Slashdot Mirror
Companies, Government and Community Fiber Rollouts
hype7 writes "Wired is running an interesting article about a number of communities which are dissatisfied with the present communications infrastructure that they are being offered, and are deciding to do something about it. However, many of the corporates who had previously been offering services to these communities have resisted this, with Pennsylvania going so far as to draft law to prevent competition for the communications providers. What is most interesting is that in the communities where the roll outs have taken place, the incumbent providers have "dropped prices to be more competitive ... while not changing rates in areas where it continues to have a monopoly". What I don't understand is why can't a public utilities company provide a public utility if their rate payers want it? What's wrong with additional competition? And why should legislative bodies protect telecommunications monopolies?"
for granting Congress the power to legislate trade between the States. That little crack has widened to an enormous breach, to the point where these days, in America, the Soviet Russia jokes troll you. As the Oracle said in the Matrix "What do all men with power want? More power." As long as State and Federal legislatures exist, they will continue to pass laws. They're never "done". So of course they'll step up and slap down communities for doing this, its legally their perogative, and this is what they DO, they make laws. Not to mention the fact that they're probably all in the pockets of the telecom companies (Valenti, anyone?)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Excellent! I think the only way we are going to get decent, scalable telecomms to our door is by paying for it ourselves. Can't rely on the government to roll out this infrastructure. It's the same as traffic problems, it costs a heap of money to fix, and won't usually be fixed in the 4 years a politician is in office, and they won't see any return from it, therefore it's not even worth them doing it. Unless we do it ourselves, we'll never get it.
Corporations don't care about the consumer. They never have, and they likely never will. Corporations care about the consumer's money. As long as they can provide the bare minimum required to keep the money flowing into their coffers, that's all they'll do.
Pessimistic, yes. But show me a wildly successful corporation that lavishes it's customers with their every desire. Yeah. Right.
"What's wrong with additional competition? And why should legislative bodies protect telecommunications monopolies?" Because additional competition means less profit for the existing monopolies. Because telecommunication monopolies protect legislative bodies when it comes to election funds. It may sound like paranoi, but it's also the real world.
Whenever our normally capitalist system grants somebody a monopoly, it's usally because two of that kind of business would lead to mutual destruction, and we need that business to exist because it makes other businesses possible.
Netflix would not be able to operate if not for the United States Postal Service, for example. The same goes for most magazine subscriptions. Sure, FedEx, UPS and Airborne Express all compete with the USPS express and priority line of services, but everybody else is prohibited by law from making a daily stop at every address without a pre-existing relationship.
Cities control the local water and sewage systems as well for obvious reasons. We can't afford these services becoming unavailable for any length of time for any reason.
POTS used to be an essential utility as it was the only commonly deployed realtime communnication tech. Now, it's not so much the only game in town, but it still is the only communication lifeline for some elderly people who don't want a cell phone. Because of this, the local Ma Bell company is not allowed to close up shop, and that's why they're basically granted a monopoly to soak the customers the can soak so that the company can afford to give below-cost service to those who can't.
"And why should legislative bodies protect telecommunications monopolies?"
Campaign donations... It's all about money, if telco's are going to rollout fiber they want to be the only ones to use it. I thought the FCC already ruled on this, and was 'giving' telcos a monopoly nationwide? (Being that if they roll the fiber, they don't 'have' to sell it to competition?)
Regardless, these telcos have deeper pockets and connections then the **AA's do - with the US so far behind in the communications area, I think it has to become painfully obvious there is more at play then just the difficulty and expense of rolling out the glass. IMHO, the telcos are refusing to do it waiting on the government to pay for it AND let them control it. Telcos don't want glass everywhere because once things go digital they don't know how to play anymore. And God knows people are itching to drop telcos like a bad habbit. And after years and years of dog poor service (IE, got a problem? Call support, wait 2 hours on hold - get transferred twice with additional hour of wait time per transfer, then get disconnected. Rinse, repeat. - Then you switch to cable instead of DSL - have a problem - call support - on hold for 10 minutes...)
There's nothing wrong with additional competition. It's good for the economy, and it's good for you and me. It's just bad for telecom giants who are used to lobbying for (and in many cases) getting their way.
Americans have become so used to looking first to giant corporations that we've in many ways lost the ability to come up with our own local solutions. The fact that more and more localities are bucking this trend is a good thing indeed, but at the state and federal level telecom giants hold much more power.
Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, giving breaks to big players and shutting out small players seems anti-competitive, doesn't it?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Clearly The best solution is to have a public utility and a private company offering the same services for a community. This way you force them to compete and since they are different animals they will be very unlikely to make some kind of alliance to hike prices.
I've got answers:
"why can't a public utilities company provide a public utility if their rate payers want it?"
