Our federal government is now tracking how fast Internet service is throughout the United States. Sadly, Poplar Bluff's 5meg maximum speed of City Cable is dwarfed 20-times-over by Sikeston's and Cape Girardeau's 100Mbit service. The map can be found at broadbandmap.gov:
Sadly, the judge closed the case today and awarded the city $206k. But as a friend routinely says, did you expect anything else? On the plus side, the case is now fully resolved, which allows us to finally move toward an appeal of earlier decisions in the case.
Our hearing in May marked 3 long years of our battle with the City of Poplar Bluff over Open Access to the Network. And today, June 7, marks three years since appearing before City Council my first time. I actually remember thinking, on my way to city hall, that once they understood what Bach had done, they would correct it. How's that for naive? One of the most remarkable achievements during this time was our second petition drive. Just over 3400 Poplar Bluff verified voters signed the petition. Our group of volunteers turned in over 700 change of address or new voter registration cards. 5000 Poplar Bluffians show up to vote for Governor each election. Under 1100 showed up in
For the past two years in the lawsuit of Poplar Bluff Internet v. City of Poplar Bluff, the City's lawyers have claimed that the city only has a cable television system which was enhanced to provide cable Internet. For instance, back in early 2011 we stated: Poplar Bluff put to a vote, and the citizens approved, the issue of general obligation bonds for the purpose of establishing, constructing, and equipping a communications system for the residents of Poplar Bluff. The city's lawyers responded: [The City] denies the allegations...answering affirmatively, [the City] states that in or about 2000, it put to a vote and the citizens approved the issuance of general obligation bonds for the purpose of establishing, constructing and equipping
Poplar Bluff Internet's lawyer, Derrick Kirby, filed an additional count to the company's petition as well as another "Affirmative Defense" claiming the City Council did not follow appropriate rules before, during AND after their August 6, 2012, Dispute Hearing. Part of the filing included: [The City] failed to follow the applicable provisions of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, [the City] violated the following provisions: A. [The City] failed to provide the statutory notice required §536.067 RSMo.; B. [The City] violated §536.083 RSMo. by permitting a hearing officer to also vote on the administrative appeal; C. [The City] violated §536.090 RSMo. by failing to provide Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law along with its purported decision; D.
