Assuming they're calling from a cellphone.
Oh, and by the way, their competitors are already "allowed" access. Cable companies don't overbuild each other because it's a great way to lose money.
Revoking their franchise IS shutting down cable. The system belongs to the operator. You can revoke their franchise, but then you have to either build out a new system, from scratch (figure $800 per home passed, or $150M for a city like Minneapolis, and that's just for the outside network), or get another company to come in and put up the money, even though you've just kicked out a cable company (not exactly an enticing proposition).
I suppose you could try to eminent domain the system, rather than building it out yourself, but that's a couple of years of litigation. Meanwhile (i.e. absolute minimum a year, probably 2-3), your constituents are without cable TV or internet service.
Part of the merger should be the requirement that franchise fees across the country need to be made illegal. They are only used to limit competition in a legal form.
The franchise agreement in my town states that no other cable company can sell services here. That's wrong.
That franchise arrangement is already illegal. The text of the document may say that, but it's unenforceable (unless your town is actually some sort of private development, and even then, it's probably unenforceable).
....just how can you be bought? And how cheaply?"
Also, shouldn't Minneapolis' club being removing the franchise for the unpaid franchise fee? If I don't pay Comcast, they turn off my cable.
Yeah, most politicians aren't that enthused by the idea of shutting down television and Internet service for a large % of their constituents.
Finance Minister of Greece ranks pretty high on my list of "you could pay me enough, but it would be A LOT" jobs.
Citing redstate.com doesn't exactly help your credibility (just as citing salon.com wouldn't). Looking at the Snopes piece, there's not enough to prove conclusively that he knowingly spoke to a white supremacist group, but it's by no means debunked or clearly not true.
If Scalise thinks this claim is libelous, he should definitely sue the blogger. Not sure he really wants to be questioned under oath on the topic, though...
Having your expenses denominated in one currency, and your revenue in another, leaves you open to currency fluctuation risk. This is why currency hedging was invented in the first place.
The "Tesla outsold Mercedes S-Class" claim again? That was true for 2013, during the end of the S-class model generation, which had unusually low volume (13k units). Definitely not true for 2014, when the S-class sold 25k units in the US. My 15k unit number for Tesla in the US is actually a high-end estimate, more likely to be 13-14k. So, Tesla's 2014 US sales are going to be a bit more than half those of the S-class. I don't have data on the 7-series handy. As for the ELR, that performance has more to do with Cadillac (which hasn't been successful thus far going after the German lux lines across the board) than Tesla.
Don't get me wrong, the Tesla is a great car, but let's not get carried away.
The Westboro Baptist folks were very excited when they heard that millions of fags are burned in the UK every day.*
*With apologies to Gaiman & Pratchett, who made this joke years ago in Good Omens.
Tesla sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 15k (probably a bit less) cars in the US in 2014. BMW sold 340k, Audi sold 180k, and Mercedes sold 360k. Tesla slightly outsold Maserati, and came in behind Jaguar.
Wait, you mean I'm supposed to breathe while I pour the shampoo down my throat? Thanks, I've been doing it wrong all this time!
OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).
How about the country with the world's largest Muslim population: Indonesia?
Make something free (or nearly so), and people will use lots of it. CA's water problem is by no means insoluble.
1. Figure out how much water the state can sustainably use.
2. Set a price for water usage. Set a flat price for all users, residential, commercial, industrial. No reason that some users of water should get it more cheaply than others.
3. If usage remains above the level determine in #1, raise the price.
4. Repeat process until usage falls to the level determined in #1.
Of course, this process would likely result in a big chunk of the unsustainable agriculture in CA going under, but so be it - basing a business on the assumption that you'll get continued massive discounts on a key input isn't particularly wise planning, and there's no reason why other CA water users should be forced to subsidize those businesses.