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."

21 of 399 comments (clear)

  1. They saw it coming by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Informative

    The local electric co-op, Trinity Valley Electric, had a phone subsidiary, Trinity Valley Services. When we moved to their service area last summer, I was exctatic to be out of the grasp of the scandal-plagued monopoly I'd been forced to buy power from before. So when we signed up for electricty and they asked if we'd like to use their phone service, we said heck, yeah!

    Last month, we got a note in the mail that TVS was now "Cedar Valley Communications", and no longer directly affiliated with TVEC. This was pretty depressing... it was so nice to call up the phone company and talk to a person instead of to a robot.

    Now, it makes sense. With an 8-1 decision in the works, TVEC/TVS must have known that they were about to get hammered by Texas law. With little hope for legislative help from the Republican puppet government in Austin, they spun off TVS.

    At least I don't have to worry about getting a bill from the clueless megacorporation I was stuck with before.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  2. Good news by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ruling prohibits governmental entities (cities, counties, other municipalities, or groups thereof) of entering the telecom business.

    Nothing precludes any small private coop, company, or partnership from becoming a telecom provider.

    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that "states may not prohibit 'any entity' from getting into the phone business. That does not include political subdivisions of states, said Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court."

    This ruling is a good thing, as it keeps government out of the telecom business, where it belongs.

    1. Re:Good news by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know about that. You think a small private company is going to be able to compete with the big boys? Sorry, but I'd rather have a gov't. backed telco at low rates and comparable service than deal with Comcast.

      I don't want it controlled by the gov't (even on a community level), but our local ISPs are pretty weak in service, support and pricing. They just can't compete.

      I don't see why the gov't can't invest in (and get a return from) a local ISP. Let the ISP run the system, let the gov't. help to fund it and when the profits appear, some of those go back to the gov't.

      It avoids privacy issues while still allowing the consumers (and the government) to benefit by providing reasonable competition against the giants.

    2. Re:Good news by Patman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ruling prohibits governmental entities (cities, counties, other municipalities, or groups thereof) of entering the telecom business

      This is incorrect.

      The ruling states that a state may make a law banning local municipalities from providing telco service. If the state chooses not to make such a law, local municipalities are still free to enter the telco market

    3. Re:Good news by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, but one of its purposes is to regulate harmful monopolies.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The government's purpose is not to provide you with cheap utilities.
      This is what gets seen as Insightful around here? The government's purpose may not to be to provide cheap utilities, but I sure see it as their role to ensure that I'm not gouged by the utilities that are out there.

      And what the hell is wrong with people, coming together as a community (perhaps in the form of the local government) and providing cheap telephone service? I'm sure you'd be happy as a clam if I hadn't included the parenthetical remark, but isn't the government of the people and for the people?

    5. Re:Good news by jhoger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US is a democracy.

      The government's purpose is whatever its citizens decide it should be.

      If its citizens want to replace a quasi government entity like a phone company with a genuine government provided service, it's OK. We had a terrible power crisis for example in California. Who avoided being raped by Enron, et al? LA County, since they generated their own power.

      There are reasons to privatize things, and their are reasons not to. Don't make it out like it's so obvious.

    6. Re:Good news by theLOUDroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government's purpose is not to provide you with cheap utilities.

      Actually, in some cases it is. (Roads, Buses, etc)
      Consider the postal system for example. It's a government-run monopoly that seems to work just fine, doesn't it?

      The gov't DOES have a place providing services like this when whoever provides the service is going to have a local, regional, or country-wide monopoly. Without heavy government regulation, or a gov't run service, customers are going to be forced to pay the "monopoly price" instead of the "fair market price" this is a bad thing for everyone except the monopolist.

      The gov'ts purpose is to provide for the welfare of its citizens. Keeping them from getting raped for telephone service falls under this goal.

      IMO, the power and phone lines should be gov't owned, just like the roads. They are a public utility.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    7. Re:Good news by krem81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nothing's wrong with the community doing it. It's when the government gets involved that things go awry. See, the governments (even the local ones) have a tendency to subsidize an unprofitable venture with yours and mine tax dollars, thereby killing off the competition.

    8. Re:Good news by hesiod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > what the hell is wrong with people, coming together as a community and providing cheap telephone service?

      That's fine, and there is nothing wrong with that, since people can choose to create a company to offer whatever the hell they want. GOVERNMENTS DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY. As for your "parenthetical remark:"

      > (perhaps in the form of the local government)

      As soon as the government gets into things they get an unfair advantage over private companies because they can subsidize things with taxpayer money, thereby ruining the other business's chances. Also, when the government controls things, they have more opportunity to demand other things. They can then demand that EVERYONE pay a certain tax, part of which goes to upgrading their telecom infrastructure.
      Well, if I don't use that phone service, I should not have to pay, but that is the way things work in the U.S. You always pay for things you'll never use.

      > isn't the government of the people and for the people?

      Yes, that statement is true. This one is not: "The government is of the people who want cheap phone service, for the people who want cheap phone service, at the expense of local phone companies."

      Would you say it was perfectly fine for local governments to get into some other business, such as web hosting? What if, since they can support it, they decided that they would offer web hosting for their community at $1 per month. You own an ISP/host in that community. Wouldn't you be pissed off that the local government effectively put you out of business? Sure, you can argue about quality of service, but that is not part of this question, since we cannot guess what the quality of service would be for a nonexistant entity.

