Slashdot Mirror
FCC Kills Build-out Requirements for Telecoms
Frankencelery writes "In a 3-2 vote, the FCC has altered cable franchising laws in the U.S. to the advantage of AT&T and Verizon. 'The FCC order imposes a 90-day limit on local communities' franchising decisions, but, more importantly, does away with build-out requirements. Those requirements generally insist that companies offer service to all the residents in the town, rather than cherry-picking the profitable areas.' Good news for the telecoms, but bad for cities who want a say in the fiber deployments."
It's for everyone: if companies are forced to sell where wouldn't sell, this would affect the prices and quality of service for everyone.
There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it.
Especially when they own the regulators.
Good to see corruption and graft still thriving in the USA.
Somebody just got a brand new phantom in their driveway via payouts from Telecoms. The FCC are the ones that required cable companies and sat companies to sign individual franchise agreements with each city that service was offered. Why would they go and allow telecoms to skip that step with their services? At the minimum mandate that they have to roll out their products to everyone. Crazy!
...to think monopolies are reigned in by market forces.
Last I checked, the raison d'etre of monopoly regulation was because market forces had failed.
In Capitalist West US government only listen to rich telco.
In Soviet Union everybody listen to you!
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I say we go back into time and repeal the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electrification Act so that neo conservatives like your forefathers would not get electrical service in the rural areas of the country.
This way, the electric companies would not have to serve you and your parents most likely would have never survived to spawn you as they would have died of exposure.
Or, more likely, they would never have learned about the world beyond their tiny little farm, and would never have Beverly Hillbillied their way out to whatever sub/urban place you live now that has electricity.
We in the Blue States proudly endorse the FCC's move - in the hopes that more rural neo cons will be denied high speed internet access, thus hindering the spread of the plague that is your corporate statist "let them eat cake" line of thinking.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Monopolies are forbidden from entering other markets because their effective subsidy on another market makes them able to grant their own entrance to the other markets without the same growing pains everybody else has. No, certain aspects of their business should not be left to deregulation. The only way to control a monopoly is to actually control it, not slap it on the wrist and tell it to turn away. It will turn away, onto other markets, if left to its own devices.
I'm not from around your neck of the woods, and honestly couldn't tell you if the decision was a good or a bad one. Nor do I understand the consequences or background to the situation, even after RTFAs.
The very fact that the decision had to be made leads me to believe there are communities, cities, populaces with many thousands if not millions of people who want a say in how their town is serviced by a telecommunications company. Some kind of kickback, like a swimming pool, or some franchise fees.
To my naive way of thinking, it seems incredible that 5 (3-2) people can veto the decision making process / power of entire cities or possibly even states, throughout the entire country.
It also seems kind of wrong. Power, corruption, ultimate power, you know, that kind of wrong.
Presidents adding oral ammendments to bills and unelected agencies enacting legislation.
This is just yet another example; it is rediculous. Where is the mass outrage? Shouldn't Republicans be outraged by our government wiping its ass with the Constitution - limited government and separation of powers? Shouldn't Democrats be outraged as the government continues to redistribute our hard earned money into the pockets of its corporate sponsors?
I mean ordinary people. I'd like to think I'm an ordinary person, but polls say otherwise. Why aren't ordinary people outraged when they see these abuses and corruptions?
So, they are using changes to cable regulations to avoid telco obligations?
-quickly Googled link, there are more and possibly better. Certainly been considerable Slashdot comments in the past on this.
You do realize the market has been steadily deregulated as the prices have increased and quality has dropped, no? Maybe we need some more deregulation to help drop prices and increase quality? Right? Not deregulating fast enough? That's what Enron told us was the big mistake in California's deregulated market. Those lousy (and insanely high) price caps did deregulation in again! The Marketistas will always find some regulatory excuse for their own failing. Pretty soon it will be the prohibition on murder, I can see it now! Lousy beat cops holding the white collar down so he can't kill his rival and maximize his profits (and our 401(k))!
Everyone knows the rights of megabusiness count for -two- citizins.
In case of a conflict, choose megamoney. Always.
Other businesses have the privilege of deciding where to do business and open/close stores. Telecoms deserve the same right!
Resources should not be wasted on installations that cannot be profitable, or at least break even!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
As seen on slashdot before2 9222, various companies attempt to hinder broadband rollout by governments.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/05/0
Will this decision then reduce the resistance against municipalities building their own infrastructure? If my township isn't one of the cherries to be picked by the companies, we can pick it ourselves.
