Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Internet Monopolies
scrm writes "'The Federal Communications Commission is quietly handing over control of the broadband Internet to a handful of massive corporations according to this Salon article." Very important stuff; Slashdot has covered this before, but this is a great article which sums up everything that has gone on over the past few years.
I prefer the Internet be controlled by a couple greedy corporations that by a single greedy government with armed forces to back it up.
Call me paranoid, but I'm sticking with Linux, where I know I'm secure.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Isn't long distance telephony infrastructure also controlled by a few massive corporations? Equal access carrier laws and preventing a single company from owning the whole thing has fostered enough competition to really hammer AT&T, for instance.
If it drops the cost of broadband and increases the bandwidth becuase tehse companys can afford to do it i have no problem... if thats the case
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
" They warn that if the FCC goes through with its plans, cable companies and the Baby Bells will quickly establish a monopoly on broadband service over their own networks."
The quote in the article states that this could give the Cable companies a monopoly on broadband.. This I see as bad because there is no compeition (locally) for cable companies. you get what is there, I see it bad for pricing/monitoring
you get 1 choice of cablemodem (cable company) or 1 choice of DSL (local phone company) or satelite (not great for gaming) and no real competition. Who wants to bet that Innovation in this field is the next to die?
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
The decision in March to let cable companies exclude competitors does seem to violate common carriage and will probably disappear after either a short or long series of appeals.
Likewise with the cable companies deciding what content is allowed on their pipes. I can't see that holding up under scrutiny either.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
broadband may be the exception that makes all the difference in the future. Especially considering the emergence of new wireless technologies. Satellite, while of limited utility to the common user at this time, may also help prevent control from falling into the hands of just a few.
All things in moderation.
Despite those dire warnings, the FCC's policy on broadband enjoys strong support. Companies with a stake in the matter are gung-ho for it, at least for their own networks
In other news, several CEOs were recently admitted to the Mayo clinic with an unusual condition that caused their eyeballs to actually turn into small dollar signs. When asked about his condition, once CEO could not stop laughing manically long enough to answer.
A spokesman for AOL/Time Warner said he was quite willing to accept customers from price gouging DSL monopolies into his price gouging Cable networks. Comcast could not be reached as their network was apparently down yet again.
I read the internet for the articles.
This is why it is imperative that with like 802.11[a|b] start becoming more prevalent. Net access may be a privilege not a right (for now), but it is becoming more and more necessary to have it in order to function in a technological society. Having a few uber-greedy corps control the access we have to this increasingly-critical medium, is becoming less and less acceptable.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
This will only serve to motivate some clever person with coming up with a broadband solution that doesn't require participation from the cable or telephone companies.
While wireless isn't there yet, it will be soon.
When TimeWarnerAOL (or Disney or whoever else ends up as the big players) decides you shouldn't be seeing this or that website, or sending this or that data down the wire, you'll care.
Remember, these are the same companies who bought the DMCA - they do not have your interests in mind.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
The article describes oligarchy, not monopoly. "Monopoly" has more emotional impact, and it is used just for this effect. Either that, or those with limited vocabulary do not even know what an oligarchy is.
This might be nitpicking, but for this item, the error is right there in the title (the word "monopolies")
Yes, but read the article.
In order to be a more interesting read , Salon takes a "sky is falling" approach to points 2 and 3.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The trend profoundly concerns consumer advocates and some Internet policy experts. They warn that if the FCC goes through with its plans, cable companies and the Baby Bells will quickly establish a monopoly on broadband service over their own networks.
not to say this is ok, but isn't it likely that the monopolies would face the same fate as AT&T and get broken up into lots of baby bells again?
I think this is especially the case seeing the US now has a precedent for breaking up big telecommunications carriers with monopolies. Getting the first one is always the hardest.
-- james
...a handful of massive corporations
I was reading the article on salon.com; and I noticed that the banner was about msn! wow!
667 The Neighbour of the Beast
"'The Federal Communications Commission is quietly handing over control of the broadband Internet to a handful of massive corporations "
SHHHH!!! They are doing it quietly dammit! Pass it only in notes with codes or you'll blow the whole thing!
On March 13 the FCC commissioners ruled, 3-1, that cable broadband is an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service."
if narrowband is a telecommunications service, how can you argue that broadband isn't? It's just a faster extension of the same basic principles.
The FCC needs to pull its head out of its ass. It's blipping into an entirely new intestinal reality
-- james
But it never happens that way
"If you have competition between platforms, consumers will be better off," says Randolph May, a communications policy expert with the Progress and Freedom Foundation. "The problem is that [regulation] impedes investment and new entrants to the market."
All this talk about Competition, when they are limiting how many players there are on the field. This same rhetoric has been spouted on so many things in the past, only for it to come down to "Monopolies are good for security and the well being of the economy".
Why CAN'T I have my own Pipe, and control access to it Myself? Why do I need an ISP, when all I want is a big fat connection with plenty of speed?
You keep going until you die..."Me".
I know in my area (that being Atlanta), one cannot get DSL without having a landline or a Cable Modem without getting cable
I was wondering if anybody sees this as the same type of monopolistic behavior MS was convicted of when they bundled IE with the OS?
For example: I have no need for a landline as I have a cell phone plan that gives me more than enough minutes, yet I have to shell out an extra 45 (lets face it, one can barely get a bare bones phone line for less than 45 bucks when all the extra taxes, fees, etc are tacked on) for a phone line so I can have a DSL line. A phone I really never use. Thus my DSL cost is really 85 bucks instead of just 40
isn't this the one of the issues this article might allude too? shouldn't the government bring a lawsuit against the cable/telcos accusing them of bundling? or forcing their un-related product on us just as MS was accused of?
Just wondering.....
When clicking the link in the story, I was sent to a page with a huge animated image. It went like this:
(blurred animated shot in skin tones)
Some text floating over the picture:
"Oh... Yes! Oh yes!"
"Oh... Lower!"
"Lower!"
Then the text "Need new glasses? Buy progressive glasses blah blah"
It was just funny to see how it linked to the story about broadband internet, when the ad content was so similar to what it's mainly used for.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Where in the constitution can you assume that or justify that the above is inaliable or even a civil/moral right ?
Where in the constitution can you assume that
Federal Government has a right to create a thing
such as FCC?
Ah, yes, the famous "general welfare" clause,
is that it? Please...
Considered harmful.
Okay, first stop misusing the word "momopoly", it is defined as ONE entity controlling a market.
Second, figure out what market you are talking about. If it is high-speed data access then one company owning the local/regional/national cable infrastructure is not a monopoly IF (as is the case) there are DLS and other providers within that territory. Lookup the famous monopoly case against Celophane, the Celophane manufacturer won because the market was wrapping material, not the fact that one manufacturer makes one wildly popular product.
