Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wisconsin Public Internet Struggles Against Telecom, Legislature

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the always-two-there-are dept.

The Internet 259

An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from Ars Technica: "The University of Wisconsin's Internet technology division and a crucial provider of 'Net access for Wisconsin's educational system are under attack from that state's legislature and from a local telecommunications association. At issue is the WiscNet educational cooperative. The non-profit provides affordable network access to the state's schools and libraries, although its useful days may be numbered unless the picture changes soon. Under a proposed new law, the University of Wisconsin system could be forced to return millions of dollars in federal broadband grants that it has already won, spend far more money on network services, and perhaps even withdraw from the Internet2 project."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WTF is it with these Telcos? (5, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426470)

can't they stand ANY competition?

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426502)

Why would they? They've got enough money so they don't have to. Corrupt politicians make sure of that.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (5, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426904)

I'm somewhat surprised that the "R-word" is mentioned so little. The programs being dismantled were put in place by Democrats. Republicans think that alone is reason to get rid of them. And, of course, anything that benefits the public must be bad.

The Republicans are in charge now, and they don't have a lot of time before the voters kick them out. So they're working as quickly as they can to dismantle the University of Wisconsin system. They'd like to pseudo-privatize the big school in Madison. "Flexibility" is the buzzword there, and it means less public funds, higher tuitions, and fewer in-state students.

In the telecom area, I think the next step will be to force areas that have a telephone cooperatives for phone and internet to sell to a commercial for profit entity and well below the infrastructure value. "Cooperatives are communistic, don't cha know, but AT&T is competitive, and that brings down prices." Rural communities with cooperatives in WI have better internet access (fiber) than I do in the city in CA (cable).

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427042)

You are making about R vs D. WRONG answer. If you want to fix the REAL issue with politics stop making it a game of 'my side won'.

Here in NC we had stuff introduced by D's and shouted down by R's as the worst thing ever. Flip of power. R's introduce the EXACT same bill shouted down by D's as worst thing ever. See the problem?

Corrupt is the right word for it. These bills are written by the telecoms. Plan and simple. They just keep reintroducing them until they stick.

It honestly is just laziness on the part of these legislatures. They do not bother reading the bills and look to the senior guys around them on how to vote. As they want something else passed they vote for it.

If you somehow think your state is immune to it, think again.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (4, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427424)

There IS such a thing as right and wrong.

Wisconsin built up a wonderful public infrastructure during the years the Democrats - and even to a lesser extent, moderate Republicans (we'll never see the likes of Tommy Thompson again sadly: the Tea Tardier fringe will make sure no sane moderate ever survives the primaries) - were running the state. Solid public utilities. Lots of PUBLIC infrastructure in the form of parks, public pools, public recreation tracks. Things that the ENTIRE public, rather than just an elite few, get to enjoy. The Milwaukee river and other river systems, troubled by decades of runoff from irresponsible asshole factories, actually were getting cleaned up.

What's been happening lately? The Republican Party's old "GOP" initials seem to stand for Greed Over People. "Tax cuts" and "tax incentives" that go to nobody but billionaire robber barons time and again. Dismantling the ability for unions to form, let alone maintain a balanced negotiating stance. They want to throw environmental regulations - you know, those things that go towards clean air, clean water, having your kids able to play in a local park that isn't a totally fucking contaminated waste dump - out the window.

The ridiculous notion spread around that people who are below, at, or barely above the poverty line should "pay their fair share" (what the fuck is "their fair share" anyways?) for things that go to the public good overall, like vaccinations. The constant push to "spread the pain" by converting public goods (like roads) into revenue streams that always, ALWAYS disproportionately affect the middle and lower class more than the higher, selling off public utilities into "private company" hands... and always, like we see with Shithead Walker in WI, coming back around as bribes and kickbacks to the involved politicians.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426548)

Nope they can't handle it. Its a free market and once they are free to get big enough they are free to rape you while financially supporting your elected officials to elsablish laws that support corporate rape of you.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426600)

Nope they can't handle it. Its a free market and once they are free to get big enough they are free to rape you while financially supporting your elected officials to elsablish laws that support corporate rape of you.

No they aren't, they're a monopoly mandated by the government because the govt doesn't want more than one telecom of each type laying lines in their area.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (0, Flamebait)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426702)

Hey moron, the Telcos are not a government mandated monopoly. In many Cities they are a franchise. They strike exclusive deals with the city. That means in exchange for NO COMPETITION in the city, they promise to have reasonable rates, service the entire area, and privide a franchise fee.

The Telcos pushed for the exclusivity not the government.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426774)

<paraphrase>They're not a government mandated monopoly, they just have exclusive rights to be the only ISP in town granted by the government!</paraphrase>

What the fuck is the difference between these two?

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426836)

>>>Hey moron, the Telcos are not a government mandated monopoly.

The "moron" responds:
Yeah they are. My county government MANDATED that, "Our citizens want cable television. Let's hire somebody to lay the cables and give them an exclusive deal for ten years," and then handed it over to the highest bidder (suburban cable - later renamed comcast). QED: we have a government-mandated monopoly.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426724)

No they aren't, they're a monopoly mandated by the government

I don't think you fully grasped the GP's quote:

Its a free market and once they are free to get big enough they are free to rape you while financially supporting your elected officials to elsablish laws that support corporate rape of you.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426872)

Watch what happens when I bold:

Its a free market and once they are free to get big enough they are free to rape you while financially supporting your elected officials to elsablish laws that support corporate rape of you.