"What's wrong with additional competition? And why should legislative bodies protect telecommunications monopolies?"
Because governmental entities do not give money to political causes. Also, government businesss do not raise taxes.
Accordingly, if a legislature is faced with helping and protecting a private business versus a government business, the legislature will ALWAYS support the private business.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
You don't want 50 seperate startup companies all laying their own custom fiber or coax networks through your city redundantly, when you know that when it all shakes out, at best 3 will survive. Because physical infrastructure is involved, typically communities award a contract to a single player, who will provide said infrastructure - and they tend to keep that contract going because of the infrastructure (there would be financial issues switching to a new provider and possibly having to pay for them to buy the old infrastructure from the previous company).
The government's answer to these competitive problems to date in the electric and telecomm markets is to enforce a really stupid form of competition, and require incumbent telcos and power providers to share their physical network with startups (where "share" means basically resell). So now You can choose Traditional Company A, or one of A's 50 crappy resellers who have no physical infrastructure of their own.
The Right Thing, IMHO, is that municipalities (or states, or whatever) should be putting out bids and taking contracts to build physical cabling infrastructure of various types for the area, and also contracts (perhaps from the same provider, but not neccesarily) to maintain said cabling infrastructure. The cabling infrastructure is then owned by the municipality itself, and it terminates at certain wire-centers where competitive providers can hook in with their own real equipment (much like internet NAPs in some ways - a shared facility where people co-loc edge equipment).
11*43+456^2
To answer the OP's question about why the government allows these monopolies to exist:
Economically, the incumbent firm would not sink the cash required to build the initial infrastructure unless it was guaranteed years and years of profit to recoup the cost. It's not the efficient solution, but it was common decades ago to do this. Regulation prohibited competition so that the incumbent could recoup its costs and profit from its venture. It's unfortunate that legislators still believe the telecommunications giants still need this sort of protection, though. The efficient solution is to allow competition, because lets face it, the incumbents have made their money back and then a lot more.
I just wanted to shed some light on why this happens in the first place. Why it's still happening is that old habits die hard, especially with the lobbying dollars that the telecom firms have!
Lots of people are pointing out the obvious connection between money and politics. But there is a historical connection that needs to be pointed out.
Many moons ago, most places in the US didn't have power, or phone service. So the US made deals with private companies, wherein the utility company would provide a service (such as phone lines) in areas where building the infrastructure would ordinarily be cost prohibitive. In exchange, they got monopoly guarantees for long periods of time on those areas.
Telco's are used to getting their way (I worked for Bellsouth Internet for a few years). After all, BellSouth makes a profit even if you get Earthlink DSL in the South, because BellSouth has a monopoly on the network, provided by the federal government. There is a long history in the USA of enforcing monopolies for utility companies, that in many cases has far outlived it's consumer benefit
Local governments shouldn't be allowed to compete for local telecom services because they have an unfair advantage in the ability to acquire capital. They just tax you! Cities that claim that they can provide services cheaper than a nationwide telecom are playing a shell game with their funding.
They most often have no clue what it really takes to provide services. They are sold on an idea, they implement it, they realize it is going to cost more than they thought, they subsidize the project, you get the service a rock bottom price, and later your taxes go up because the city is running short on cash.
What has this accomplished? You raised taxes for everyone, even those that don't what the service, you put a legitimate company out of business in you area, and as technology progresses you are left behind because no one will want to serve your area after you the way your city treated the last competitor.
You also mention that the local telecom providers lower rates once a community telecom comes in. You have to understand that the incumbent provider has spent millions and millions of dollars to provide service in the area. They are forced to lower prices to levels that are below the cost of providing service just to survive. Local telecoms are regulated; they have to provide service to anyone who wants it. They can't just pack up there bags and leave. So, its either sell service at below cost or be left with a multimillion dollar network that no on is using.
I'm not trying to sell anything here, but maybe some cities could look at what Frankfort Kentucky did as a case study. Cable Modems 128/128 at $14 per month. 256/128 at $18 and 512 at $24. (higher services available) VOIP telephone at something like $13 per month. Plus long distance calling at good rates. Plus they provide they provide electricity, water, cable tv, and security monitoring at good rates. Everything comes on one bill. Perfect? -NO. A monopoly? -pretty much. but a good service at comparatively low rates? absolutley. http://www.fewpb2.com (too lazy to do html. sorry)
Your point about those in power wanting more power is all well and good, but history is replete with cases of federal and state governments relinquishing power when forced to do so by the electorate (or even against the wishes of the electorate). The deregulation enacted by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s is a good example of this, while Margaret Thatcher had to ram de-socialization down the throats of skeptical Brits.
