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!"
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
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.