That's like lying the truth, it makes no sense.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427316)

Look at the situation here in France, it's funny how our very socialist country came up with something that's quite good for the consumers, and OK for the providers. Actually, I think these are Europe-wide rules, or guidelines.

Back in the Minitel era (hay ! that's supposed to be killed next year, and there's a bit of an outrage about that :-p), we had the typical state monopoly, with good service, bad prices, and rather bad features (except that wonderful Minitel!). In order to foster competition, the state decided that France Telecom, the monopoly, had to 1- let ISPs use space in their local exchanges and/or 2- let competitors take overall ownership of the customer relationship. We ended up with 2 kind of ADSL service:
"partially unbundled": FT still bills for connection to the grid, manages the last mile ,provides a phone number. ISP provides IP services (which typically include Internet, Phone, TV). This typically costs 20 euros for FT, plus 30 for ADSL. (12 and 20 USD, resp.)
"totally unbundled": ISP becomes the sole provider, including billing for the last mile even though it is still typically owned/maintained by FT. FT bills nothing, does not provide a phone number... This typically costs 30 euros (unmetered, as far as I know un-DPIed, typical ADSL2+ speed)

The back end setup is quite flexible: ISPs can just pay and use FT's cables and switches, and/or rent space for their own switches at the local exchanges, and/or lay their own backbone cables... I think they even can take over the last mile if they feel like laying cable.

I think ISPs had to commit to some kind of coverage, using the argument that since they didn't HAVE to actually lay cable, they could cover most customers.

In their heyday, we had around 10 ISPs competing nationally. We're down to 4 major ones (I don't know if there are purely regional operators). Prices are good and services are rather advanced. We're lagging with Fiber though, I'm not sure why... maybe customer apathy, I personally don't care about it. Interestingly, there's a strong movement towards ADSL operators also going for the mobile phone market.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426650)

The problem with the Telco industry is that it is not a free market.
If a sufficiently large alternative infrastructure were created we may see some changes in the industry, but as long as the Telcos continue to keep themselves regulated to the point where no alternative infrastructures can be built there will be no change.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426928)

Actually, there is no evidence that a free market will help. In every non-urban area I've seen that has allowed additional telcos or cable companies to provide service, the result has been the same: the incumbent carrier, whose lines are long since paid for, undercuts the new carrier to the point that they cannot make any money. The new carrier goes under and sells their lines in a bankruptcy sale to the incumbent carrier, the backers of the new company get screwed, and the incumbent carrier gets a free infrastructure upgrade. Then, they raise rates above where they were before.

Last-mile infrastructure is expensive. Except for large cities, it isn't feasible for anyone other than the government to roll it out. This is why the government provides grants and tax breaks to subsidize the construction of last-mile infrastructure. The only feasible alternative to this that has actually been shown to work is government construction and maintenance of the relevant wire infrastructure. In places where the government owns and maintains the wires, free market competition tends to work very well among the various ISPs that lease access. Those ISPs need only provide blocks of IPs, routing infrastructure, and upstream connectivity from a central office. This makes competition much more feasible than having hundreds of companies trenching your yard and laying cables.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who realize that there is too much government intervention for the free market to operate are also the same people who oppose any government-run wire infrastructure projects (because that would be increasing government interference in their minds) and thus actively thwart the one solution that would actually allow the free market to operate in any useful way. As a result, with the exception of a few very rare, forward-thinking communities, telecom in the United States is a train wreck in slow motion, with emphasis on "slow".

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427154)

This is the one magical thing "ONLY" government can do.You're a tool.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427356)

Nah. I'm all about keeping government intervention to a minimum. But our wire infrastructure, to me, is the same as our roads. We must have it, and there can be no real competition when one company owns the lines. That's what leads you to complicated, bullshit half-measures, where the gov starts to say, "ok you have to lease the infrastructure to outside companies, at or below X". I don't see that as a better option than having the government build and own the infrastructure that has to travel over private and common land. The downside, of course, is the horrible inefficiencies, budget theft and quality of service issues inherent to any government run operation. Particularly on-going ones. Anyone that's driven on Illinois roads knows what I'm talking about.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (1)

imric (6240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426930)

ROFLMAO!

"If a sufficiently large alternative infrastructure were created"

Out of pixie dust and wishes, no doubt. Because homeowners just LOVE to allow utilities across their properties, and one would NEVER EVER (read, always) hold blocks, neighborhoods or cities' infrastucture plans hostage. That means NO building without - unless, of course the government forces the issue. Of course, if THAT happened, the right wing would be screaming, right? Just like they scream if equal access to existing government-mandated, funded, and ultimately maintained (through tax breaks) ROW and infrastructure is proposed. The right defends monopoly in the name of competition, and then screams 'but its not a free market' as if they were actually interested in either freedom or competition as opposed to corporate entitlements that suck the lifeblood out of consumers and into the pockets of politicians.

We have the best government that money can buy, and the corporations have the most money. Regulation is the correcting hand of the market, but right-wing parrots have been taught to cry 'free market'! 'free market'! 'awwwk'! and to vote AGAINST the invisible hand that corrects the market, to their own detriment, and to the detriment of the defense, health, economy and ultimately the nation itself.

