Slashdot Mirror
Regional Bells Blocking Broadband Competition
Tim Doran writes "USA Today has a story today describing regulatory moves by the regional Bell companies meant to stifle competition in broadband. Of course, nobody plays the regulators like the ILECs, and they're using their massive fiber builds as leverage against the regulators. They're even running interference on municipalities who are trying to build their own fiber networks!"
I'm not a fan of the bells, but they don't have much room left to maneuver. They're got a government regulated monopoly to deliver local phone service. Cheap. To everybody. For a dying service because everybody's using cell phones. They can now compete in long distance and TV now but everybody's using their cell phone for long distance and cable and satellite are far more popular choices for TV than "the phone company". And yet they've still got this boat-anchor around their necks in delivering high quality and low cost 100% uptime POTS lines to every person in an area. If they want to raise rates or change service, they have to get permission from the government.
So now along comes high speed service which is about the only feature they can compete on and now the SAME governments that forced them into these bizarre redtape bureaucratic maneuvers want to build their own fiber lines! For a political boondoggle! Yeah, if I were a Bell exec, I'd be pulling every trick in the regulatory book I could to keep my business afloat.
Now personally, I think the bells are dinosaurs and they're screwing over my favorite ISP by offering their DSL at cut rate prices but forcing my ISP to resale at $10/month more.
But don't be suprised when the Bells use the tools at their disposal to survive. Instead wonder why it is that the legislatures seem to think they're at the mercy of the Bells and not the other way around!
That doesn't matter. The US government (and states) are not supposed to compete with private business.
I used to think what you said was a good thing... until society found itself in a situation where nothing can seriously compete against private business. Walmart style.
The Custom Mary
This is why there are regulations on companies. Theoretically limiting the power of large companies. Whether they limit enough or not I'll grant is up for debate. But I'd rather the regulations be tinkered with than the government to compete with companies.
You think the government is corrupt now? Imagine the US government competing with private business.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
A classic example of policies interfering with progress.
Don't you mean corporate greed?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Who decides what is private business?
Could guard companies rightly claim that a municipal police force is robbing them of business opportunities? Could someone start a private firebrigade and rightly stop the city from providing that service itself?
What about people building private armies? The Pentagon is denying them their livelihood!
I'm only slightly facetious here; the question really is serious.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Government run businesses have the efficiency of the USPO, prices of the IRS, and customer service of the DMV. Who can say no?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
One of the principles of business is the maximization of profit. That's the nature of the animal and that's not going to change. What people call 'greed' is most times 'successful execution of business strategy'.
The only relevant question here is whether or not broadband should be a delivered service like 'mail' and 'garbage pickup'.
If the corporations, ILEC and cable corporations, weren't providing such shitty service, no voters would stand for using public funds to provide the service. That some municipal or state governments are willing to do this without significant fear of voter backlash (usually in conservative, mainly rural areas) says volumes about the lousy service provided by the existing monopolies in those areas. If those governments can provide better service than those corporations, then more power to the politicians taking the initiative!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I wouldn't believe it if I didn't read it on the Internets [=)]
A city... passed a law... GUARANTEEING BUSINESS TO A PRIVATE COMPANY. A L-A-W. That thing that is supposed to ensure order and justice. To guarantee profits. To a private company.
What the sweet fucking hell is wrong with you people?!?!? How does shit like this happen?!?
And, IIRC, don't ya'll have a funny thing called "Taxes" that is supposed to be used for "Public Services" such as water, roads... and the Internet? I'd call that a necessity in the New World, little Mr. 13th-in-the-world.
Seriously, I'm not trolling. What the fuck is wrong with a country when a company can sue because, in doing something good, a public entity takes away possible profits? And how the fuck does NO-ONE stand up and complain? I know most of the media is more concerned with money than with truth, but how does this not sneak in somewhere... a major newspaper, an anchor who just blurts it out...