But the point is that government won't inevitably continue to grow and grow and grow. It is only inevitable if the electorate lets it be.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Wireless should change this - because the provider does not have to make an investment in hardware (even if just wiring) to each destination location, it will be easier for players to enter and exit the market. Until then, you can't use the word capitalism with a straight face when describing the telco markets.
What's wrong with additional competition? And why should legislative bodies protect telecommunications monopolies?
Do you have any idea what the profit margin is on $50/month internet access? A non-profit can provide this service for less than half the cost.
Legislative bodies do whatever their corporate masters (read: big donors) tell them to do. The public good is never a concern. Welcome to the wonderful world of representative "democracy".
do some basic math. This UTOPIA project, the largest and most ambitios, will cost some 340million to deliver service to 140,000 consumers. That's a cost of $2,500 per customer! That's static start up cost, assuming that it all comes in on budget, on time, and you still haven't considered coninuing maintenance and upgrade!
No wonder their are no companies leaping to do this. Someone has to pay for this. You really think your going to get 1.5Mb fiber to your house for $40 a month?
Look I think it's a sleazy as it gets bribeing the gov't to keep competition out of the market. But one does have to ask the questions:
Q:Why isn't their more free market competition to start with?
A:Telecom is a nasty, expensive, buisness. And now that it's been wrapped up with the computer industry it's a moving target. If your crystal ball get's foggy for just a little bit, your out of buisness.
These services will get to consumers, when they can be practically and effectively deployed.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Tuxter is right. The government shouldn't be rolling out our new communications lines unless they're going to be free (as in roads), maintained by the governmet...
I hate the goddamn monopolies in my area. I have a cable company (Cox) that blocks my school's (UF) football games on channels that I already pay for in order to put them on pay per view. People in nearby cities get all the games for free. I have a phone company that says 'all circuits are full' half the time I pick up my phone to dial out. My utilities company (power and water in one) charged me a $200 fee because I paid my bill late one month. They said they will give me back my $200 when I quit using their service.
Where competition opens up, rates go down. We need less legislation protecting monopolies. If a company cannot survive on its own, then it deserves to die. In the same way it's unnatural to keep a total human vegetable alive on life support for years, it's unnatural to prop a company that our laws treat as a person once it's already proven to be dying.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
SBC got really nasty and start bombing the postal mailboxes of all of the residents with FUD mailings about how the new initiative would cost every homeowner a fortune in new taxes. The only indication as to the source of the FUD mailings was "SBC" written in tiny six point font in the corner. There were plenty of similar mailings over the month before the referendum, and it failed (narrowly) in a non-presidential election year. Generally, these tend to be smaller turnouts with mostly older voters.
This year, they got it back on the ballot again, and I hope that it goes through, if not for the "fiber", at least to stick it to SBC. I'm voting for it again.
(Side note: we already have power over leased ComEd lines, but bought from nearby Wisconsin, and our electric rates are relatively low.)
While the idea of public broadband has always been an attractive one for slashdotters, the incursion into this arena by Grant County PUD in central Washington State stands as an example of why we don't want bureaucrats meddling in business.
In this state the PUDs are treated as municipalities under the law and are given a set of rules under which they can operate. Broadband and electrical power are different services so it took an act of the Legislature to allow them to enter the market. The legislature, under some pressure from the big telecoms who were afraid that the PUDs would "cherry pick" the larger communities and leave the rural people to fend for themselves, allowed the PUDs to be "wholesale" only. The first thing Grant County PUD did was ignore that law.
Grant County PUD had first partnered up with two local ISPs which charged $20 to $25 per month for the broadband servoces back at the inception of the project in 1999. But at the same time the Manager of that PUD was trying to attract an outside competitor, also a utility provider, to enter the market in this county at a subsidized rate of $8 per month.
The PUD did attract that utility but only by entering into secret (and illegal) agreements to subsidize the program at cost plus 10%. So the new provider would risk nothing and could make 10% on the rate-payer's money even if they gave away their services for free. Then the PUD employees threw as many of the new customers to this new competitor as possible while their managers used their position as investors to pressure prices to a point where the commercial ISPs could no longer compete profitably.
It was only after the PUD had spent several million dollars propping up this outside provider that the story became known. Meanwhile, the PUD had raised the electrical rates to cover the $100 Million cost of fibering only 1/3 of the County but lied when asked about it. The Commissioners and Managers claimed that the rate increases were due to other factors. However their own emails, obtained under the State's public disclosure act, showed this to be untrue.
Agricultural interests were incensed because they use a lot of that electrical power. A large farm might have a $500k yearly power bill for their irrigation pumps. While 4% isn't much for my house, it's a chunk of money on a half-million dollars.