So good luck with that 'alternate infrastructure'. If any become possible, expect right wingers to ban it or co-opt it out to existing players at the expense (but not benefit) of taxpayers.

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426814)

What's your problem?

Are you a communist?

Why do yo hate America?

Re:WTF is it with these Telcos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427472)

well, is this competition? you know that the consortium acts like a company, they get a budget and they spend it.. and internet2, I thought I had read the name before(what a shoddy name).. bringing you the next internet since 1996! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2 [wikipedia.org] the new internet is like the old internet except that it doesn't seem to exist? and uses same techniques as 1? but has paid for conferences for jackass researchers for 15 years???

Just like Abraham said (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426488)

"and that government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations shall not perish from the earth."

Re:Just like Abraham said (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426850)

no, it's "government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations"... why after all would a corporation want to be governed, or have to follow any laws?

Re:Just like Abraham said (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426898)

That is an almost direct quote of what the mexican president Vicente Fox said 6 years ago:

"This is a government of the entrepreneurs, by the entrepreneurs, for the entrepreneurs", but entrepreneurs being equal to big corporations because these conservative assholes are doing everything possible to crush small business. You can see how much good this ended for us mexicans. The guy ended putting is signature in a book wrote by republican propagandist Rob Allyn after his term ended, called "Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith and Dreams of a Mexican President". The implementation of this stupid policies is what made that crime is the only news that come to Mexico and that illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States skyrocketed during his term, but the people of Wisconsin are free to chose misery if they want that. What in the fucking hell were they thinking when they put that puppet of the Koch brothers as governor?

Re:Just like Abraham said (0, Troll)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427230)

as opposed to government for the lazy, living off the taxpayers pocketbook, producing unusable, poorly trained garbage that can not compete in the real world. What you want is a free ride. Corporations, large and small, employee people in a competitive environment. It amazes me that you live in the country created by capitalism, using an internet that was build but those corporations you so greatly hate, yet wish them not to be there. like the people that hate Bill Gates, you loath that which allows you to do what you can do, yet you would be by far worse off without them. Who owns the phone lines, who owns the cable lines? Not you. It is called private property. you do not like it, fine build your own. compete, stop using the government to give you what you want. You forget that corporation are businesses, and like all business, they are owned by people. people that have the right to strive, to compete, to gain wealth. unlike all governmental organizations, that are nothing but a drain on the tax payers pockets. Some are necessary, some are not. but all are socialistic in the sense that they do not face real world competition. Viva the Corporation, for with out them, you would not have that computer you are working on, would be unable to communicate anywhere in the world. you would walk, and live to be about 40, if you were lucky.

Courtesy of Republicans and AT&T lobbyists (5, Informative)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426510)

The provision was inserted at the 11th hour by Republicans after lobbying by companies such as AT&T, claiming that these types of services should be provided by private companies. http://wistechnology.com/articles/8648/ [wistechnology.com] http://wistechnology.com/articles/8665/ [wistechnology.com]

Re:Courtesy of Republicans and AT&T lobbyists (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426968)

Wait, you're saying the same party that went out of their way to teachers' rights, consistently goes after public education, and is opposed to net neutrality is now going out of their way to screw over universities for no legitimate reason?

I can't even be sarcastic, that's not surprising in the least. It also will not be surprising in the least when democrats fail to effectively stop this and fail to reverse it when they get back in power. Possibly with a little encouragement from AT&T.

Re:Courtesy of Republicans and AT&T lobbyists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427166)

And why shouldn't they?

What you're saying is that, without government subsidies, WiscNet wouldn't be able to compete with AT&T. That's not fair, that's not how a free market is supposed to work.

Cut them out of government. Allow them to remain a non-profit. Make them compete.

If they can't compete without government funds, then let them die. That's the way the free market is supposed to work.

Quite frankly I'm sickened that \. has started leaning so far to the left these days. People here used to understand the free market. They used to believe in competition. They used to believe in freedom.

No more.

Lobbying (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426582)

Used to be called corruption.

Unfortunately, the population of a country always wait until it's too late to act and then you get a revolution.

Re:Lobbying (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427188)

A revolution over internet access? Surely you jest.

republicans hate technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426586)

it shouldn't surprise anybody that a republican election win is pushing the Wisconsin back tecgnologically

The GOP's bright idea (1, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426594)

Privatize everything.

Except brutality and suffering; those will be available to everyone camped outside of the enclaves.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426636)

Privatize everything.

Except brutality and suffering; those will be available to everyone camped outside of the enclaves.

There has been a concerted war on the public interest in Wisconsin (and a few other states) for the past several months. IIRC, Wisconsin is where three legislators are up for recall elections, three more have the signatures filed but not validated yet, and steaming mad voters are counting the days until they can start a recall effort on the governor too.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426688)

Nine legislators are up for recall, Six Republicans and Three Democrats

Re:The GOP's bright idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426796)

Nine legislators are up for recall, Six Republicans and Three Democrats

For now...

Once the one year mark from last years election is hit I believe that number will probably rise.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (5, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426962)

Not quite.

Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.

