pointing to the meanings of the words, you waffled and said "no reasonable person would" use the words that way. You didn't point to the actual common definitions of the words because you know they don't back you up. You know you're wrong.

You're lying. As usual.

You're lying. I am capable of not accusing you of lying, but I choose to point out the fact that you are lying.

Bullshit. If you're lying -- which I've proven you are -- then that is necessarily a sufficient answer to the question of why I accused you of lying.

I wonder why you think that someone else pointing out the fact that you are lying is the one who looks bad.

It's really weird, but then again, it's minor compared to your other issues. Like, for example, the fact that you chose to make this discussion about very specific wording of a "challenge" that, despite repeated implicit and explicit requests, you never actually cited.

False. It's true that words have no inherent meaning, but people have meanings for those words; or, put another way, those words mean things to people. This is obviously and nearly self-evidently true, and it is also clear that you believe it to be true.

False.

And the words they use actually have consequences. The people do things through those words. In this case, they continue to disinform and polarize the electorate to strengthen their own positions. That should concern you, since it is what they do.

You're lying. Nothing I have ever said or done makes such an untrue thing in any way "apparent." You cannot even come up with a remotely reasonable argument for how that would be "apparent."

Picked sides in what? I picked sides in whether words mean things, yes, as have you, although you misstate which side you are on. I picked sides in whether I think Reid is an asshole, as you did, and you're on my side. I picked sides in whether Democrats often use false charges of racism to distract people from their own failings and valid criticisms of their policies and actions.

None of that even remotely implies that I put more importance on words than actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4zkxFpBrc

So you think slandering Americans is NOT worse than NOT slandering Americans.

Oooooooo K.

You're a liar. There is no sense in which Jimmy Carter is not an elected Democrat. You're just lying ... as usual.

You're a liar. You didn't. You said "elected Democrat." You're just lying ... as usual.

And no one did. You're lying by implying "Democrat" is the same as "official" or "President."

Um. Except that definitionally, he is. Stop lying.

You're a liar.

You're a liar. And I correctly predicted you would state this lie.

Of course, that's not much different than predicting that the Earth will spin around ... liars lie, it's not tough to call it.

No. Someone who regularly gets up in front of the American people and lies about his political opponents to advance his interests or to harm the interests of his opponents ... that makes him worse. Absolutely and significantly.

Um. Actually, yes, in fact, he was. He was a Democrat, and he was elected. He was no longer serving in office, but you didn't ask for that: you asked for someone who had been elected. President Obama is -- by the exact same standard -- not an elected Democrat. He was elected. He is not currently being elected. Same thing with Carter.

If you meant a Democrat currently serving in office, you should have said so. Instead, you're lying about what your words mean. As usual.