COME ON PEOPLE! Democracy is a method of government. Communism is a method of government. Autocracy is a method of government. CAPITALISM IS NOT A FUCKING METHOD OF GOVERNMENT!
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
One of the principles of business is the maximization of profit. That's the nature of the animal and that's not going to change. What people call 'greed' is most times 'successful execution of business strategy'.
Why not call it what it is?
It isn't always 'successful', nor does it necessarily maximize profits, but it is always 'greed'.
And the fact that it is in the "nature" of corporations to be greedy, doesn't make it morally justifiable for them to be so. Why do we alway try to excuse the conduct of our sociopathic creations we call corportions?
Since it is in the nature of corporations to be greedy, it is morally justifiable and pragmatic to impose severe public oversight and regulation on corporate conduct to insure they serve the public wellbeing (which allows their existence).
The only relevant question here is whether or not broadband should be a delivered service like 'mail' and 'garbage pickup'.
That question was decided rightfully by the people of Lafayette. As a NON-CITIZEN, what moral standing does Bell have to object?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Fact is in the telco market (which includes broadband) competition is inefficient & the more competition the more inefficient the delivery of services are.
Remember economies of scale are king in this game - relatively speaking a nationwide telco with a 1/3 of the market has virtually the same costs as a nationwide telco with 2/3 of the market, or even one with 90% of the market.
Now corporate monopolies demand over regulation which is why govt telco monopolies are the go - if prices go up too much polies get voted out; so there's really no need for all the consumer & anti-trust regulation that private monopolies demand.
So what we need are govt utility telco monopolies, like most places had (all of Europe, Oz, New Zealand, etc) until the Thatcherite consultants started meddling & persuaded all the world's govt telcos to be privatised to pay for election promises. Already today, just a decade or so later, most in the know recognise the period of govt telco privatisation as a historic mistake (as things go that's quite remarkable, afterall it took nearly 5 decades for many pundits to realise that the creation of Israel was a historical mistake, of cause we're exluding those who always recognised this).
Just look at how the fantastic economies of scale of having 100% of the market has aided Singapore Telecom in it's amazing job rolling out the latest 'n greatest in buzzwords network wise to every business & residence on the island, at the govt's behest. All of which would've been impossible to do at the price without having 100% of the market & without the advantage of govt legislation dealing with any problems that get in the way. A fine example of pragmatism over ideology. Remember pragmatism always wins out of ideology, even the ideology of the free market (the same pragmatism over the ideology of the free market gave us the national highway system in the US).
Since by definition (by some) the state is less efficient than private enterprise, it should resign itself to collecting funds and farm out the execution of, well, anything to the low bidder. There is absolutely no reason why we could not achieve the same savings and efficiencies in law enforcement, fire fighting or social services.
And why stop there? Why not farm out the court system, for example? The body of case law we already have provides an excellent foundation for the requirements of the contract - just let an efficient private company do the work instead of that wasteful bureocracy.
So you seriously advocate allowing corporations to enforce and decide the law? What happens when a trade-group like the RIAA or MPAA gains court control because they're the lowest bidder? What happens when a private fire firm decides to either charge a nominal fee or to not serve certain neighborhoods (afterall, settling lawsuits may be cheaper than providing the service)?
The point of the government (aka the people) providing these critical services is that we aren't trying to make a buck off ourselves. We're trying to do the best possible job for the common good. The reason that government may be seen as "inefficient" is because we don't go through as many people-hurting, cost-cutting measures that businesses do.
Just think long and hard about what you're advocating here, it's quite scary.
At this point in the technological world, broadband should be a utility just like water, electricity (gas), sewer, etc...I'm not saying it should be a right, but holy crap, we are in the 21st century and my only choices at broadband are cox@net and a $1000/month T1? Why can't a city/county provide broadband access in the same manner as city utilities? Oh, I know, because it would cause a multi-billion dollar business to go under, which would reduce a politician's campaign funds.
"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
My opinion is in the telco market (which includes broadband) monopoly is inefficient & the more monopoly the more inefficient the delivery of services are.