That's the 2008 Financial Crisis in a nutshell. Then hold the mess up as an example of how bankrupt, stupid, and evil government and socialist organizations such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. Blame it all on the policies of the Clinton and Carter administrations. Mock GM for now being "Government Motors". Crow about how great private enterprise is. Brazenly ignore the boatload of implicit contradictions, omissions, and lies in such statements.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427270)

No, socializing the losses is what caused the mess in the first place. That's why no one likes you whiny liberal douchebags anymore. And YES, it is almost EXCLUSIVELY the fault of Democrat policies in previous administrations. Good work.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (2, Interesting)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427066)

I lived in Wisconsin in the early 1990s. The problem we had was that the big Internet service providers/communities/BBS services were only providing dial up numbers in the major cities. If you lived in the outlying areas, you got nailed with inter-LATA calling fees that priced calls higher than long-distance calls. I remember when groups in and around the Richland County area got together--the communities, the utility cooperatives, and the local two-year University of Wisconsin campus--to help bring local Internet access to the area. There were those at the time who complained that such groups shouldn't be providing services that should be provided in the free market, but the problem was that the free market providers didn't want to provide service there because it was just too costly for them.

Such networks were a boon to local businesses and consumers alike, allowing many to have Internet service who otherwise would not have had it.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427340)

I wish you were being sarcastic. But at least one GOP candidate has made that his official election platform: Pawlenty, through his "Google test", wants to eliminate all government services that are offered by private company. And since everything under the sun is being offered by a private company, even national defense would be outsourced under that platform. I'm sure he'll backpedal on that so quickly he'll appear to walk on air, but still - Republicans are the only ones who offer up such insanity.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (3, Informative)

bwcbwc (601780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427344)

I think you left out a couple of steps:

1. Privatize everything
2. ???
3. PROFIT!

The beauty of this scheme is that step 2 is irrelevant when it comes to privatizing government services. Just about any path you take leads to #3.

Make public schools ineffective by cutting the funding.
Privatize the schools.
Make a profit on government vouchers for private schools that are just as ineffective, if not worse.

Make the prisons overcrowded by throwing uneducated kids in jail on a three strikes count.
Privatize the prisons.
Make a profit by cutting health and nutrition services to the prisoners.

Make the courts ineffective by cutting funding and flooding the docket with charges against uneducated kids and internet downloaders.
No time for lawsuits against privatized service providers???
Profit on cost savings for liability insurance, lawyers and other items.

Republicans in Wisconsin are obviously soft on crime. Education (and therefore education funding) mitigates future needs for prison funding. Despite what the tea party would have you think, there is a role for government services in US society. Public education is one of the essential government services, and internet service is a requirement for public education.

Republicans always like to say that the public sector is too inefficient, and services should be privatized to improve efficiency. What they don't mention is that privatization never leads to improvement in services over the long term. Basically, the extra efficiency (if it exists) in the private sector, is consumed by profit taking. Once the initial inefficiencies are ironed out, the extra money goes as profit to the service provider, not for service improvement. Then thanks to the accounting principle of compounded growth rates, the only way for the privatized service to succeed as a company is to raise prices. Government services are not growth industries unless the population is growing dramatically.

Re:The GOP's bright idea (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427428)

Yes, it is ok to privatize everything. However there needs to be one conditions unlimited competition. Too often, the competition is either gobbled up or the barrier to entry is raised (thanks to lobbying)

I've always like the idea of for utilities services, that the service area is divided up and whomever services the population the best gets awarded a larger art of the pie, with a set 15-30% in contention each year. Example: DMV services. The state maintains the master database, but private enterprise can provide the same services. Every year a DMV office is up for whomever performs the best - lest wait time, lowest surcharge (on state fees) and they get to have an additional DMV office. Everyone wins. (The surcharge is supposedly less than the existing cost for the DMV running their own offices)

Well you see... (5, Interesting)

GlobalMind (597374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426602)

AT&T won't provide the services or will do so at triple the prices paid now. This is also a very convenient way of shorting the school system what they need, and thus have more ammo to go after them for not providing what our kids need. Thus making schools the root of all evil again. Most voters will go along with it, and the GOP in Wisconsin gets more of what it wants.

Re:Well you see... (0)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427288)

its call competition. Fair market capitalist competition, IT is not government tax payers keeping socialist organizations alive. let them die, force competition. Stop living off the taxpayer, cause that is what WiscNet is. that what all Colleges and Universities are.

Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426614)

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is just taking after his friend the former "governor" of Minnesota, Teflon Tim Pawlenty. Teflon Tim at one point wanted to move to dissolve the public transportation system (buses, primarily) and instead give waivers to poor people to buy used cars so they could get around on their own. You get the idea - put money in the hands of businesses, and ... whatever. Of course, he never said what he was going to do for the people who used public transportation because they were legally blind.

But either way, Walker is just trying to keep himself in view. His union-busting went well enough for his purposes, now he's on to frying other fish. He figures if his friend the nonsticky one can run for the GOP presidential nomination, he can too.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426794)

If Walker handled the country like he's handled Milwaukee County and is handling Wisconsin, we could look forward to becoming the United States of America Sponsored by BP(tm). This guy's given straight-up hand outs to corporations that donated to his campaign and then claimed we needed to end unions to make up the sudden shortfall. He's the most blatantly corrupt corporatist I've seen in politics yet.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426886)

If Walker handled the country like he's handled Milwaukee County and is handling Wisconsin, we could look forward to becoming the United States of America Sponsored by BP(tm)

As opposed to our current status as The United States of America Owned Outright by BlueCross/BlueSheild?