Look folks, the more we keep bastardizing the language the more confusing it will be to communicate.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
And I was so sure Joe Blow's Teletech company was going to outlast Comcast with telecoms down 90% over the past year.
Not just obvious, but INCONCIEVABLE!
This has been a long time coming. There have been signs of this kind of behavior all throughout this industry and others.
With the privatization/deregulation of the Internet, Energy etc, companies are so busy snatching each other up (think Banking, Telcom, AOL/Time Warner, Compaq/HP etc), that they aren't really improving or changing anything except how you trade stocks.
I think in 20 years, there will be ~10 stock symbols on the entire stock market - you'll have TEC (The Entertainment Company), TTC (The Technology Company), TGC (The Energy Company) etc... It's getting really stupid.
The point of this? After the Internet has been handed over to these X companies, there will ensue a mad scramble for each other's assets until there is only TIC (The Internet Company), probably run by Steve Jobs or AOL....
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
More and more internet access is a nececary thing to people and companies alike. I think govenment's should treat the backbone connections like a road system, public funding and public access. Think about the economic effects of all highways having unregulated tolls, do we want this for our data?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
once again, anti-capitalism, anti-capitalism, anti-capitalism.
Terrible how these big evil greedy companies are just screwing us in yet another way.
An alternative way of looking at this is that SOMEBODY needs to provide this service and I dont think mom n' pop ISP has the capacity to handle this. I don't think anyone is planning on providing the service for free as most slashdotters think it should be. Its not a 'right' if other people have to pay for it.
Also, I think the term monopoly is bandied about far to much these days: Now, eight cable companies will decide what the public will be offered Doesnt sound like a monopoly to me!
Look at it this way... the overall product being delivered is broadband internet. Unlike a "traditional" monopoly, where one company controls all elements of one product, broadband internet is a product that can be delivered by several different means that go outside the normal definitions of a monopoly.
You can get broadband from telephone systems, cable systems, wireless systems, etc. Each of these systems are independant technologies with their own sets of regulations. Interestingly enough, they are also technologies where the broadband internet is a second use application, i.e. phone calls over DSL, television of cable internet, etc.
Its a new media, and an interesting era, and change is needed to diversify the methods that we are able to access the overall "information service". Personally I think its a good move... all of these dire predictions over regulation of content are ridiculous... no one would ever stand for it. The bottom line is that new rules are needed for a medium that doesn't apply to the old set. It may not be the best move, but at least its a move.
The majority of consumers can take their pick from 2,3 & 4 broadband providers right now (not resellers). WiFi and 3G will add additional choices. Seems like competition to me - how would a few shoddy DSL resellers improve the situation? I know I *loved* my DSL through Flashcom & Northpoint.
Another good reason to use the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol (yeah, correct link, it's *also* on Salon.com - how convenient). The details here.
Transmitting IP Datagrams over Avian Carriers simply has to be a way to avoid these mega corporations getting control over these common, often fiber based transmission techniques.
But I'm sure there will soon be a Pigeonsoft breeding huge amounts of pigeons for the sole purpose of pissing of others. And of course, the technique of training them to carry datagrams will be patented. And if you try to understand how it works, you'll be sued by the PPAA (Pigeon Protocol Association) for "infringing on intellectual property". They will use the PMCA (Pigeon Master Copyright Act) to support this claim in court.
That's the world we're living in.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
While we criticize China, Saudi Arab, and Singapore for their "Net Censorship", the fact is that the US government also wants to censor the Net.
It's just that there are LAWS in the United States that guarantee freedom, such as Free Speech and such, and Uncle Sam can't do what China or Singapore have done - direct censorship.
Therefore, to achive their goal of censoring Internet, the US government uses another tact - Censorship Through Monopolies.
You see, if you have LOTS AND LOTS of Internet Providers, it is next to impossible to have any meaningful censorship, for anything that ISP A censors, ISP B can provide, and so on.
But if you have MONOPOLY controlling the access of the Net, then censorship will comes easy. As long as the Monopoly controls the access for ALL Americans, whatever the Monopoly provides, the Americans, no matter who they are, have NO OTHER CHOICE !
Difficult times awaiting the Americans, in term of FREEDOM OF ACCESS.
Let's hope that someone from America, be it individuals or groups, stand up in opposing this slowly but surely encrouching censorship.
It is said that if you throw a live frog into a pot of boiling water, the frog will jump out of the boiling water.
But if you put a frog into a pot of cool water, and you slowly turn up the heat, the frog won't know the difference, and before it realizes, the frog gets cooked.
Let's hope that the Americans won't get cooked.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This has been goiong on for a while now, and in all but a few big cities, a single company has the monopoly on broadband... If it's even availible.
Something we need to realize is how the companies veiw this situation (which the salon article does a wonderful job of NOT exploring). Most comapanies who provide broadband service are not making any money off of it yet. The demand is high, but the cost of bandwidth is currently higher. Many of these companies see the only way that they can turn a profit is to be the sole provider in a service area; which, to an extent, is viable.
I saw another comment which touched on the long-distance carriers. This is a perfect example of what may or may not go wrong. On one hand long-distance service is cheaper and more versitile than ever, but on the other hand these companies have had a similar situation to their current on for some time now, and it has only been recently that the large carriers are providing the 'low, low rates' that one sees today.
It's hard to say whether or not deregulation like this could bolster the industry. On one hand the demand exists everywhere, while at the same time the per capita demand is often not great enough to warrant a company to provide service in an area (as with ruby ranch). On the other hand, deregulation could spawn an explosion of service in areas which the cable companies and 'baby bells' (which aren't small in any sense) in areas they once thought to risky to warrant the investment of time and materials.
I'm all for it, because I know that a big part of what's holding back many telco's and cable companies in rural areas is the fact that they have to share their lines (which means they make the investment, but get no return). These companies could make an investment and have a guaranteed return, (provided their business analysts have studied an area well enough).
Hopefully, regardless, cable internet service will be availible in my area by the end of september, after 6 years of 'cable for christmas'.
Linux is dead.
LU
Well, I know what it'll eventally happen.
We'll have a few large mega-corps do ISP jobs and backboning strcture. Well, eventaually be slapped down by a shitload of consumers, finding out they can't even have "servers". Lots of people run P2P, well that's half server/half client.
I see bandwidth being charged in the same wasy as electricity is today. However, in the 'packet' system, you pay only for packets sent out, not in (EG: the Snail Mail system). Since somebody's paying to send those packets to you, they're paying. That also eliminates hackable heuristics on wether packets are a flood/DDoS/whatever.