It took almost a year after the discovery of the secret contracts and a State Auditor's report which also found illegal and improper actions, to rid ourselves of the management team that led us into this debacle. The largest ISPs in the area, including the first two to partner up with the PUD, went out of business and were gobbled up by another outside competitor; costing jobs and an economic drain on the communities' resources. The Commissioners who were supposed to keep a rein on the PUD managers are now up for re-election and facing some tough questions.
The problem with bureaucrats going into business is that, essentially, they don't understand profit and loss. It's all other people's money and if they make a mistake they just raise the rates to cover it. We could have fibered this County up for the money they spent, had they spent that money wisely. Instead they created a NOC they thought they could make profitable (not at $3 million a year to operate they couldn't), they installed fiber to the areas where their managers lived regardless of population density (it turns out the telecoms fears of "cherry picking" were well-founded, but the managers weren't smart enough to do it that way), and they drove jobs and money out of the area.
Had they simply created the infrastructure for the product instead of getting involved in creating subsidies for favored businesses we would have been ok. But that's the problem. Bureaucrats don't make good business people.
So if you don't want to see jobs go away, money disappear and your power rates rise, treat the entrance of government into business with caution. These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
What I don't understand is why can't a public utilities company provide a public utility if their rate payers want it?
Why? Its my opinion that McCarthyism has so cripled American Public Discourse that the very THOUGHT of community owned co-operative behaviour is tanamount to treason.
McCarthyism did such a fine job of identifying those nasty 'co-operators' (communists) as UnAmerican that today, even the rabble will reflexively defend the 'rights' of their plutocracy to rule.
American People will not consider -- wont even discuss it without flaming liberal/socalist/communist-label throwing -- that maybe, just MAYBE a non-profit, community owned utility can deliver a service better, more cheaply and more uniformly than a for-profit.
Even such public goods utilities, like HEALTH CARE is a for profit venture in the USA. This is UNHEARD of outside the USA. Universal Public Healthcare is the norm in almost all the rest of the worlds' wealthy nations (canada, europe, aus., nz, ?,?,?). Hell, 45million USofAmericans dont have health insurance. In any nation, let alone the self-declared 'most wealthy' this would be a national scandal and shame. In the USA, the discussion isnt even entertained -- why would the for-proift media care to question the for-profit health-industry? They sit on one-another's boards. They are co-invested, and cross-linked. Maybe the Publicly-funded, independant national broadcaster would like to discuss the matter -- oh, dont have one of those either (see cbc.ca; bbc.co.uk; abc.net.au).
If the community considers telecommunications is a universal public good, why dont they mandate the creation of a utility? Instead, in USofAmerica, the plutocracy will use McCarthy's specter to assure that all that effort runs through their private, for-profit structures. Private banks. Private accounting. Private Advertising. Private Broadcasting. These for-profit sectors collude to assure their is no chance of cooperation amoungst citizens.
The person is a Consumer First, never an empowered citizen. That is why, the public need is not being met. If you are a rich consumer, you might be able to convince the for-profits there is enough meat in the market to give you what they want, but forget organizing your community to provide for the community's need... what are you? Some kind of communist?
Want to make political change? Forget it, you cant even get on the ballot... sorry. Ask Mr. Nader.
I live in Chelan, Washington. Our PUD has put in fiber to Chelan, and many of the other towns and cities in the county. These fiber services deliver ATM-based telephone and data services, and may eventually deliver digital TV.
For my 2Mb/s down 640Kb/s up connection and a telephone line, I pay about $53 per month. The telephone line is not Voice over IP, but is circuit-switched. ATM provides the means to transmit both the voice and data channels down the fiber.
Now, our PUD doesn't offer these services directly. They only run the fiber network. My actual telephone and internet bill come from my provider of these services (Localtel). What the PUD has actually done is open competition by allowing the customer to choose any of a number of service providers using their network. If I don't like Localtel, I can go to NW Telephone, or Panda Computers, or Modern Networking...... The list goes on.
Now, it is actually interesting. Verizon services here suck, to put it mildly. Ok. Their residential services are OK. But they don't offer any reasonable business services. No fractional T1, no PRI.... So if I am implimenting a phone switch for a customer, I am stuck with analog lines. This means I have to deal with echo cancellation and other artifacts of 4 to 2 wire conversion.
Now, if I have my customer go to fiber, some of the service providers *do* offer fractional T1, PRI, etc. services over the fiber. Now everything works great and the phone switch is cheaper, more robust, etc.
Competition is a wonderful thing.
The problem is, from a telecommunications company perspective, that they are used to being monopolies because of the fact that they own the lines. Community-owned fiber networks are a good solution to this problem, but they need to be used to stimulate competition by allowing choice of service providers.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP