Slashdot Mirror
The Turf Wars Between Phone and Cable
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Time is carrying a story about squabbling between phone and cable companies, now that they're sharing the same 'turf.' While it may sound humorous, it's anything but for customers. Bad blood between the cable providers and the bells has resulted in shoddy work, slapdash repairs, rumours of sabotage, and (of course) higher costs." From the article: "In some cases, cable and phone companies accuse one another of ripping out equipment. In others, wires were reportedly left exposed and ungrounded. Elsewhere, Verizon asserts that dozens of times this year, Comcast and other cable providers ran their wires down phone company pipes instead of installing separate conduits. Verizon said that in one case it sent a letter to Comcast asking that the practice be stopped, but that the paperwork and repairs that followed not only cost hundreds of dollars, but delayed installations for its customers."
Don't run your cable down the other guy's conduit if you don't want it ripped out.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
Kind of reminds me of when I was a cable guy for Comcast. We would constantly be replacing lines and equipment that Knology (the other cable company in this area) would rip out when they ran their stuff. It just kinda went back and forth like the for a few years. Last I heard, they were still doing it.
Claiming that government interference is always a bad thing is pretty much a colossal load.
I'm a libertarian. It almost always is.
However, I believe that natural monopolies are a place where government intervention can be justified sometimes. A larger coercion can exist when someone has no choice than the minor coercion of a use tax with equality of access.
I believe in the concept of net neutrality, I don't agree with the current legislative attempts to enforce it.
The solution is as someone else mentioned here, just municipalize the last-mile. It's the only place where the natural monopoly exists. The backbone (commercial bandwidth) market is competitive, and there's plenty of choices there. The market will work there if anyone attempts anything funny.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
And this is all about getting rid of the oversight - let the market regulate itself my ass.
Let's face it. The FCC has made it easy for incumbents to keep new competitors out. So now we have incumbents fighting each other with dirty tricks, because they know consumers have no choices but the incumbents. Talk about a recipie for failure. Our broadband choices suck ass, and the providers take turns screwing customers.
Belief that an unregulated market will cure all evils is a belief that long-coddled Baby Bells and cable companies will suddenly embrace open, honest competition. They're like rich kids, born with silver spoons in their mouths, crying about equal opportunity. It's disgusting.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Oh brother, are you serious?
What is wrong with socialism, is that it allows no respect for the individual. It assumes that we are all the same, that we can all function and achieve at the same rate, and in an effort to equalize the playing field, it is the achievers who suffer in favour of the under-achievers.
You think you have great healthcare? You must be daft. What you have is common availability of AVERAGE healthcare. The best healthcare in the world, like just about any other endeavour is right here in the United States of America. Why? Because self-interest is attached to our achievement. We don't work to glorify the state, we work to sustain and better ourselves. We have a stake in how good or bad our lives can be, so we take risks that socialist countries never imagine.
You think your education is great? I couldn't tell that from your spelling, but whatever. Most nations strive to send their best and brightest to America for a college-level education. Where we DO have socialism (public schools, welfare) you also find our least productive people. The average American puts in more work hours per week than the workers of any other nation, and our poor people live better than 90% of people in other nations.
In Socialist nations, they tax success and achievement until many pick up and head for the closest tax shelter. (Ask Bono)
What is wrong with Socialism, is that it negates human individuality and talent, punishes achievement, subsidizes failure, accepts the average as "good enough" because it is available to all, crushes initiative and creativity, and prevents people from reaching beyond their imagination.
Transportation? Lets take Airbus vs. Boeing for example? Without Government subsidies (confiscated income from citizens)Airbus wouldn't even exist. Even now, as the overweight A380 risks cancellation due to its design being based more on French ego, than sound business logic, Europe is forced to pump additional billions into an aircraft without a market just to save face. Boeing, with the understanding that they are in business to make a PROFIT for their shareholders, is currently beating Airbus like a drum with the 777ER, and the coming 787 Dreamliner. Airbus had to scrap their A350 design, and lacks the technical ability of Boeing in the usage of composite materials.
A single American company is kicking the crap out of a subsidized European consortium, due to decisions made on capitalist principles rather than state pride.
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Flame away, Socialist bitches, I got Karma to burn!
And this is all about getting rid of the oversight - let the market regulate itself my ass.