This guy's given straight-up hand outs to corporations that donated to his campaign

I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.

and then claimed we needed to end unions to make up the sudden shortfall

Unions are the universal boogeyman. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the GOP presidential contenders tries to blame them for 9/11 before the primary season is over.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427250)

I'm not sure how that differs form our current POTUS, or the one before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, or any other POTUS I can think of ever.[Citation needed]

I'd like to see a specific example of this that wasn't a throwback to the neo-con abortion we just emerged from.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (4, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426900)

His union-busting went well enough for his purposes

If WI laws allowed it, he'd be facing a recall vote along with the 6 Republican senators that are already being recalled. And I'd be shocked if he doesn't face a recall when he becomes eligible for one in January. He pissed a lot of people off and if his goal was to weaken support for the unions he failed miserably. A lot of people who started out against the unions watched the unions agree to a pay cut, a benefits cut, and even a temporary moratorium on collective bargaining. There are people angry with the Democratic senators for their walk out, but even that anger isn't directed at the Unions. In the end, it was the unions who looked reasonable; while the Democrats looked petty and weak and the Republicans looked like card carrying villains.

I think he'd be hard pressed to explain his behavior on a national stage to anyone other than anti-union Republicans. Not to mention that there are about 100k people in WI that have shown themselves ready and willing to take time off from work to stand in the literally freezing rain just to show their displeasure for him. Sometimes the "Would never vote for" column is just as important as the "Would vote for" column in polling, because it shows how active and engaged people would be to someone who is opposing him.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427168)

A lot of people who started out against the unions watched the unions agree to a pay cut, a benefits cut, and even a temporary moratorium on collective bargaining

Sadly that doesn't matter to many people. The unions have become the new multipurpose boogeyman for any number of groups and causes. Go take a look at the recent story hear about an Apple Store employee who wanted to form a union, and look at how many slashdot people jumped up to bash unions in response.

I think he'd be hard pressed to explain his behavior on a national stage to anyone other than anti-union Republicans.

There are a lot of people in this country with strong anti-union feelings. And there are plenty of people who could be convinced to feel the same way as well. Explaining this to enough people to win the GOP nomination is trivial.

Besides, with our current conservative POTUS in office, the republicans have to go even further to the right in order to make any distinction between what they want and what Obama has already done. Anyone who isn't rabidly anti-union will be labelled as "soft left' as the kindest.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427304)

I think he'd be hard pressed to explain his behavior ... Sometimes the "Would never vote for" column is just as important as the "Would vote for" column in polling

His idea of "winning" probably does not match ours.

From a purely drama-queenie, attention grabbing point of view, Palin, Hlllary, and their male equivalent Walker, ARE and have been incredibly successful. They live for the Oprah interview and the press fawning all over them, and if they don't have to bother with the responsibilities of governing, well that's great, more time to stir up controversy...

You have to realize that both the Ds and Rs are incredibly weak here, with the exception of Feingold who was a black sheep in his own party of sheeple. The reason there's no one but 3rd rate B-grade hacks on both sides, is because that's unfortunately the best both sides have... Its very much like the end of "atlas shrugged" where have all the real leaders gone?

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427476)

where have all the real leaders gone?

Into business, where they actually get to make decisions, i.e. where they get to buy politicians instead of just being bought.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426934)

There is something wrong with getting rid of buses? Large gridlocked car less city's sure but the rest. Who do I have to vote for to have this happen?

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (3, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426984)

What sort of public transit do you propose for people who are legally unable to drive, due to age (old or young), disease, or blindness?

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427058)

Rickshaws?

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427218)

You are also overlooking those who for any of a variety of good reasons opt not to drive, or those who are legally forbidden from driving (repeat drunk offenders amongst others).

Of course, public safety always takes a back seat to profit.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (-1, Troll)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427374)

You opt not to drive, you are opting to figure out what to do to get around. It's not up to other citizens to solve your problem.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427354)

What sort of public transit do you propose for people who are legally unable to drive, due to age (old or young), disease, or blindness?

The taxi companies that donated to the election campaign of the politician suggesting the government spend money on taxis?

Its funny watching people try to rationalize simple shakedowns.

Bringing it back to the story, why did the same governor go after certain public servant unions and not others? No deep philosophical reasons, just look at the donation records. The folks who didn't cough up enough dough have had it made perfectly clear what'll happen if they don't.

A permanently declining economy inevitably means permanently declining bribes... That's why this is all boiling up in recent years. Some politicians believed that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Some didn't. Doesn't particularly matter. But ALL politicians seem to think that a falling tide should not affect their bribes... Thus the drama.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427124)

There is something wrong with getting rid of buses? Large gridlocked car less city's sure but the rest.

After the government buys them their used car, who pays for the gas and insurance?

While we are on the subject. Why is the political party that's supposedly against handouts the same party that promotes "vouchers" other than it's obviously harder for companies to make money off of poaching the poor if they already have what they need from the government.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427278)

There is something wrong with getting rid of buses? Large gridlocked car less city's sure but the rest. Who do I have to vote for to have this happen?

There's plenty wrong. But nonetheless, if you want to get rid of buses, subways, trains, and anything else that resembles public transportation, you have your chance this year. Go vote for Teflon Tim Pawlenty, the man who was - on paper, anyways - the governor of MN for 8 years. He's been running for president since at least 2006, but this year he finally got around to declaring his candidacy.

