Slashdot Mirror
Getting Broadband To The Bayou
Caseylite points out an article in USA Today "about the struggle between the city of Lafayette, Louisiana and BellSouth. The big telecom objects to the city installing its own fiber-optic network, claiming unfair competition. The city says its goal is bringing high-speed data access to low income areas to break the poverty cycle, stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
Not that it's bad to bring broadband to poor areas, but I don't think it will do much good. These areas already have school. They may not be great schools, but if you're not taking advantage of them, that's your fault. The link exists between broadband and education/income, but education causes income which causes broadband, not the other way around. Correlation never implies causation.
It's proactive stuff like this from local government that is going to enable everyone to have high speed data/comms/AV content to their homes. Fuck the telco's.
Since when do corporations have any say what a city can do with its land?
A telecommunications giant is fighting the city, because it is providing services. Well, that's what this is. A service, and it will benefit society. Besides, its not like Bellsouth doesn't have their own little little nest. From TFA:
BellSouth says it can't compete effectively with cities where taxpayers pay for laying down expensive fiber-optic networks. . . Perhaps, but Lafayette is building because BellSouth and the city's cable TV company aren't rushing to meet the city's needs.
There you go: evidence that capitalism isn't meeting the needs of people, and the state is stepping in. Adam Smith and economic libertarians would have those people simply sitting around, waiting for the invisible hand to bring them their broadband. Nope, the city is intervening, the corporation is retaliating.. and the city should win.
Of course, Bellsouth could probably just win everything by stepping into the area and providing service (probably with an initial loss, but they'd recoup their costs) - heck, get a juicy government subsidy and some nice photo-ops. I'm sure this USA Today article will turn some heads, especially if it gets reported in a more reputable newspaper.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
I am TIRED of being behind Asian countries. Are we not *supposed* to be the most advanced country on earth. I don't think so. We are a rusty country, full of aging infrastructure, telecommunications monopolies (they are still monopolies even if it's not on paper), and a bureaucratic system that has been bought by Big Tele. We have lost our edge. The early American inventors are turning in their graves. We used to be the envy of earth with our mightly technology, now we are all but a joke to the Japanesse technocratic elite.
So the Telco wants to call in regulators to allow them to rollout their highspeed network, meanwhile Cox, an existing provider there, has raised the price for high-speed access 4 times already. They need regulations on the price, not the service providers.
And as for the comments on whether internet access will help the poor areas of America, in this case the University of Lousiana is in their backyard. So broadband access is a must if they hope to draw businesses that will do research associated with the University.
Government intervention in capitalism should have one focus only: to address and correct 'Market Failure.'
This is obviously what's happening here; there's a market, it's not being serviced, and the City is stepping in.
For an incumbent telecoms monopoly who had no interest in servicing this area a priori (otherwise the City would not have had to DIY) to cry 'unfair competition' is idiotic. Since when has the Government had a natural advantage in the telecommunications space? It's hardly their core business.
From another standpoint, a Government performing a task is no different than the citizens who elected said government performing the same task themselves. The Government is merely acting on behalf of those who elected it.
The ILEC in question here should back the fuck off gracefully before something really horrible happens. Messing with Governments isn't smart, especially when said Governments are trying to score poltical points by doing this 'for the poor'.
You're doing it wrong.
Also, city water systems are unfair competition for bottled water companies!
"...stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
There may be a link; but once again, correlation != causation.
Some politician probably hatched the idea to give himself some kind of boost, whether power or money or whatever. It's one in a series of technological red herrings, back-room deals, and stupidities that politicians here have started. Don't believe me ?
Therefore, the profits of companies like BellSouth do directly and positively affect society, and are an important source of income for many millions of people.
God I am sick of this argument.
Just because a corporation has positive benefits to a small proportion of the public who are shareholders does not give them the right to trample everyone else.
Would you use your argument if a private hospital was suing the state for providing free health care for poor people?
My pics.
When I was at UL, the Lafayette Consolidated Government came and spoke to us a lot in my telecom classes... they want to use the fiber loop they have to provide data, voice, and video (i.e. cable)... but what they're gonna end up doing is running up the city's debt while a lot of the city already gets many or all three of those services from Cox cable without being locked into contracts. As their budget continues to increase it's looking like they'd have to provide the services at a loss to attract customers.