Then the government decided to trust-bust them. What did that get us? About five hundred new area codes (and that was just in California), and huge delays to get any changes in service or new lines.
I'm not saying that the Internation Internet Corporation would necessarily be a Good Thing, but in some instances there is something to be said for monopolies, IF they act in the best interest of the network (like Ma Bell did), and IF their prices are federally controlled, because they have the muscle to see that changes that need to be made get made, without dealing with a lot of BS from eight hundred other competitors.
There will be several "competing" giants, but in your neighborhood, you'll only be able to subscribe to one of them. They'll tell you the price, take it or leave it. All ports will be blocked on your end, so you won't be able to put up your own "content". It will only exist so that you can connect to commercial sites.
Also, as in the first century of the phone system (and most current cable TV systems), it will be illegal to connect anything not on the approved list. This list will include the latest releases from Microsoft, and nothing else.
If you don't like it, well, you don't have to use it. Connectivity is a privilege, not a right.
Then, after maybe a century, we'll have some new laws making it legal to connect your own equipment that runs unapproved software. At that time, we'll see a huge expansion of the Internet, as the first innovations in many decades hit the market and the companies upgrade the lines to more than 100KB.
Remind yourself that if the old Bell monopoly were still in place, we'd still be using the old black rotary phones, one per customer unless you pay a surcharge for an extension line. Also, note that right now most of the cable companies are blocking port 80, preventing customers from being "producers" and limiting them to a "consumer" status. And we've read the reports that MSN has been buying up ISPs and blocking email access to everyone but Windows users.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If it drops the cost of broadband and increases the bandwidth becuase tehse companys can afford to do it i have no problem
And that kind of short sightedness is exactly the problem. That is only good in the long term. These companies aren't giving you cheap access because they want to, it's because they get business out of doing it. Once someone has an actual monopoly the prices shoot up and it's too late to do anything about it. As long as there are a few corporations, and they are actually competing, things wil be ok. When they coordinate to price gouge or when one gains control of the entire market then the consumer is screwed.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Where in the constitution can you assume that or justify that the above is inaliable or even a civil/moral right
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Uh oh! Didn't you learn anything from the Replay/TIVO lawsuits? Not viewing the advertisements is ILLEGAL and possibly a TERRORIST act. I am so sad to see Slashdot harbouring so many criminals these days...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
"All the better to monitor you with, my dear."
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
...for unfiltered IP access. As the article so insightfully points out, the issue isn't cost or even availability, it's that pretty soon the companies that rent you a cable modem or DSL connection will be the same companies that own (or have an interest in) a whole stack of content. These are the people who bought the DMCA, the people who want to buy DRM legislation like the SSSCA in its various incarnations. Now they will control the creation, the ownership, the distribution and the delivery of content. So much for the original intent of copyright law.
Ask yourself this: when your choice of access is a subsidiary or partner of either Disney or AOL-Time Warner, why would they even need to buy legislation? For your safety and convenience, they can just block everything except port 80, map that to their caching proxies, and firewall off any part of the 'net that challenges their profit models.
You think they won't or can't do it? Why not?. The FCC's position is that competition should be across technologies, not within technologies, and they seem to be lumping cable and DSL in as one technology. The cable/DSL providers could offer (e.g.) filtered 2048/64 cable modem or DSL for a giveaway price of $10 a month; if the competition is $100 a month 512/128 satellite service, or a range limited and contended 2.4Ghz wireless service, then that will just about kill off the idea of unrestricted residential (not consumer, dammit) broadband. That's quite apart from rate/bandwidth capping and billing depending on whether you're downloading content that you've bought from your provider, or if you're daring to go out onto the big wide internet.
Yes, I know that we've no right to demand cheap unrestricted content, and that we should vote with our wallets and so on. But here's something to think about. If you truly believe that an unregulated free market will take care of this, then you wouldn't object to a shell corporation representing the Chinese government buying AOL-Time Warner or AT&T-Comcast and owning 40% or more of the cable networks in the USA, right?
I use that example because the free market, in its purest sense, means that anyone who can afford to buy or do something should be able to do it. The assumption is that purchasing power is obtained through persuading people to give you money of their own free will, and that your actions will continue to be along those popular lines. There are holes big enough to sail an oil tanker through in that theory, the biggest being that once you get in a position to demand money, or you sell a service that has no effective competition, or (my example) you are spending the taxes you collectd from taxing a billion people, then you can continue to leverage that hold indefinitely, especially if there's a large capital investment cost to entering the market.
Capitalism suffers from exactly the same problem as communism: it works great in theory, because it assumes that people are basically good and honest and will cooperate with the spirit as well as the letter of the system. In practice, any system of human governance or interaction requires constant vigilance to prevent tyranny, even if that tyranny comes wearing a pair of big friendly round Mouse ears. I think we need to be asking our government if they understand that the whole point of the Constitution and of the American State is to prevent situations where We, the People can be oppressed and (de facto) taxed without representation. I'd say we're well past that point already; the only question is how far we'll push it before we either see mass civil disobedience, or we tear up the Constitution and start over with a political version of an End User License Agreement, complete with all the usual disclaimers of warranty.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So you either pay up, or go without. How many here would actually give up the internet in protest? Round about none I'd wager.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
How services run for profit cost people less than the same service provided by a non-profit institution? Negative effects of no competition? Well... What if massive services such as the Internet were administered cooperatively by multiple groups who compete for "bonuses"? Whoever provides the best performing section of the network for the best price wins a pay increase. Yes, it would make it that much easier for the G-Man to install surveillance equipment, but private companies already are complying. Plus, if mega-corps didn't make unfathomable amounts of money off of what has become an essential element of our right to Free Speech, perhaps they wouldn't have the money to enslave the Third World and get everyone pissed at us...therefore no reason for terrorists to terrorize. Perhaps a bit simple, but IMHO something to look at.
Seemingly unbeknownst to many in the USA we actually have access to the Internet here in Europe. I believe it is available in Australia and Japan too.
Certainly in the UK we have similar sorts of difficulties with broadband access, with an effective monopoly supplier in the shape of British Telecom. However, I wouldn't glorify this with an article containing a line like "BT is taking over control of the Internet". Hyperbole anyone?
That the Internet and the networks that happen to make up the Internet themselves are fundamentally two different animals.
Remember the roots of the word. An internet is a network made up of a bunch of networks.
The reason the internetworking in general, and the Internet in particular, work, is because we all agreed on some standards, and a global addressing scheme that ensured unique, routable address space.
Far more important in the long run is making sure that address allocation is impartial and open to everyone. Even now this is erorded.. for reasons that seem unavoidable at present.. but it's still eroding.
