Slashdot Mirror
FCC's Powell On Monopolies
A reader writes: "According to this Washington Post article, the FCC's Michael Powell wants to do via rulemaking what Congress wouldn't - give a big wet kiss to the Baby Bells. Proposed rules would exempt future investments in broadband from unbundling requirements that make competitive local exchange carriers like Covad viable, instead considering (pretending?) that cable, satellite, DSL, and whatever future broadband the Bells choose to deploy are sufficient competition. Says Powell: "our greatest challenge in promoting broadband is deciding how best to stimulate enormous private sector investment." Consumer advocates are of course not amused."
Could this destroy all the benefits consumers have received from the deregulation of the telecommunications industry!?!
Oh, nevermind. I guess we're still waiting for that competition in local service to really kick in.
:-| have a day
Unless you live in a major city, you probably can choose between no more than two methods of accessing the internet. Here in southwest Reno, there simply is no cable, and no service for getting satelite feed into your home; it's DSL or dial-up. (Or, I suppose, you could pay to have a T1 run into your home like a couple guys I know.)
Monopolies on a regional scale are no worse than monopolies on a global scale. Rockefeller got his start with regional monopolies; even though the price of gas may have been a full 50 cents cheaper 40 miles away, nobody was going to drive 40 miles to fill up their tank.
Besides, isn't this like saying that it's okay for ABC to control every channel on TV, because, hell, there's still movies and radio, right?
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I just submitted this story to slashdot. In any case, here is an article on Newsfactor, explaining how this decision will release the phone companies from their obligations to open their networks to rivals. Here is the action by the FCC, and here is a dissent by Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who warns that the commission is committing itself to "specific and potentially drastic changes to our precedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market".
This is what I've been waiting to see from Bush administration FCC appointees. We've already seen it with his energy policies, and it's only a matter of time before his executive appointments start effecting us in ways we haven't seen in many years.
Despite hanging on to a House and Senate majority throughout the 90's, the Republican party could never sufficiently craft the laws necessary to push their big-money favoritism. The rule of thumb in Congress is always looking at the number of votes necessary to pass the laws that will get you reelected. For many House conservatives, they knew their majorities were too slim to pass laws that would get beyond a Clinton veto, let alone the even-slimmer margins in the Senate.
With the presidency in their back pocket, however, the Republican party placed numerous individuals into prominent Cabinent positions. Their sole goals: protect big-money interests, and get that money to us for use in future elections. It's just that simple. Covad's not going to be contributing a ton of money to Bush's reelection campaign, because they're just barely hanging on. On the other hand, Verizon et al. have hundreds of thousands of employees, who can easily be made party to soft-money contributions.
This is your executive branch. The only way to deal with it is to throw the bums out in 2004.
RW
> Says Powell: "our greatest challenge in promoting broadband is deciding how best to stimulate enormous private sector investment."
I have long held that the US government is a "government of the shareholders, by the shareholders, and for the shareholders".
He seems to agree, except that he thinks that's a good thing.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Michael Powell isn't the FCC's as a institution. He is the man George W. Bush appointed.
Don't go blaming the FCC for sucking up to big businesss contributors, and their attempts to stifle competition using political influence. It's not them.
Remember people, elections have consequences.
... was not to open the local areas to competition (as the BabyBells and their ilk claim which slows "progress"), rather it was the institutionalizing of the monopoly on local infrastructure by what was in effect a giant telecom company.
Fundamentally, the only really decent way to fix things at this point is this:
Force the spin off of the local physical plant into a seperate company. That's right. split the Bells into a telecomm and a wires company. Give the wires company complete ownership of everything from the local CO to the customer. AND FORBID THEM FROM DOING ANYTHING ELSE BUT RENTING THEIR WIRES FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO USE.
Presto! Everything is solved! The local wires company takes care of all maintenance, has no incentive to prefer one telecom player over another, and will invest in upgraded technologies if someone wants it. Even better, this type of company is easily stimulated by government legislation to put in infrastructure where it might otherwise go (e.g. "We'll give you $100 per line if you wire areas with less than 10 people per sq mile" - that's how we got the country wired for telephone).
The Bells and all the CLECs then get to slug it out on a more level playing field (where the Bell's size does lead an advantage, but no more so than granted anywhere else in business).
While the Bells own the local infrastructure, it's always going to be a battle. It's not one which we have to fight. And frankly, this is such an obvious thing to do that other than hard-core lobbying by the Bells, there is no sane reason NOT to do it.
-Erik
Disclaimer: I work for Covad, a competative DSL CLEC.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.