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
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.
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.