He'd love to have your vote. If you find the right guy, in the right back room, before the right primary, you might be able to make some money off of it, too.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (-1, Flamebait)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427412)

Thank you for making it clear to me who the candidate with a working thought process is. Ha, that didn't go the way you expected it, did it?

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (-1, Troll)

scamper_22 (1073470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427202)

yes... put money in the hands of poor people. What a radical concept.

Instead of funneling money into a public sector monopoly that primarily benefits those employed by the public sector monopoly... just like public education mainly benefits teachers and administrator and the war on drugs mainly benefits the police and lawyers and prison guards.

There is no such thing as the 'public interest.' I hear that term... all I see is a gang of public sector workers walking away with a big bag of money.

No different than corporate interests these unions be.

Indeed, giving vouchers to the poor for everything is about as good a system as you can get.

If mass transit can be provided by non-profits or by a business... more power to them. But they'll have to get every single penny from the people giving their cash or using their vouchers.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427358)

yes... put money in the hands of poor people. What a radical concept.

OK, so you want to give poor people money to buy used cars. If you give Joe-Minimum-Wage, who currently rides the bus to work, $2k to buy a car, how long will he be able to afford insurance on the car? How about gas and parking (which he also didn't need to pay while riding the bus)? What if the car breaks down and he can't get to work?

What if Joe was a chronic drinker who liked to get plastered after work every night? He was getting home safely on the bus, and now you want him to drive home instead?

all I see is a gang of public sector workers walking away with a big bag of money

Yeah, I know so many wealthy bus drivers... Man, I don't know what they do with all that money they are paid! And they get to drive a 40+ foot vehicle all day for work? They should pay US for the privilege!

If mass transit can be provided by non-profits or by a business... more power to them. But they'll have to get every single penny from the people giving their cash or using their vouchers.

Actually the largest public transit system in MN - where Teflon Tim was supposedly governor - was funded mostly by fares. And they were non-profit. People could opt to go by taxi instead, of course, but they would generally prefer a bus if possible.

Re:Presidential Posturing from Wisconsin Gov ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427416)

And yet, this solution completely ignores the blind, the too young to drive, and all too many other classes of individual who legally and sanely can not drive.

Unless your solution is simply to remove the bans on them driving. Why not make the already-risky highways of America, home to daily tragedies, unusably deadly in the name of selling more cars for the profit of (ultimately) the rick?!

OR, we can accept that some sort of public transportation is a necessity in most cities, and that public funding of these systems is not just an investment in the poor, but an investment in the safety of our roads.

Now, that said, you do have a strong point that public sector monopolies have their issues. Anchorage, Alaska challenged that at least somewhat by making it's school bus system be competitive-contract based on a school to school basis, resulting in there being two companies, and significant cost savings. Perhaps a similar solution could be used elsewhere to cut costs in public transportation - well-planned public/private crossings, run by people who are ultimately in it for the good of the people, are not a bad thing.

Campaign donations (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426618)

THis makes perfect sense when you figure that ATT is set to profit big time from this legislation and they were/are a huge campaign contributor to Scott (I'm a Douche Bag) Walker. For those of you following along, this is the second time he has done this, the first was a 23m Fed giveback that would have replaced the sub par Badgernet service.

God Bless the GOP (-1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426658)

The biggest douche bags that money can buy.

High gas prices - blame Obama? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426696)

I wonder which Republican sleaze organization sponsored the banner ad at the top of the page.

I'd be willing to bet money that oil companies helped pay for it, using our own money against us. Thanks to the Republican supreme court ruling, we can't even find out who funded this sleaze.

The only thing Obama has done is continue drilling (in a slightly less risky manner) and raise fuel efficiency standards.

Fuel efficient cars reduce fuel costs, retards.

An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (5, Insightful)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426804)

This is a very nicely written and researched article, which, unfortunately, only shows in detail one horrific case study of what could soon be a widespread occurrence if the big telecom corps get what they want: to go after the government/educational market (now that the consumer market is completely saturated) and offer them half the service at twice the price.

Organizations like WiscNet provide a fantastic public service, and the notion of dismantling them for private industry to make a buck is just reprehensible. I'm from Michigan, not Wisconsin, but I could very easily see this happening here, as we have the same issues in play: Merit Network, a non-profit co-op founded for the same reasons as WiscNet, provides Internet access to almost all the schools in the state. It would be a huge loss for our corrupt legislature to squeeze them out (never underestimate the evil of the Michigan Legislature, look up the Michigan "promise scholarship" if you don't believe me). I'm sure other states are in similar situations.

My dad's a public school teacher, and my Internet access growing up was through Merit's dialup, which they offered free to teachers at the time. Unlike most commercial offerings back in the mid-90s (or even now) there was no monthly time allotment or bandwidth cap. I shudder to think how my experiences building web sites and learning to code would have changed had AT&T run that system. I do biomed research now, and I'm posting this from a Merit network connection that we use to collaborate with other labs across the country. Try doing that on a 250GB monthly cap.

Hey Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association: Go to hell, and take your bandwidth caps with you.