You see, before, you could get a block of address space assigned to you, whether or not your network was hooked to anyone elses. Why would you do this? On the mere POSSIBILITY that one day you would hook it up.
Everyone could get unique address space, and network together at will.
Now.. you ahve to prove your precise need for those addresses, and you must get them from your isp. This makes sense if you consider the increasing scarcity of addresses.. but there is a quality that is being lost.
My point is.. we have to make sure that, regardless of who is offering what, that global IP routability is still there, and that Joe Farmer, if he invents a new transmission method, can get routable address space.
Separate platforms exist for separate purposes, and have separate capabilities. While I am as enamored of Bluetooth as anyone it is not the same as a fat cable pipe.
The FCC rulings do not (as I understand them) prohibit one company from owning multiple "platforms" If the local wireless net, and cable, and DSL all come from the same source then nothing has been gained.
In any location where one company has a monopoly on most services such as broadband, etc. Where is the incentive to develop a new "platform"? If a town has cable and DSL controlled by AOL then I have little or no incentive to develop a wireless alternative there. The startup costs will be (as they are for anything) huge. In order to break even (until I get a lot of subscribers) I will have to charge more than AOL can charge. So, while I am depleting my cash reserves trying to undersell them they are a) selling at a fraction lower than me, and b) blocking my ads from running and my web page from working on "their" lines and c)running news on their service saying that I torture kittens in my spare time. Then once I'm gone they can jack up the prices again.
Where is the incentive to invest in infrastructure going to come from? Once you have a service that "works" and are facing no competition, why upgrade? Why waste your cash reserves on making life better for your captive audience when you could be working on expanding your audience.
Monopolies are only good for themselves, and the economists that they pay.
What is needed is one company controlling the local infrastructure, and charging for access to it. The access cost would have to cover the cost of installation, maintenance, and upgrades.
Best Slashdot Co
Can someone explain to me how Internet2 relates to all of this. Will Internet2 rely on the same pipes, or are they building a whole new network, pipes and all?
Can I bum a sig?
I see why, in this day and age, I am still dialing in with a friggin' modem.
Local gov'ts generally give cable companies monopoly rights, rights to tear up streets, etc.
Well that's your problem right there. You're looking for a government regulation to fix a problem created by another government regulation.
grep -ri 'should work'
from the article Now, eight cable companies will decide what the public will be offered
Thats 7 too many companies for a monopoly! People say monopoly way too much.
Uh, Amendment 10 is exactly what PROHIBITS the federal government from getting involved in this arena....
grep -ri 'should work'
You get to vote for your government every 4 years. Once they're in, 4 years is long term. Corporations, on the other hand, have to keep you happy every day, forever. Corporations, especially these days when brands are so important, are massively concerned with what people think of them, and if they're unpopular, they'll change.
Oh really? If what you say is true, then please explain to me how microsoft's behaviour is consistent with your argument. If you have time, I would also like to hear how the MPAA and RIAA are concerned with what people think of them, and I am anxiously awaiting them to change for the better...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Yep, and back in the day it was all controlled by ONE company, unntil that one company ASKED to no longer be the monopoly utility for LD service.
It was the government that made ATT a regulated monopoly and it was business that introduced competition.
Boy, isn't this some spin!
ATT agreed to divest of their LOCAL phone monopoly as part of a settlement to an anti-trust action brought against them by the DOJ. Seems a little upstart named MCI complained that ATT did anti-competitive things to prevent their entry in the long distance business.
They never ASKED to no longer be a LD monopoly. That was forced upon them by the anti-trust suit. In their defense, their settlement offer was unexpected and they could have dragged it out for years and years. But, it seems they thought that they could compete well in certain technology areas that had been denied them before.
In return for this settlement, ATT got the right to compete in other technology areas, like computers, that they had been denied due to Telecommunications and Anti-Trust law up to that time.
Their computers and software flopped completely. How you could fail at making money selling UNIX during it's growth haydays of mid-80s to early 90s is beyond me. Their computers were actually interesting, but somehow they couldn't market them.
Their telecom/networking products, now mostly Lucent Corp., did have some success awhile back, but now Lucent is doing pretty poorly.
Actually, Congress' power to create the FCC comes from the clause which permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The point may not be inarguable, but the regulation of the national telecommunications infrastructure seems well within the domain of "interstate commerce."
There is an interesting constitutional question as to whether Congress can delegate its regulatory authority to administrative agencies such as the FCC. Very roughly speaking, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate regulatory authority as long as the regulatory agency has clear instructions as to what sort of regulations it is supposed to be making. Questions like these are treated in detail in the field of law called "administrative law."
Or just act like one.
Nationwide fiber-optic networks going for pennies on the dollar! Worldcom's price/book ratio is only 0.08 right now. That means you can buy the company Bernie Ebbers so lovingly assembled for only eight cents per dollar of net assets.
So, if anybody has $4.4 billion to spare, email me and we can be oligopolists too!
Milo
A few points:
Firstly, I think this trend is a very bad one, but not a sustainable one. It think the medium term effects of this regulatory change will be obvious and will make even fairly jaded political entities scramble to change it back. Firstly, these regulatory changes stand to make most of the providers without last mile networks either go out of business or cut back considerably, something that will be very visible in the current economy. Secondly, a lot of the people who are using broadband now, second-tier adopters, will be pretty damned disillusioned if the providers start screening content. Even if they don't give up on broadband, they'll probably stop evangelizing their mainstream, less geeky friends. I think that sort of thing would slow adoption to a crawl, which the opposite of what the FCC thinks its doing.
Mainly, I think its important to remember that this kind of policy change can be reversed just about instantly. I think the providers know this too, and will not bet the farm that abusing the new state of affairs will not cause such a reversal from future FCC appointees.. In many ways, we'd be much worse off if all of these changes had come through Congress.
Secondly, and more contrarily, I think its rather strange to classify a market media monopoly as a First Amendment violation. The First Amendment has nothing to do with publication. It guarantees that the government will not restrict your voice. It does not guarantee that the government will regulate the market to make people publish that voice. Media monopolies are wrong for many reasons, but the First Amendment as written is not one of them
Point #1 sucks, but is more or less a non-issue, because it happens to be the status quo in most areas.
:)
Point #2 is the scariest from my perspective - if this is implemented, Covad, and probably most of the independent ISPs that use them, are out of business. Unless the LECs are willing to resell (don't bet on it), my company, a medium-size carrier-class ISP, will see one or more of its largest billing customers get regulated out of business. Lots of people will lose their jobs if this becomes reality.
