Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon's Solution to Terrorism: Eliminate Verizon Competitors

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the rim-shot dept.

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.

6 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Not necessarily right, but.... by nbvb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It doesn't mean that Verizon is right in wanting to squash all competition, but there are things called natural monopolies.

    Your electric company is one. Water services.

    I don't know what anyone else in the US is going through, but here in NJ, the electric company (PSE&G - Park, Sleep, Eat, & Go Home) for all their faults, works. My electricity is reliable as can be. And when it does fail, they're out here _immediately_ to fix it!

    Natural monopolies, as long as there's oversight and consumer protection, can work.

    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.

    Letting companies like Microsoft (which is NOT a natural monopoly) run around, are bad. They're just an unchecked bully.

    Anyway, back to my point... I don't think Verizon being the only game in town is necessarily a bad thing... as long as they're kept in check, rates are kept reasonable, customer service is a MUST, and they provide the services required.

    And they may have a point --- if all the equipment in the facilities were theirs, they could certainly have it back up and running quicker than following some silly FCC rules & procedures for working with other companies....

    1. Re:Not necessarily right, but.... by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Basically, the deregulation plan in CA was completely botched. They made the power delivery company (PG&E) buy power in the most expensive manner possible, then imposed consumer price caps, disallowing them from passing on those costs to consumers.



      I remember the fight over the CA deregulation bill very well - PG&E fought FOR it and was in favor of the rate caps (really fixed rates), the consumers groups fought against them - PG&E spent a lot more money (millions!) and won. Any other story is just revisionist history



      Why did they do such (now obviously) silly thing? because at the time energy prices were low and the fixed energy prices were low and the fixed prices that they got the state to put into law gave them a fixed profit - they were trying to extend their monopoly for a few years in face of deregulation. They took a bet that energy prices would remain low - it was a business decision, they didn't have to force through the fixed prices into law. As we can all see now it was a bad business decision and they are now in bankruptcy court - it serves them right - they were greedy and screwed themselves. Personally I have no sympathy.

    2. Re:Not necessarily right, but.... by Detritus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Regardless of who lobbied for the flawed deregulation scheme, it wasn't just the "greedy corporate overlords" who were hurt. It was also PG&E workers, small stockholders and pension funds. The State of California, and its citizens, deserve much of the blame for not taking corrective action in a timely manner and letting the utilities slide into bankruptcy.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  2. Stifling competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for a small clec and the survey comes as no surprise to me. I may be paranoid but it always seems like Sprint is trying to screw us. If something goes down and we enter a trouble ticket on it they just say something to the effect of "Well there's nothing wrong on our end." If we pursue the matter further they say "Well, we looked and it must be you." By some mystery of nature after they "look" what ever outage has occured will start working again. We have to request that they hook up customers so we can provide dsl service. Half of the time they record the work as done and when we go to setup the customer on site it's not. Of course if we request they fix any of these things they just look, it magically starts working and we get charged. It makes us look like idiots to our customers when it's really a situation that is out of our control.

    Anyway...

  3. natural monopoly vs other stuff. by Multics · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think Verison did a so-so job recovering from 9/11. There are still gobs of data circuits that are not up and have no scheduled ETA for being back. Ditto 10k or so voice circuits. We'll sadly never get a fair accounting of Verison vs Other connection delays.

    That said, it is an enormous undertaking rebuilding around several large central offices that were simply obliterated. In the bad-old-days where there was mother AT&T, this kind of mess would have brought people from all over the country in to fill the gap in raw bodies. We're left with the impression that this particular disaster was nearly 100% covered by Verizon people. Would calling for help to other operating companies have expidited the return to service?

    All that said, at the beginning of deregulation was a proposal (squashed by lobbying) that central offices become 'open facilities' and all the copper in the street also become 'open'. Then these facilities would be serviced by a separate regulated monopoly which would level the playing field between the big, the small and the miscellaneous. Then outages like 9/11 would be dealt with by the 'open network operating company' as well as all those firms that provide dial tones.

    I think it is probably time to revisit this as the ONOO would have sufficient scale to deal with network failures while still keeping real compition alive.

    -- Multics

    P.S. I have customers in Verizon and Ameritech/SBC. Give me Verizon *every* time. Ameritech genuinely sucks -- there are now times that simple things simply can't be done because there is no one left with the knowledge of how the damn system works.

  4. Sorry by none2222 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now is especially the time to defend a US citizen's basic freedoms, of which purchasing in a free market (controlled neither by the government nor by an oppressive marketer) is one.

    I'm sorry--I don't recall any protections against "oppressive marketers" in the Constitution. I do recall a bill of rights, which includes an amendment reading "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Among those rights retained by the people, is the right to start a business, buy and sell as you please, and not be punished by the government for being successful. A century and a half bad laws, and two centuries of supreme court corruption, do not change the meaning of the constitution.

    --
    If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!