Re:An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (-1, Troll)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426970)

actually this should have happened years ago. WiscNet and the like are nothing but socialist organizations living off the taxpayers. It is about time that they join the real world and face the financial realities of real life. Possible the cry babies here should realize that public employees of all types, but exspecially teachers are overpaid and under worked. They work in a socialist cocoon where they never have to compete for jobs and have come to think of their special perks as mandatory. It is time to get the educations systems hand out of the tax payers pocket as much as possible. live in the real world. to paraphrase your last comment, "hey socialist, go to hell and get your hand out of my pocket".

Re:An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427116)

nice trolling, now go fuck yourself with a republican branded collander.

Re:An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427138)

Fuck off, troll.

Re:An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427164)

lol yes let's do our level best to get rid of education in this country

Yes (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427348)

Why should we educate American kids, when Chinese kids study so much harder?

Our corporate/Chinese overlords are totally against spending another dime on American education, aside from private money spent in our elite universities to educate the American executive class ... and Chinese!

Re:An unfortunate glimpse of what's to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427332)

As the friend and niece of teachers, I can tell you that first off - they are underpaid and overworked. My aunt makes 25k a year which for a family of 4 puts them at about 11k under the poverty line for the US. She's been in her position for 3 years now and just had to worry about possible lay-off because of budget cuts.

Second, they have reduced and/or axed the awesome health insurance they use to get and several other "perks" that teachers were able to get.

Third, most teachers have to have a bachelors or doctorate now to be even considered for positions teaching. And if they the are teaching K through High School, they barely make enough to make ends meet let alone pay back their tuition.

Teachers are the ones who shape our kids to be future dentists, doctors, scientists, politicians and so forth. They are the ones struggling with reduced supply budgets, reduced text book budgets and have to put in unpaid time to make sure your children are educated and ready to face the world. Most classes that are K through High School are over crowded due to budget cuts.

Without teachers, very few of us would be able to function. So, before you start dissing on teachers and referring to them as working in a socialist cocoon, think about where you would be if you hadn't gone to school.

So when are the ISPs going to pay up? (5, Interesting)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426808)

the University of Wisconsin system could be forced to return millions of dollars in federal broadband grants that it has already won,

So, does that mean the telecoms are going to return the BILLIONS in subsidies and tax cuts they've received?

Re:So when are the ISPs going to pay up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426956)

no their going to get the sub,s and tax cuts that UW system is going to give up , more $$$$

Re:So when are the ISPs going to pay up? (-1, Troll)

Biggseye (1520195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427024)

well the telecoms actually add jobs to the community. They may get some subsides and tax cuts ( both of which I hate and would like to eliminate), but they do not live off the tax payers pocketbook. they compete unlike these socialist organizations we call public institutions. Not one of them should get any form of the Feds. Live in the real world, get off the public dime and compete. purchase goods and services at fair market prices like every one else does.

Re:So when are the ISPs going to pay up? (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427380)

If they don't want to live off the tax payer's pocketbook, they can refuse any business from government institutions, like say universities and let those universities fend for themselves.

Are they doing that?
a) yes
b) no

Re:So when are the ISPs going to pay up? (1)

Kingofearth (845396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427054)

But those billions are going to trickle down to us, remember? Giving tax money to corporations invigorates the economy, giving tax money to education traps our children in a lifetime of debt. /s

Welcome To The Teapublican Paradise (1)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426844)

It is rather breathtaking to see what the real exercise of power is even if it is in the cause of greed.

disgusting (2)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426858)

Seems only fair that if the telcos want UW to pay back the grant money that was given to them by the federal government, then AT&T should have to pay back the roughly $200 billion they stole from the public to make available 45 MBit, fiber connections to the public...that they never did.

Competitive? (2, Interesting)

Mycroft-X (11435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426864)

Taking tax dollars from 49 states and using it to undercut local providers isn't competition. It appears that this legislation is simply preventing WiscNet from receiving public funds from UW-Madison, which it is doing in order to do an end-run around the existing state-supported network, Badgernet.

If WiscNet, a non-profit organization, can't provide service at lower prices than a for-profit corporation like AT&T without forced revenue from tax subsidies, then I'd say that AT&T is competitive.

All they are doing is crying "Thanks to the tax money we take from you we can give away more service than we could otherwise pay for. If you take that away, then we'll need to charge market rates for the service we are providing!"

Re:Competitive? (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427352)

Taking tax dollars from 49 states and using it to undercut local providers isn't competition.

Nice spin. You're implying that the telecommunications grant isn't available to the other 49 states and somehow the rest of the country is being shortchanged. You also overlooked the purpose of these grants. Without them private entities would not expand their broadband offering to rural areas. If there was truly a free market telecommunication market then people in rural areas would still be paying too much for POTS (plain old telephone system) and would only have dial up access to their ISP.

I can't help but notice that the republican party advocates cutting subsidies to non-profits because of "free market" concerns, yet is amazingly quiet about government subsidies going to profitable industries (eg. oil).

Re:Competitive? (2)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427364)

Good thing AT&T never took any tax dollars or used public infrastructure, then.

Re:Competitive? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427430)

Market rates? First, you're going to have to define what the market is. Oh, there is only one private company, one state-born and one state-supported company around? Gee, not much of a market there. Then, you're going to have to define service. What uptime? What up/download speeds? What caps? What times? What support? Finally - and this is especially important given we are talking about university access to Internet - what is the cost to research and public education when switching to ATT's version of service? You might very well end-up trying to save pennies, and having to spend dollars to make up for the drop in research and public education.