Point #3 is scary, too, but unless the FCC takes back the 2.5 GHz band, unlikely, unless that band becomes too crowded to be usable for IP traffic.
The largest logical failure in the FCC's line of thinking is the assumption that all three platforms will be available in all areas. Cable has shown the most promise for wide-scale deployment, but is hampered by the lack of competition that begets "because we can" policies (no servers or VPNs allowed, port blocking, etc.). Why? because unless DSL is available where you live, the cable companies truly have a monopoly. If the same thing happens to DSL, something tells me that the idea of running a server on a residential broadband line will become a faint memory.
My hope the the future is wireless - there's no way that any one wireless cellphone provider will have a monopoly of any given area, and hopefully the same will be true with data. I just hope those providers will allow servers.
The idea with platform competition - that is to say, that cable broadband competes with DSL - is that it's only partially true. There are high costs to get equipment, so that once you have cable, for example, you are unlikely to switch to DSL (with the attendent $200 installation if you can't find a deal). Also, since all of the broadband services look at their competition only within their platform when it comes to services and prices, the services tend to be poor and the prices high, since most broadband providers have no competition within their platform and service area.
On the other hand, I suspect that this will drive the community network connections forward, which is a good thing. Many developers in my region (DFW) are now building their developments with the homeowners' association controlling a preinstalled network with usually at least a T3 out (for about 100 houses), and sometimes more. All the houses are pre-wired, and you pay for the service monthly, at generally very low rates.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Economists often describe monopolies as entities that have more than a 70% or so market share. This is where the inefficiencies of monopoly rents seem to start kicking in.
So, although 'monopoly' technically means a single seller, it has been used in a broader sense for the last 100 or so years.
Milo
Under current conditions, anyone who can get a good SDSL connection (for instance, Covad/Speakeasy, available in all the major population centers) can, for a bit over $100 a month, run a medium traffic Web server, ftp, a listserv, dns.... You can't do that over cable, and you can't do that over telco ADSL.
Now, you can do that by renting space at a server farm somewhere, but then you'll also need broadband to administer that at all efficiently. On the low end you can match that $100 a month, but in the middle range - say you want to have lots of content available, multiple URLs, custom configurations of Apache and whatever, you're talking about something over $200 a month for a dedicated server, plus your own broadband - tripling the price. So you significantly raise the bar for citizen participation in Internet publication. Where's the public interest in this? It's like giving the dominant newspaper control of the price of paper and ink.
As a small note: cable isn't even in the picture if you don't have cable - and some of us out here have no interest in $35 a month for basic cable - the effective cost of cable broadband is that much higher if you don't want that crap.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The large ISPs also promote spam. Consider Qwest, Verio, and UUNET just to name a few. These companies are so large they know they cannot be blacklisted, so they just keep on selling the pink contracts and to hell with the rest of us.
Unforunately, at this point it look like only a national law will even begin to bring those companies to heel (and a law will only affect companies with a significant business presense in the country that has the law...). I hate saying that - I dislike the "There outta be a law...." types, and any anti-spam law will have severe negative consiquences, but this is the direction we are being driven in.
www.eFax.com are spammers
As a local example; If FCC deregulates DSL services I would be forced to give up my local ISP and use Qwest the ILAC. Not good. I run my own server from a second IP via my local ISP. Quest would shut me off from running my own server immediately, raise my ISP rate and I believe they are blocking common ports such as 80 for listening services. So much for the home based web server.
I'd be forced to co-host or use a virtual domain giving me limited physical access to my server, or making certain custom configurations difficult or completely unavailable if I go with the hosting solution. As DSL is an unregulated service here in Oregon I can't even cry to PUC. No solution would then exist for a private individual to run a small server from home in my area without incurring an unnecessary debt.
I believe Qwest also has a download limit, something like 2 or 3 gigs a month after which you start paying something per MB depending on your service plan. My current ISP does not. Unlimited bandwidth. While I'm a fairly heavy user my total download since 5/02 appears to be around 10GB, while upload is at less then 200MB. Not that high but higher then what Qwest would allow without incurring further monthly overrun costs. I can see no financial reason for Qwest to uncap their download limit unless it was forced on them, which would be rather contrary to deregulation. Local cable? hah, AT&T's Orwellian user policy, upload bandwidth is terrible, no local servers, etc. I've been informed that they scan common service ports and will terminate service for violations. In parts of the area I'm located in service is simply terrible while others get good service. Crap shoot and your forced into a year long contract.
To sum up. Deregulation of DSL IS going to suck if it happens. Another step back for broadband as there are no worthy alternatives. That second unregulated IP I discussed was and is my linux and networking education. I've run several flavors of GNU/Linux, configured firewalls, IDS, PHP, Apache, and on and on. Because it was an option. I'd like others to have that option in the future. My local school districts are pushing linux onto desktops which probably means a whole hoard of kids are going to be enlightened to a network OS, they should have the same opportunity I did to try this networking thing, maybe find some value in using the net for something other then passive browsing and IM.
The article mentions that there are was no public forum for debate over cables deregulation. Will there be for DSL? I'd be interested to know what the small ISP's providing DSL service have to say about this. Is a local ISP such as dsl-only going to survive? Just look at the name! Not a chance. More money going out of the local economy and into the hands of a corporation I hate and dispise for repeatedly giving me sloppy customer service and terrible technical support. And think, I'm just one example... sigh.
We have phone companies with 500 customers in a rate area, claiming a big fat block of 10,000 numbers for them. That's 9,500 wasted numbers. THAT's why we have the explosion in area codes.
First, Let's refer to...
Marriam-Webster
1. exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2. exclusive possession or control
3. a commodity controlled by one party
Notice the word exclusive as in exclusive ownership, exclusive control, exclusive possession
Litmus Test
Q. Do the Baby Bell's have exclusive control over the publicly owned telephone telecommunications infrastructure?
A. No, They currently have Primary Control now as they are required to share thier control with other providers.
Q. If the current FCC proposal allowing Baby Bells to deny access to the network access, will the Baby Bells return to thier Monopoly status?
A. Yes, The current FCC proposal will give EXCLUSIVE rights to the public infrastructure, making the Baby Bells Regional Monopolies. IE, No more Covad or Flashcom.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Like I want THAT popping up, even momentarily, when I'm at work! I want to *keep* my job after all... Do Salon ads now need a NSFW warning?
Freedom: "I won't!"
