Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Against Community Telcos
acherrington writes "Today the Supreme Court ruled against a group of Missouri communities offering telecom services where it is prohibited by Missouri law. At least eight other states -- Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- have similar laws. Today's ruling will most likely result in more lobbying by the Baby Bells at the state level to stop community-sponsored telecoms who are fed up with poor service and monopolies."
This opens up a bunch of things now. Does this mean I can't let people share my wireless connection, for instance, without them breathing down my neck? The decision means total support for the local monopoly, which is sad indeed.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Hell, read anything.
This does NOT prevent competition or free markets. It prohibits no company from entering the telecom business.
It prohbits governmental agencies (cities, counties, etc.) from becoming telecom providers.
Exactly as it should be.
The only thing that's "bullshit" is your comment.
The government's purpose was not to provide us with cheap utilities. That doesn't mean it can't change.
No, actually it's NOT a free market decision. It prevents local citizens from using THEIR institutions to band together and fight monopolistic utilities.
Since private corporations are so "efficient" they should have ZERO trouble defeating "inefficient" government organizations with superior products and service. For example, the stellar service of SBC could just blow ANY municipal telco away!!!!
BTW, this law is plainly unconstitutional. It denies state governmental agencies from exercising a "non-enumerated" power. Yes, states cannot constrain inter-state commerce (telecommunications) but nothing in the constitution allows the federal government to PREVENT a state from engaging in interstate commerce.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I read the article(more like a blurb) but I haven't dug further (I live in WI so it doesn't mean much to me right now)..
Couldn't these companies use VOIP? As of right now VOIP isn't considered a typical phone service and regulated by Big Brother correct?
Or are they typical overly broad and generalized laws that apply to any way of providing a service using a phone?
No sig for you!!
So-called "plain english" in law is generally anything but "plain". It's subject to interpretation, which the courts are then required to examine and rule on the legality and constitutionality of said interpretation.
IANAL, of course, nor do I really agree with the concept behind the decision. Towns and cities that fill in service gaps by building and maintaining infrastructure (like power plants and transmission lines) shouldn't be precluded from offering other services that take advantage of that investment. Cities run public transportation on the roads they also run. Should that be allowed to be called illegal by a state commission or law? After all, commissioners (and legislators) can be cajoled by private donations into giving a leg-up to a private transportation company that wants to make a buck by filling in for the illegal city-run bus line.
In the end, this Supreme Court decision is reasonable, because the federal government shouldn't be able to tell a state that decisions its PUC makes are legal or illegal - that's basic states rights. Doesn't mean PUCs are doing the right thing though.
RW
I'm curious what (if any) effect this ruling will have on telcos sponsored by non-profit organizations. My undergraduate college is has just started a communications company to serve the community. Which side of the line do these organizations fall under?
JGG
In the way the USA economy is set up, there's only one place for a government-backed company to exist. That's where there's no way any business could provide that service if it had to compete, yet that service is vital to our way of life.
For example, take the US Postal Service. A daily mail pickup and drop-off at every address in the USA (including the most rural) would simply be impossible if there was not one and only one company providing that service. This is a perfect case of a service the rest of the government depends on, that likely would not exist if the free market was left to fend for itself. FedEx and UPS can compete in the high-price overnight market with the USPS, but nobody else has the ability to get a physical document from any point in the USA to any other point in the USA for 37 cents, or less than that even if you have a large volume of mail and pre-sort it properly.
In the case of Amtrak, the government is keeping the national railroad network alive for the sake of transportation redundancy. This came into play after the 9/11 attacks when all air traffic in the USA was grounded... the trains were able to keep running and some people and things were able to reroute themselves to get where they were going.
This is also why the government keeps up the Interstate highways. In theory, in the state of war on the US mainland, the Army could easily control any stretch of Interstate highway so that vital convoys could have a fast and trafic-free mostly-direct path from one metro area to another.
So long as there's still a profit to be made in the ISP business, then the government doesn't belong in it, just to regulate it so things don't get out of hand. If things ever do get totally out of hand (and we're nowher near that yet), then the government should step in to make sure there's affordable Internet access for the sake of keeping the network alive.
This is one case where it is better to have a large corporate monolith providing your service rather than a small municipal monopoly. One of my friends lives in Atoka, TN and their only choice for service is the Millington Phone Company. For two years that phone company has been promising broadband and better service, but have never come through on those promises. My friend is very mad because people just 200 yards down the street have BellSouth and broadband service. She even asked BellSouth if they could run a line the 220 yards, but BellSouth said that they couldn't because of the Millington monopoly. My friend has talked to whoever she could, even the FCC with no results. It looks like the Supreme Court was who she should have been talking to all along.