Re:Competitive? (2)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427436)

If WiscNet, a non-profit organization, can't provide service at lower prices than a for-profit corporation like AT&T without forced revenue from tax subsidies, then I'd say that AT&T is competitive.

And is AT&T going to give up it's subsidies in order to level the playing field? I didn't think so. So we'll see AT&T with its billions in subsidies and tens of billions in profits battling WiscNet with is $0 in subsidies and $0 in profits. AT&T can provide services to the schools and libraries for free for a few years until the competition is dead. Then they can charge whatever the hell they want. (That seems to be AT&T's internet pricing formula).

Obviosuly the UW sports teams are a problem too! (1)

Yohahn (8680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426876)

You know, the football team at UW Madison might compete with the NFL for ratings.
Also the basketball team may compete with the NBA for ratings.
Obviously there is MUCH more to privatize.

(Or maybe there is a role for publicly owned things?)

It gets even more crazy. On the UW, Madison campus the UW hospital is a public authority (basically a separate entity from the UW) Can the university provide LAN access to that building? Not the way things are written now.

Craziness.

Fighting Bob LaFollette is spinning in his grave (2)

xanthos (73578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426896)

The contrast between Walker and another former Wisconsin governor [wikipedia.org] couldn't be greater.

Having lived there for my first 50 years I was brought up learning all about the states progressive past. Walker is the states biggest embarassment since Joe McCarthy.

Better change the state motto from Forward to Backward.

Let the Free market decide! (1)

jzarling (600712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426938)

So the AT&T system would cost an additional 6 million dollars, and cost schools, and public libraries approximately 4X as much. A forward thinking Republican should propose we (i live in WI) invest in WiscNet to make it the data connection the entire state government uses - after all wouldn't the threat of a significant loss in sales force a private entity to become more competitive?

Re:Let the Free market decide! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427294)

That would do nothing.
Everything a Private Enterprise does is for the Good. That is the first principal and there-fore any one who opposes this principal is evil. [Market Fundamentalist Manifesto]

FTFY (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36426974)

the University of Wisconsin system could be forced to return millions of federally borrowed Chinese dollars

UoW is building a quarter billion dollar football stadium, but needs federal grants to fund their Internet pipes.

Okay!

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427146)

Completely false. The University of Wisconsin has had a football stadium, Camp Randall, for the last 100+ years, and has not intention of building a new stadium.

Re:FTFY (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427460)

Of course it's false. You don't expect the corporatists to tell the truth, do you?

Could today's xkcd have been ANY more timely?? (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427028)

Link to the specific cartoon, in case you're reading this later in the week: http://www.xkcd.com/911/ [xkcd.com]

Just spawn a private sector ISP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427040)

Can't Wisconsin just sell their network to a private ISP (that they started up), that ISP can get the broadband stimulus money? Then ATT and other Telcos wouldn't be able to say anything about it.

Re:Just spawn a private sector ISP? (3, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427470)

Repeat after me: "There is nothing illegal or immoral about public infrastructure."

WiscNet was second target (5, Informative)

white_owl (134394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427072)

The real target here was the federal stimulus money (NTIA, BTOP) that was being used to create coops in Wisconsin. The Building Community Capacity through Broadband project [uwex.edu] which would have connected together anchor institutions (city and county governments, libraries, schools, hospitals) and allow them to buy bandwidth wholesale rather than retail. That did not sit too well with some telecom folks and in the press they are saying that the University should not compete with the private sector. Well the University has to get bandwith in most of the state anyway to feed the various Univ of Wisc campuses. So including some school systems in the process makes sense if you believe in efficiency and cost savings. Gov Walker is "open for business" so he does not believe in government efficiency.

WiscNet was, as I understand it a secondary concern, although the telecoms have wanted it to die for a decades. It is the same pattern of schools banding together and riding together on common infrastructure. ATT would like that to go away with WiscNet in favor of Badgernet which they run or even better, from their point of view, to sell everyone T-1 lines retail.

This is the second effort for this. The first successful effort (from ATT's perspective) was to give back $37 million of the same stimulus money (NTIA, BTOP) for a different state run project. The spin there was that the Feds did not want to give the money to a private company. But insiders tell me that it was not the feds but ATT. ( wisconsins-stimulus-rejection-too-many-strings-or-too-much-scrutiny [fibertothewhatever.com] )

Re:WiscNet was second target (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427302)

This is why corporations should be absolutely forbidden from making any attempt to influence legislatures. Free speech is for individuals, for human beings. No corporation should be allowed to speak to a legislature through any mode whatsoever. They may speak to the public. They may speak to their employees. But they may not order their employees to say anything at all to elected representatives. What citizens say to representatives should be entirely a matter of personal conscience, not paychecks. We literally have a system now in which government is becoming the whore of the corporation.

Yes, under current Supreme Court corruption rules like this would require Constitutional amendment. Let's do it!

Just surprised (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427126)

About up-front and blatant this move is. Generally such moves are a bit more crafty or silent. This is just a big 'FU,' we want our buddies to get their perks for their money.

It's been said before (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427208)

In soviet russia the government runs the corporations.

SImple Solution - Enroll in a Neighbor State (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427260)

If WI wants to trash it's education system fine. Enroll over in Minnesota, Iowa or Illinois. The folks in Madison are quite happy to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?