Apropos AT+T in the computer world, they innovated too much and too soon. Things from the plan9 OS to the rc shell to the sam text editor to the Acme whatsamabobit were arguably major improvements upon the mainstream, and were unarguably innovative. Not Microsoft style innovative but Edison style innovative. Main stream OS', to the extent they have changed since plan9, have approached plan9's design (distributed computing, network transparency, replacing monolithic mainframes with peer special purpose machines - one to do networking between LAN and WAN, one to serve up home directories and authenticate logins, one to store runable binaries, one or more to do long cpu and ram intensive tasks etc. that act to the user like one coherent computer). The ideas are maybe just too wierd, not what people are used to in computing, too new for them to make money on them, but we may just talk about them someday re networking and program design the way people now talk about Xerox PARC regarding UI (try out the unix port of sam, rc or wily, the unix port of acme, to see what I am talking about- you will have to RTFM, they all take a while to figure out, but they are all definitely innovative. If they were just released yesterday, they would still be innovative).
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
I think you will find that corporations are far more answerable to customers and even small shareholders than governments are to voters.
You're clearly too young to remember AT&T before deregulation. You couldn't plug anything into a phone socket that they didn't own. The popular variant of their marketing slogans was "AT&T: we don't care, we don't have to."
The FCC is a corrupt PoS. Not only do they "control" who gets to broadcast what/how/when and where, they want to limit the wire bandwidth to only companies that pay them the most money and sit on the FCC's "advisory" boards. What a self-serving crock of crap!
Shit, why the hell don't municipalities start non-profit NGOs to install/maintain another set of wires (or fiber)? Maybe with another type of utility, we can get the Bells off our collective backs. Btw, who needs local telephone service anyhow? It seems that alot of cell phones are cheaper than long-distance in most cases, and with a high-speed conxn, VoIP would be essentially free.
I vote that we scrap the FCC and start over, because they are NOT serving the people, only themselves and the big oglopolies.
P.S.: "Deregulation" means fewer rights for consumers, and more market power for "Baby" Bells (SBC == 4 Baby Bells).
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of monopolies, and I'd rather that they would have ruled that the current telcom rules applied to cable.
---- however ----
5 or 10 years ago the average person on the street still didn't -get- the internet. They didn't understand the fundamental difference between a broadcast media and an interactive media.
If this ruling was proposed then it would have made sense to be up in arms because customers wouldn't know what they were missing when providers served them AOL or a lookalike.
Today however, many americans understand. The've all been amazed first hand at the variety and 'fresh-ness' of the internet. Do you think they would let that go away? Don't you think people will vote with their feet against the first such monopolist that started restricting content.
Isn't that the advantage of a free market. The government doesn't have to get it and companies that don't get it will suffer.
I just don't think that this will destroy the spirit of the internet. And with money to be made perhaps the providers will finally run fiber that last mile into everyones living room.
Just a thought.
Large corporations love governnment regulations, because they do far more damage to small businesses than they do to the large corps.
You're clearly too young to remember AT&T before deregulation. You couldn't plug anything into a phone socket that they didn't own. The popular variant of their marketing slogans was "AT&T: we don't care, we don't have to."
AT&T before deregulation was a government-sanctioned monopoly. You're just proving my point that governments don't need to care what people think about them. After deregulation, AT&T improved drastically, because the market forced them to.
By definition, a private corporation in competition with other private corporations couldn't have survived behaving that way. Witness the intense competition between and well-staffed call centers of the various mobile telcos.
You are correct. That doesn't mean it isn't a right.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Just as long as that one network is not "the WB"
But the far more urgent concern is that media conglomerates will use their control over broadband pipes to restrict access to content, information, or technologies that compete with their own content or otherwise threaten their interests.
In a democracy, those who control the flow of information control the country. Grassroots movements can't get started without free communication, and as the Internet is becoming an increasingly used political sounding board, this deregulation will give the media companies more power than we realize. Unlike the government, which is required by the Constitution to allow free speech, the media companies have no such requirement - they can deny access to anyone without any justification whatsoever. Those with views unpopular (say Jews, Christians, or Muslims...) or critical of the ISP, may find themselves silenced without any legal recourse.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The rules were written to prevent the owners of the telephone wires from using their power over the lines to control content or stifle competition.
These rules don't seem to be very effective in the case of DSL. Verizon has had a nasty habit of cancelling CLEC orders for DSL or deny them on the grounds of being too far from the CO.... and then have the nerve to offer DSL service to the same people that couldn't get it though DirectTV, Earthlink, et al.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
If AOLTW were to block its competitors from sending content to its users that would be a gross violation of anti-trust laws. I for one am becoming less libertarian and more conservative the more I contemplate posts like yours (which is a good thing, most conservatives do support anti-trust law).
Oh really? If what you say is true, then please explain to me how microsoft's behaviour is consistent with your argument [Corporations, on the other hand, have to keep you happy every day.]
Microsoft keeps the vast majority of users happy every day. To the Slashdot community, the users may be "Fat happy and dumb", dupes, or fools: but they are there and they are happy even if they don't know better.
is a site that follows proposed bills (and rulings) and articles affecting technology.
If you are interested in things like this, take a look.
It's still under development but it's very useful.
AT&T before deregulation was a government-sanctioned monopoly.
AT&T had acheived monopoly status by the 1930's. It chose to submit to a set of business restrictions (primarily other markets, e.g. computers) in order to be allowed to remain a monopoly in 1956. It was hardly a passive entity, before or after.
By definition, a private corporation in competition with other private corporations couldn't have survived behaving that way.
By definition, a monopoly isn't in competition, leaving very few mechanisms for "forcing them" to do anything.
Consolidation is OK so long as individual users mostly have choices on an individual basis. Despite media consolidations, there is more real
media choice today than ever.
Not long ago, I saw a talk on broadband connectivity here in Texas, especially with reference to rural communities; there are alot
of mighty small and isolated communities here in this state. Surprisingly many had access to broadband. Communities of any size at all had access to actual choices - two of cable, DSL, or wireless. Communities which only had one of those did so only because of widespread satisfaction with the 'monopoly' provider. It seems reasonable to believe that competition will spring up if satisfaction thins with that provider.
And, of course, everybody has access to satellite, but it doesn't seem to be needed in surprisingly many places.
Here in Austin, we have monopoly cable companies, and we have DSL mostly provided by a single cable company. Two near-monopolies in terms of individual technologies, but they do compete. Their prices are competitive; they don't dare let their service departments go too far south; they are always running TV ads blasting each other.
And if it doesn't work out, we can always reregulate. No matter what people say about money and politics, democracy will not be suspended
as a result of this decision.
I have been following this stuff a lot lately.
The FCC director seems to be completely insane in my book.
There was a reason the Bells were broken up, there is a reason IBM was held up in antitrust committees,and Microsoft is yet another example.
If you give someone the power to take advantage of others they will do it. You don't place a steak in front of a dog and expect him not to eat it. The heads of corporations are just rich dogs and the steak is our money.