Smeghead every day of the week.
Among the industries taken over or overregulated by the Gov: Rail Trains
Breaking up large monolithic industries into lots of little companies and contracts can also be bad. Look what happened to the railways in the UK. We originally had separate companies running the railways profitably in each part of the country. These were then nationalised into British Rail (and ended up requiring government subsidies to keep running). Then the government decided to privatize the company again. But instead of keeping each regional division together, they decided to split the maintenance of tracks, operation of stations and the running of train services into different companies. This led to various events including the Clapham rail disaster and trains having to travel slowly on the tracks because regular track maintenance had been reduced by a half.
Guess what - the Republican party was founded on the idea of local government providing services (by investing in community chartered companies). It was called "internal improvements".
Don't they teach US HISTORY in schools anymore?
The area that I'm concerned about here: will this regulation retard development of free wireless services like The Personal Telco Project.
I hope this is a troll. You don't think phone service is a necessary utility? To use your example, how can you dial 9-11 if you don't have phone service?
Phone service is an integral part of our lives. But even disregarding the necessary aspect of it, phone service is one of those systems where a natural monopoloy forms (at least locally.) It doesn't make sense to have 5 lines going into your house, from 5 different companies. It's more efficient and cheaper to have one organization responsible for local service. A corporation will naturally leverage this monopoly to increase profits, at the expense of consumers.
They already did that with the local cable company.
Rates are up 80% since. Sure we have 10 more channels, but most of them worthless.
I WILL be at the city council meeting if they ever even hint about selling of the municipal phone company.
And yes, I do believe that the cable was sold off for a kickback-driven bargin price.
Bell Canada. It was the only game in town. A MONOPOLY. But, it was under government control, and (at that time), the government wasn't (so much) the enemy of the people. In regard to the telecom game, they pretty much did a worthy job. That is, if Bell screwed you, a simple call to the CRTC would get their butts kicked into shape and your connection flowing nice and smooth.
In the Eighties, it cost $15 a month for basic service. There were no extra fees, and Bell couldn't refuse to hook you up. FIFTEEN BUCKS a month.
What did competition bring?
Well, first of all, there isn't actually any competition. There's STILL only one phone system; it's just that now third party companies are allowed to buy discount bandwidth on that one system and re-sell it at lower rates. --And they don't have to pay to help maintain the physical system. Hmm.
And how does the phone company react to all that dropping revenue and the increasing cost of maintenance and development in a growing market? Why, they raise the cost of basic local service! Something goes wrong with your land line? Well, now it costs $100 bucks just to get some contracted company out to look at your phone. (Unless you buy the 'insurance' package for a few extra dollars per month).
And now if somebody screws you, who do you call? That's right! Nobody. Now, if you're unhappy, you're supposed to switch over to a different carrier, because that's how competition works!
On paper, anyway. --And only if a couple of chapters and logical positions are deliberately missing from the Free Market handbook.
If there was 'real' competition, there'd be more than one company stringing lines up all across the country. And that's called, "redundant, wasteful stupidity". Because competition slims down bloated structures, right? Sure.
There is NOTHING wrong with the idea of socially controlled telecommunications. Communications shouldn't BE a profit-making venture. It's a vital resource to a healthy society. Do you want to talk to people who enjoy sharing ideas, or would you rather communication happen among a bunch of Lawyers who think in terms of "Billable Minutes"?
I think enough discussion and information has been presented over the years to quite put an end to the reign of 'Free Market' armchair philosophers who read a book on it once, and who vote for square-jawed right-wing criminals who promise to punish the 'lazy' unemployed, but who make policy to ensure that unemployment is nice and high so that Big Business will have permanent access to cheep labor.
My phone service and phone bills suck now thanks to 'free market' politics and the people who push for such things. Thanks guys. The worst part is that I saw it coming, bitched and complained, and the world patted me on the head and called me silly.
Ah well. At least most of the hobbits are using cell phones now. It's easier than ever to walk through the world unchallenged, now that most people have voluntarily radiated their brains. Just don't get caught playing by the house rules! Man! Hell hath no fury like a muggle trying to categorize you on a computerized form!
"I don't need one of those awkward and painful a brains. See? Instead, I have a set of instructions! Much easier! Amd Thou Shalt Not. .
-FL