Let's say you wait too long to get to the gas station and you run out. So you walk up to the first car you see where the owner isn't around and siphon out a gallon of gas. There's no regulation saying you can't do that.
...of course, it's theft. So it's illegal.
"Let the market regulate itself" is an advisement against creating additional rules over and above the law that applies to everyone - I'm not really sure why people keep mistaking this for advocating exemption from the rule of law. In this case there is no market to regulate - you have two co-owners of access points who are destroying one another's systems. We don't need additional regulations - we need to ensure that the current law is applied to this situation.
Idiot. You ever hear of 'Miss Dig'. Someone wants to dig, they call, and every company that has buried cables/pipes whatever within a certain radius has to come out and mark them, so they dont get cut. All this poor guy knew is that he was supposed to mark some cables, and you were giving him a hard time. He probably was from the telephone co, and the cable co probably *did* have a call in to Miss Dig. He probably figured since you were being such a jackass that you didnt want service from them (the telco) anymore and just didnt want to admit it that you had ordered something from cable (wether that was true or not).
Just think, when your Internet or whatever is out and you hear it is a 'fiber cut' just figure some asshole didnt let the guy come mark the fiber.
How about going back to the original point of the libertarian sub-thread. Assuming "the market will create instant, permanent goodness" is as nice a fiction as "the state will wither away ..." (yes, a deliberate troll).
If you want a good example of what excess competition brings, go back and look at those old pictures of the phone situation in NYC circa 1888, the same year as the famous blizzard. Wall Street types had multiple phones on their desk and every telephone pole had what looks like at least a dozen lines, BECAUSE in order to call certain people, they had to have phones from that company (no interconnects). This didn't make any long-term sense, so regulated telecos were the result.
At the same time, having a single local or national teleco or cableco monopoly is not necessarily a very good practice either (watch the old movie "The President's Analyst" if you want a clue as to just how much Ma Bell was disliked, at least by some).
Both situations cause issues; too aggressive competition leads to lots of problems like having too many phone networks, or having multiple wires into the house doing virtually the same thing (e.g., providing voice, data, and media connectivity) - and then having contractors trying to gain points for their particular teleco or cableco sponsor, resulting in aggrevation to you the consumer as the original article discusses. OTOH too much monopoly (or even a duopoly between the telecos and cable) will lead to higher prices and too little competitive pressure (I don't know about you, but BOTH my phone and cable bills are higher than they used to be - so much for "choice").
Of even more importance to me is the problem caused by integrated control, especially when in an evolving situation. Why the **hell** should I have to have either the cable or the phone company fight over putting in multiple lines? Why can't I have one fiber feed to a box in the area, and either of them can be hooked up logically as a content/service provider; why do I frackin' have to put up with paying TWO DIFFERENT companies for what will eventually be the same thing? (think I am wrong? what happens long-term when we all want 100GB ethernet to the home? two fiber runs?? one for the telcos, one for the cablecos?? Three? More??? Go ahead - bet me this won't happen.)
So to me there is no issue with competition moderated by the state. Some appear to think this is market interferrence, but I think markets are inherently imperfect - and thus need some guidance. Doesn't mean I want to eliminate them - just that there are times when they need to be managed by a third party / a "referree" of sorts (some markets more than others). I don't see anyone arguing with this for the NFL, so why can't I have someone referee my communications competitors? (Does it have to be the government? That's a different discussion than the "no regulation at all" discussion.)
Go ahead / flame me if you want. But ask yourself why you are still paying for "touch tone" phone service as a "feature" every month if you have a hard line phone? (Me, I've been paying the "touch tone tax" since 1972; just hate it, but do I have a choice?). This is not problem of regulation, but a failure of the regulators to prevent phone companies from charging me for something that is now "free" to them. I expect the orignal justification for putting this into the rate base was to help offset the extra cost of adding computerized service - but that was soooo long ago now that there is no justification for it any longer, at least to me / and what is the "marginal cost" to the phone comany for providing touch-tone versus pulse-dialing capability?
When I look at cable and phone service today, I see cable companies charging me extra for "digital service" - which they need to enable "pay-for-view" (e.g., benefits to them, not me); I see a high charge on my phone bill for "visual call waiting" - not because it is expensive to deliver, but because it is a non-regulated charge that the phone company