Think about it, the people the FCC are trusting to be honest are the same people that lie to people before lay offs (Bellsouth, Time Warner), and do underhanded things like prioritize their telephone installers to stop competition in DSL providers, (Ameritech for example). We cannot trust large corporations.
If you don't believe this, you are either on the board of directors of a major corporation, or you are blind.
When will the government stop pandering to the whims of a group of "elite billionaires" and start listening to the constituency?
I guess not until we fire them.
You're argument for allowing Cable companies a monopoly is contigent on the following series of events happening.
1. Cable begins selling Voice-over-IP to all customers.
2. A significant market is going to switch to an inferior voice service. (CLEC's had hard enough time selling the same service as Bell's let alone an inferior one)
3. FCC will reconsider it's decision despite an earlier decision exempting VoIP services from paying into the Universal Service Fund, which funds telephone access in remote areas.
4. The Telco's won't figure out a way to circumvent this despite they figured out how to circumvent the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which bargained deregulation in exchange for providing access the public infrastructure they are entrusted with.
How can you even begin to assure that any of these events will take place, let alone all of them? How can you ensure a community will have all three services, Cable, DSL, and wireless? How can you ensure prices will be reasonable for the areas that lack competition (All Cable, no DSL, no Wireless)? What would keep any of these services from all agreeing to ban certain uses (Kazaa, FTP server, etc.)?
To recap, your plan puts all it's eggs in the VoIP basket, and is naive for thinking the Baby Bells and Cable companies will play by the rules.
At a minimum, we should ATLEAST keep making the Bells provide access to the infrastructure as they've been doing for the last 4-5 years. That's AT A MINIMUM, because you just can't trust them.
While we're at it, here's a list of people you can't trust.
* Politicans
* Monopolies
* Corporations
* The Media
* Musicians
* Comedians
* Religious Icons
* Advocacy Groups
* Anyone who just wants you to trust them
* Anyone who identifies with a political party
AND
* Anyone over 30
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I just didn't touch on it.
IPV6 will give us address space, yes..
but will it be too late? Who will allocate that space? Will it simply be handed out by the current heirarchy of control, or will we once again be able to freely get routable space assigned to us without hassle, regardless of who our ISP is?
The Salon article uses the phrase "facilities-based competition", which we have now in DSL markets, where the owner of the facility (the ILEC) has to open the facility (and its copper pairs, etc) up to CLECs like Covad.
I would be willing to forgo facilities-based competition, like the FCC is considering, only in exchange for "packet-based" competition, whereby the monopolizer of the facility must without prejudice allow all IP packets to travel through their facility. Specifically, under packet-based competition, ILECs and other providers of IP connectivity would not be able to use their monopoly/oligopoly on connectivity to gain an advantage in services or content that runs atop the IP layer.
Bob Frankston advocates this, but I'm afraid that he's not cynical enough about government's tendency to kowtow to big corporations.
Specifically, it is easier to fight to keep a right one already enjoys (to buy from facilities-based competitors like Covad) than to fight for a new right (to buy services from packet-based competitors).
Thus, I will fight to keep facilities-based competition.
For more details read this, what's that? Shall I quote it? Mmmmmmkay
So, since corporate welfare goes only to big corporations that means it's entirely possible (qualitatively) that their tax bill is zero.A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
J*sus H Chr*st is that first f*cking full-screen ad annoying.
Would I ever patronize any company that ever used such an advertisement?
Never.
Will I ever go back to Salon, after that?
Never.
To hell with 'em...
All you folks who are so in love with pop-ups and pop-unders and all that cr*p need to wise up.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I don't understand this argument, but I see it a lot. Opening the network to competition should not mean that AT&T fails to make a profit on the infrastructure they've built. Look at it this way: AT&T builds a railroad to carry minerals from a mine they own. They have two different investments: the mine and the railroad. Now other mine operators want to use the railroad. Naturally, they expect to pay. But AT&T refuses to carry their cargo at all. Under the DSL rules, AT&T would be compelled to provide transport for the other mine operators - not at a loss, but at a reasonable profit. This should not harm their ability to recoup on any investment in the railroad. If it harms their ability to recoup on the mine, then the mine was badly planned.
In any event, the last-mile wiring infrastructure remains a monopoly. The issue is whether that facility should be rented (not given away) to all parties on a non-discriminatory basis, or whether the owner of the infrastructure can leverage its monopoly in last-mile transport to create a monopoly in a totally different market, ISP services and upstream transport.
To me the answer is clear; in fact I believe that any company granted monopoly privileges to provide last-mile transit should be banned from providing upstream internet access - they should merely rent capacity to ISPs who would sell the complete package to customers. That would eliminate the current blatant conflict of interest. I don't see how it would prevent investors in such last-mile infrastructure from recouping investment.
Control of information is a big cause for concern. This pbs.org page goes into one famous example of a media (newspaper) big-shot, William Herst. The best paragraph is the following: Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., remembers his father asking Hearst why he preferred concentrating on newspapers, with their limited, regional appeal, rather than spending more energy on motion pictures and their worldwide audience. Fairbanks recalls Hearst's reply: "I thought of it, but I decided against it. Because you can crush a man with journalism, and you can't with motion pictures." All you need is one person in power with a vendetta, and people who were interested in lower costs will change priorities.
This is not my sig.
Exactly my point. Regulations may cost large corporations in the short term, but in the long term, it kills their competition.
So what would you suggest government people do? Stay til they die? Become welfare bums?
However, ATT mandate required they "spread the wealth" by providing things like Universial Access. ATT was required to provide everyone, everywhere, roughly equal phone service at roughly similar prices.
Net-Net ATT was facing a world where the likes of "MCI" claimed they had a "right" to engage in profitable business. Fine. But that argument was forcing ATT into a world where all the wealth it was required to spread was being skimmed away.
You just can't maintain a 10 mile rural phone circuit on $20/month, if you aren't making money to pay for it elsewhere else.
As I said, you're spinning it. To suggest that ATT "ASKED" for there to be competition in LD is bizaare. They certainly never would have gotten out of the monopoly business had it not been for the anti-trust suit.
ATT could have and were expected to argue that what they were doing to MCI was fair for years, but they folded right away and went in for the breakup plan. Everyone assumed that ATT was going after the lucrative communications/telecom/computing business that they were denied before.
"precipitate the Anti-trust suit"?? MCI brought the anti-trust action. I don't know where you get your history from.
What are you, some kind of Libertarian historical revisionist, trying to prove that big monopolies will always voluntarily break up and that it's only big government that we should be afraid of?
Your arguement is essentially
1) Companies want money
2) The consumer gives them money
3) They must appease consumers for money
1 is correct.