  3. good for the telco business by daddy+norcal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will be a good thing for emerging private telecom businesses, as it will remove competition coming from groups funded by state or city government. The government has no place competing with private citicens in the telecom industry, and today's decision by the Supreme Court, was the right one.

  4. Inefficient municipalities by willtsmith · · Score: 4, Funny


    You would think that the Congress of the 90s would be unafraid of small towns starting their own telcos. After all, governement is so "inefficient" in their minds that they couldn't possibly compete with such "efficient" and capable telcos like SBC, MCI and Global Crossing for services like DSL, etc....

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  5. Disheartening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whats happening to the little guy, or the right of communities to represent themselves ? The local community has traditionally been the proving ground for an enterprising individual. Communities no longer seem to have any power, or rights in the locations they represent.

    I remember a case in Roswell (or was it Alpharetta), GA where a car (Lexus?) dealership huffed and puffed and blew down the wishes of the people who wanted to keep the area as a nature preserve. That community lost the battle to the car dealership. Not related to telco, but none the less, an erosion of community rights, not to mention common sense.

    Sigh....

  6. pro states' rights by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I read correctly, the ruling is pro-states' rights, not anti-community telecom. They assert that states have the right to prohibit cities from engaging in a particular activity, not that states are required to prohibit such activity. IANAL, I did not read this article but I read a similar article earlier, insert your disclaimer here.

  7. Read the headline as... by kcubkg · · Score: 4, Funny

    I first read the headline as "Supreme Court Rules Against Taco" and thought oh jeez what has he done this time?

    --
    5 out of 4 people have trouble with fractions.
  8. Re:Hands OFF! by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Among the industries taken over or overregulated by the Gov:
    Rail Trains
    Pharmacies
    Telecom


    I usually agree with your comments, but I think you're a bit off today.

    Rail Trains - all but dead
    True, but not because of government regulation. In fact, it was lack of government foresight that allowed the auto and tire industries to shut down rail-based public transit.

    Pharmacy - corrupt and overpriced
    In what way does this have to do with the government? Compare the "market-based" (read: monopoly-controlled) US system with the Canadian system. Note that buses of US citizens head to Canada for cheap drugs -- not the other way around.

    Telecom - sucks oh so bad
    The comparison this time would be with Europe. I'm no expert, but everything I read on Slashdot indicates that Europe's regulation of telcos resulted in a superior wireless network, while the US corporate welfare system caused a tangled mess of incompatible systems.

    "The Government" isn't the solution to all problems... but neither is "The Market".

    On the other hand, your comment has been moderated as "Funny", so maybe I just didn't get the joke and should come down off my high horse...

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  9. Re:Hands OFF! by dschuetz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Industries formerly regulated by the government, but released to "let the market decide":

    Cable TV - rates increased, quality decreased

    Airlines - rates increased, quality and choice decreased, most of the "big 6" now rely on government bailouts

    I know there are more examples of this, but I can't think of any right now (in my post-lunchtime food coma).

  10. It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tellcos by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

    With little hope for legislative help from the Republican puppet government in Austin, they spun off TVS.

    That seems an odd position to take, given that it's the Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.

    The local electric co-op, Trinity Valley Electric, had a phone subsidiary, Trinity Valley Services. [...] Last month, we got a note in the mail that TVS was now "Cedar Valley Communications", and no longer directly affiliated with TVEC. [...] Now, it makes sense. With an 8-1 decision in the works, TVEC/TVS must have known that they were about to get hammered by Texas law.

    That doesn't make sense either. As another poster has already pointed out, the Supreme Court decision was against GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (cities, townships, counties, etc.) running phone companies. A Co-op is a corporation with its customers as its stockholders - as strictly private eneterprise as any other corportation. Unless TVE is a misledingly-misnamed government entity the ruling would not apply to it.

    When we moved to [TVE's] service area last summer, I was exctatic to be out of the grasp of the scandal-plagued monopoly [bucorp] I'd been forced to buy power from before.

    As far as scandal-plauging, there are few scandals to equal the routine operation of nearly ANY government operation. I, for one, am more than happy to see the big government, now that it's broken up the national telephone monopoly (a creature of its own regulation), telling the little governments to dump their own creatures.

    To anyone who lives in a region with its own city phone service, who believes that their service is good and wants to keep it that way, I have this suggestion:

    Go to the legislature of the governmental body that runs the little tellco (i.e. city council or whatever) and suggest they spin it out as a coop. (This will preserve much of its structure, and give the customers even more say in its operation than they had as citizens of the parent governmental division.)

    If you don't do this, expect your government to sell it to the local corporate-behemoth tellco at a kickback-driven bargan price - which will be paid off at compound interest in your next telephone bills.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  11. Article Troll by andih8u · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has nothing to do with community telcos; it's about city and state governments getting into the telco business. The article headline is a blatant troll. There again, it is Michael.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
  12. Re:this keeps DEMOCRACY out of the telecom busines by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, don't sound so condescending. Capitalism and its unchecked greed can cause just as many problems as a socialistic society. They're just different problems.

  13. Re:It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tell by ninejaguar · · Score: 4, Informative
    Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.

    That's baloney. Powell's son is trying to get others to do his work for him, and the courts have stated he hasn't been granted the authority to do that by congress. You can paint it anyway you want, but I have paint thinner.

    = 9J =