Slashdot Mirror
Verizon's Solution to Terrorism: Eliminate Verizon Competitors
The New York Times has an article about Verizon lobbying for rate increases and to remove all requirements that Verizon provide telecom services to competitors, claiming that being a large, sluggish monopoly is somehow advantageous in responding to disasters, although Verizon hasn't managed to restore phone and data service in large areas of Manhattan yet. In a related story, an association of small ISPs has surveyed its members and come to the revelation that the Bells are stifling competition.
In fact, sometimes it's BETTER to have a monopoly than not. Look at the mess in California's power when they tried to introduce competition.
Actually, no. California's problems were to due to the goverment stupidly stoping the market from working by preventing the energy companies from raising their prices when their costs raise.
The energy companies were required by law to sell power at a loss if the costs exceeded their prices. If the market had been truly open and competitive, prices would have risen to match the cost of goods, demand would have dropped and the companies would still be in business instead of going bankrupt. Instead the taxpayers were gouged for millions of dollers to pay for energy on the spot market and companies went bankrupt.