I live in Czech Republic, where (until recently) we had a govt-owned telco monopoly and boy, did it suck - long waiting lists for everything, high prices.
About two years ago, the monopoly on wire lines was softened somewhat, allowing alternative operators. Guess what? Prices have dropped & service quality has risen. The Telecom (wire govt monopoly telco) people actually started going door to door, trying to persuade the customers NOT to unsubscribe their lines (incredible, but true (although their attitude was less-than-customer-friendly)).
Back when we had one operator to rule them all (sorry, couldn't resist the pun ;)), it was NOT "rolling out the latest 'n greatest in buzzwords network wise" - actually, it was doing pretty much nothing except maintaining the existing network. I guess this is not Singapore.
btw: "voting something out" is quite a tedious process. Once you grant a government monopoly, it's nearly impossible to "vote it out." The attempts to "vote out" the telco monopoly in Czech Rep. has been going on for about 10 years now, with no end in sight - why would a government willingly give away a part of its power?
The problem with this is the same as with construction. The government highers the lowest bidder to build all its buildings, and you know what? You get what you pay for. Having policies that the people can decide would be a good thing, but who is going to ensure they're being followed? The government, what is left of it, would still have to employ some body to oversee the contractors to determine their compliance. It would have to be the same checks and balances that exist today (Ex: Internal Affairs to the police), but there would be more room for corruption and negligence from the disassociation between those doing the job and why they do it. Now, the police and firefighters work because that's what they want to do with their lives, help people, but how would that change if they were just contractors? With no promise of work after the next bid, and already having to work for less so their company can be low bidder, how much will the worker care about his job over his paycheck?
Generally, I get bored with my replies and give up on making sense halfway through.
For the record, I have no problem with others using the same right-of-way, but if they are all selling the same technology, then they are likely just going to drive up the costs by laying redundant infrastructure. (some redundancy would be good). The question is, is the increase in average cost (since more providers means fewer customers to split the fixed costs over) offset by the other benefits of competition. The answer depends on the nature of the demand for the particular service.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
The state must answer to the entire electorate and a business must only answer to a few major shareholders.
.
You are absolutely and completely incorrect (and subsequently, the rest of your argument follows suit). The most common structure for a quasi-governmental entity that is used to provide commercial services not directly authorized or chartered in the law is called a municipal
When you study municipal governance, you will discover that they are structured independently of the creating governmental entity. This was originally done to eliminate political influence upon the municipal, but now days persists as it has a desirable effect: namely, the municipal is the ideal unregulated monopoly. They normally have a board that is appointed by the municipal management - a condition that is often accused of disfunctional corporate boards but technically isn't true (board members represent shareholders). Better yet, muni boards are not accountable to any shareholder. They are a sort of powerless "governance" that is there to take an extra paycheck, a "meeting" vacation in Vail and act to convince the community that all is normal.
The state does not enjoy "limited liability", a corporation does. Exactly... it has a completely eliminated liability. It is very difficult to sue the state and municipals have been effective in being as difficult to tackle. Plus they tend to have bottomless pockets for legal defense and can arbitrarily raise monopoly rates to establish more funds for defense. Consider if you live in a small town and the local power/water/cable tv/cable internet municipal announecs they are hiking everyone's bill $3.00 a month because YOU choose to sue them and are costing them too much money.
Munis are about the worst nightmare your community can have. Combine the terrible service of the Dept. of Motor Vehicles with the expertise of a road grader operator attempting to install your router and top it off with uncontrollable monopoly power and you've got a muni. Best of all, any legitimate competitor will avoid your community like the plague; munis and their monopoly can bleed any competitor to death (and they will try, "accidentally" cut your cables, and drag any lawsuit for willful damage to a competitor out for years with no end in sight).
If you don't believe an unregulated, unaccountable governmental group of good ol' boys that pad their wallets with your money is a bad idea, go ask someone who has a muni. The only "good" muni is one that hasn't had enough time to figure out how to fleece the public.