2 They can get money from other companies. For example Disney could pay the ISP to allow more bandwidth for downloading their stuff.
3 In the real world not even close. If their are only 8 companies (sometimes called an olgapoly) controling everything, they will probably tacitly agree to not out do each other since this would lead to "destructive competion."
They will all benfit if they all agree to not lower their prices. (This can often be an unspoken thing. They say let's not lower our prices because our few competitors will do the same and we will gain more market.)
It is different if there are more companies because if company X controls 0.01% of the market and it lowers its prices then it would increase its market share because its competitors would not respond to this because company X has an insignificant affect on the market.
I have been talking about pricing but everything I said also applies to quality of service.
Companies also don't need to improve products if they use fraud and high quality marketing but thats not as relevent to what we're talking about and this post is already to long.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Since it's obvious that the heads of these regulatory agencies are mainly out to line their pockets, I don't think it would be too out of line to say "Hey, go find a position in an industry *other* than the one you just finished regulating."
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
while I think a little more regulation shold be done, requiring someone who is an expert say in nails to go do work in farming.
So are you suggesting that I just "vote with my wallet" on PG&E's brownouts? Obviously, I have no choice as there is not another electricity company serving the greater SF area.
...and THAT's the point of the article. Capitalism also implies that substitutes are available. What if they aren't - and can't be? Then what?
could you explain what part of civics matters to people who take a 50 million dollar bonus when a company is on the verge of going under?
I am completely clueless how this is going to help the industry, Time Warner has already jacked my bill twice this month.
I was considering switching, but the choices are horrible, and now I am going to have less!
Taxing corporations isn't futile - that $40billion Micro$oft has isn't going into wages. Taxes actually encourage corporations to give the money in wages, as if the company keeps the money as profit by paying all employees $10,000 pa the corporation would have to pay so much tax that they might as well give it to the employees as salary, so they do.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Monopolies is just a company that makes a differentiated product. That is all.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
In a globalized system, it may not matter if the governments (as we know them) wish to control or otherwise get in the way.
It's strange. While the power industry progresses, the telecom industry goes in the direction of the power industry's history. Apparently FCC has never heard of the old adage of "He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it."
:wq
From the article: [Economists] argue that the current regulations, particularly the open-access requirements for DSL, actually discourage private investment... Who wants to build a new network if you then have to share it with competitors?
So the only way we can have broadband is if monopolies build it. Righto, and gambling casinos will never work either, because if people don't win they won't come back.
It would be a tremendously difficult task even to organize a beginning to such a network, because while most of my friends are geeks of some nature NONE of us are hard-core electronic geeks; I'm the closest to such that I know, and thus far I'm only scratching the surface.
Wake up and take a look at the world around you, for the love of Mike; in a complex society we all depend on someone else to take care of some aspect of society's infrastructure.. We can't all be master plumbers, as well as civil engineers, as well as primary school teachers, as well as lawyers, as well as InterNet protocol designers. Kudos to you if you've found enough kindred souls to avoid the problem, but to most of us it isn't a trivial task to create such an alternative and the problem is a real one we can't sidestep.
Who wants to build a new network -- whether it's DSL, satellite, or "fiber to the home" -- if you then have to share it with competitors? If the government steps aside, they say, robust competition will develop between different technology "platforms" such as cable, phone, satellite and local wireless, giving consumers plenty of choices and stimulating a build-out of broadband infrastructure at the same time.
What a load of dung! In the first paragraph it assumes that there is not enough profit incentive to deploy high speed access{kinda funny when here where I live TAXPAYERS PAID to deploy the Fiber which makes high speed access offerable and it IS the consumer demand which decides broadband success, not restrictions against consumers}; and when you get right down to it, we all know the fcc suxs and are part of an empire that seeks to kill FREE SPEECH and is part of an evil death star which will reap what it sows. This is the Globalization Plan, ie.. make the USA like China, then it won't matter what country you live in!
--The "Free Market" is so laughable of a lie, when you have a bunch of greasy knuckleheads constantly screwing consumers and markets up completely; I'll roll my own telecommunications system out thank you very much!
Relying on "platform competition" would be like relying on horses (dialup), cars (wireless) and airplanes (satellite) to unseat railroad monopolies (telcos) about a century ago -- sure, they all provide transportation, but only one of them has infrastructure built and suitable for low-cost service while others have to deal with basically a lot of empty space and technology that makes sense only where infrastructure is built, ot for some limited uses.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I'm thinking, why would you lie about something that's so easily checked? Doesn't make much sense, really.
This page has a timeline. Note that it states that the DOJ requested the breakup with the initial filing in 1974, 10 years before the actual breakup occurred.
Do you dispute that the anti-trust action was brought in 1974 and that they broke up in 1984?
When, exactly, are you saying AT&T asked to be broken up? 1973? When? Where's your sources?
You want something more authoritative?
How about this where AT&T says:
Clearly the suit in 1974 precipitated the breakup.
Or, you can read here where Joel Klein, head of Antitrust litigation for the DOJ talks about the 1974 suit:
- "While the Justice Department can't promise any consumer benefits that might result from its suit to break up [the company], it is sure of one thing: This is the largest antitrust action ever filed. So much for the mentality of modern-day trustbusters. As long as they can tackle the biggest of all 'big businesses,' what is the difference whether the massive expenditure of federal money and effort is likely to cut anyone's . . . bills?"
By now, you may have guessed that this is an editorial about the Department's monopoly maintenance case against AT&T, a 1974 editorial as a matter of fact;"Where is the problem that justifies risking possible damage to the efficiency of a vital part of the U.S. infrastructure; damage to the investments of innumerable small investors and pension fund beneficiaries; possible damage to an important research and development enterprise? If there is a problem that justifies all this we can't find it. Maybe it is because we prefer to deal in economics, rather than politics in such matters."
So, clearly the 1974 suit was aimed at a breakup of the AT&T monopoly.
Which is the whole point. The Government, through the anti-trust suit, intiated the breakup of AT&T. Not some libertarian fantasy where monopolies voluntarily disperse under the control of the unseen hand.
Authorities Wednesday were looking into claims that 12- and 13-year-olds obsessed with the game have lined up to bet on World Cup fixtures -- something perhaps unsurprising on the gambling-mad Mediterranean island .
But local law says punters must be at least 18, the Philelephtheros daily reported.
"If bookmakers started asking every single client for an identity card they would probably go bust," the father of a 14-year-old told Reuters.
Encouraged by a string of wins, his son has been betting almost daily since the World Cup started.
"I don't know what I am more angry at, the gambling or the winning. We haven't spoken in a week," he said resignedly.