As a side note, what the city should do is spend some money on drainage, as we get a lot of rain, more than our flooded streets can handle in many areas.
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
>On the one side is the innocent corporation which would never think to hold back service until the people are willing to pay through their teeth for it.
>On the other side is the innocent government which would never think to render everyone's communications legally monitorable.
Well, that's it, then, isn't it. Those customers who can't afford (or don't want to pay for) the private broadband networks at least have a low-cost option for job hunting and education, and those customers who want privacy (and presumably a better experience) are willing to pay more for it. Nothing to see here.
Oh, wait -- except that the corporation is not willing to compete under those conditions, and would rather charge more for no privacy and a poorer experience. Tsk.
Seeing as how so many big business supporters argue that government can't do things like this profitably, shouldn't the big business here be smiling, confident that they'll be able to make a profit because the government's pipeline will be too expensive? I wonder why they're not smiling.
Oh, wait -- if that whole "the government can't do it efficiently" thing is just a smokescreen for preserving monopolies, that would explain it. Hmm.
In 2003 the CEO of BellSouth made over $10 million in salary, bonuses, and stock. But, I'm sure he is only concerned with helping out those poor old people's retirement funds.
All the largest portions of stock are owned by company executives and wealthy investors. But, I'm sure the small time share-holders are a high priority.
In 2001 BellSouth executives released false information to artificially inflate the stock price and then cashed out before the stock plummeted. Surely that will help all those employees with 401(k) plans!
If you think corporate profits are boon to society I have some Enron stock to sell you.
I don't have any problem with cities putting in a public network, if the voters think it makes sense. But do we need to break out the golden shovel here? The correlation between net access and income/education is there because people with higher incomes don't have to choose between new shoes for the kids and internet service. I'll bet you can also find a correlation between internet use and expensive cars, clothes, and Tivo. As many have pointed out on /. before, correlation != causation. Let's face it, the internet today is used mostly to stream porn.
In fact, the research suggests a pretty strong negative correlation between internet use in the schools and basic (reading, writing, and math) skills. Your kids are better off cracking a book and leaving the computer off until they need to write term papers. Cliff Stoll wrote a pretty good book on this subject.
But I guess you don't have to make logical arguments for anything as long as you add "think of the children" to your proposals.
Who is more efficient at implementing and running a network? A telcom or the Layfayette Government?
The government isn't providing this service for free. Will it be fair to pay more, in a hidden way, for an inefficient service when the time comes? Fair because it comes from the benevolent government?
If this goes through, pay close attention to the books. $100 hammers aren't for the military only.
Seeing as how so many big business supporters argue that government can't do things like this profitably, shouldn't the big business here be smiling, confident that they'll be able to make a profit because the government's pipeline will be too expensive? I wonder why they're not smiling.
Perhaps because no matter how inefficient or unprofitable government happens to be in these matters, it will never ever back out? After all, it can always increase taxes.
Oh, wait -- if that whole "the government can't do it efficiently" thing is just a smokescreen for preserving monopolies, that would explain it. Hmm.
Right. Because capitalists totally love monopolies even more than bacon. We think that it's totally in every consumer's interest for services to be provided by one inefficient overarching body. Oh wait, that's exactly what we're talking about here.
No comment.
And they are absolutely right that this is unfair competition.
It would be unfair competition if there was competition to begin with.
The last thing the cable, telcos, and service providers want is fair competition. A quick look at their political donations will tell it better than I.
Broadband isn't going to break the cycle of poverty. Education is. Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money to me.
This is infrastructure, not a regular market. We're also going to keep taking the garbage out and paving the roads, no matter how expensive it is. You can't have a modern society without it.
Treating this like a market is a mistake. The economic growth by the markets that depend on the infrastructure more than compensate for any inefficiencies that come from regulation of infrastructure. I really doubt you could even get Hayek to say it would be a bad idea for the local government to provide this if Bell South won't provide reasonably priced services. And yes, Bell South or any other Baby Bell claiming they can do it more efficiently than the government is a smokescreen to preserve a monopoly, but you're right that it has nothing to do with capitalism.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me