In my area, there's an ISP that's also a CLEC (Competing Local Exchange Carrier - they offer dialtone). They're building out fiber to buildings for Ethernet and telephony services, and would like to get into video (TV) but since they're a small company, they just can't do it if they're going to be required to build-out to the non-profitable areas. It's not just a matter of raising prices for everyone to subsidize the sparsely-populated areas, it's a matter of not having the access to the capital required to do such a build-out in the first place. That, and the "densely populated" areas around here are not big enough to make the subsidization idea feasable even if the build-out could be done.
Here's another perspective - the telco's are only offering DSL in specific areas - sure it's probably primarily for technical reasons - certain radius from the CO for DSL to work, but if they can "cherry pick" for DSL, why not the rest of the services they offer.
On the other hand, arguments about large numbers of rural residents not having phone or electric sevice now if the build-out requirements were never in place are hard to ignore, and high-speed internet is being considered a basic necessity by more and more people as time goes on. Perhaps the FCC doesn't agree about that, or perhaps they figure having wide-spread fiber deployments at all would be a better starting point to eventually get fiber to rural areas than if fiber wasn't in the city/town at all.
Look - franchise laws are all about creating legal monopolies. It's wrong for a city to decide which company wins or loses. At least in a capitalist society. That's the job of the free market. The reason cable bills are so high, service so poor, and choice so limited is all because of franchise laws that give clowns like Comcast free reign.
That said I hate Verizon and AT&T as much as the next guy. In fact my phone service comes from a Skype phone, and a cell, so I can choose my provider.
I see the FCC decision as encouraging competition.
So now if verizon comes to a town and these fcc rules are in effect wouldnt towns be more likely to say no now? This ruling still states that they have to gte a franchise from each town but they wont be these huge things, basically pay the town and they allow you in the town. Now wont towns be more likely to just say no ?
This is a service sold by a business, NOT a service provided by a government.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
No, this sucks.
You're talking about marginal profits and not aggregate profit. The local government is making a deal which guarantees that the provider has a monopoly on the market. What's wrong with them negotiating a part of the contract which mandates a rollout plan to all citizens?
So, they have the right to say "NO" but they don't have the power to negotiate if they say "YES"?
Your "other business" comparison is generally ridiculous. Although you could probably come up with some parallels, these would be the exception. What other business has a barrier to entry like the cable and telecom industry? A more appropriate parallel would be giving a convenience store exclusive rights to the market in a particular town, and allowing them to refuse to sell to anyone that isn't within 20 miles of the town center.
Local control is best. We don't need the draconian FCC enforcing the will of the empire on every town and city in the U.S.
a local municipality here was doing exactly what the FCC blocked, trying to get some sweetness to permit some services.
of course who would be wired first? well, gee, the government itself, followed by certain neighborhoods that a paper determined to be, guess where, the same people voting to approve it lived.
sorry, but I understand that it may annoy people that businesses putting down high speed means of access should be allowed to determine where their market is, let alone where they start deployment. It only makes sense to take it where you will make the most of your money back the quickest and then deploy from there. High speed internet service is not a right and locals should have no say in how its deployed unless said local government is going to subsidies it or pay for it outright.
In other words, its not being paid for with government money then the government should not be able to set service requirements, the market will clobber anyone who doesn't do it right. It has before and is quite capable of doing it again
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Hmm. I thought it was the House that provided unequal representation -- the Senate's two reps per state was to make sure my state's 50 million people didn't automatically trump your state's 10 million people.
Your assumption is that others can enter the market. In the US, in most localities, both the physical phone and cable networks are monopolies, so you only have a single supplier for each. Until the service and the carrier are separated, this will continue to be a problem. Especially when the existing networks were built at taxpayer expense, and new systems would have to be built at cost.
The fair thing to do would be for localities/states/feds to divest the various companies of their physical networks, much as was done with electricity deregulation, which at least levels the playing field for everyone. After all, they were paid for with taxpayer dollars, so it only seems fair that the taxpayer owns them. That'd be us, btw.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Has never actually dealt with local politics.
You keep peddling your version of "economics" and complain when you're modded down as Troll when the problem is that there is no "-1 idiot" mod.
The OP gets modded down because they state that government shouldn't get involved in business decisions (something you get a 100% hard-on for) yet neglect to address the point that the only reason why they can roll out fibre ANYWHERE is because of government intervention.
Think of it this way: the cable company gets paid per eyeball watching by advertisers. They are benefiting from my being a subscriber beyond my payment for the service.
But they are using MY private property for this! So why can't I get a cut for their profit of using my property?
Government intervention.
Why can't I start my own cable and use public wires (government subsidy) to show what I want people to see?
Government intervention.
Why can't I start up a USP with wireless access?
Government intervention.
However, the reduction of these interventions into the market are benefiting AT&T et al and you nor the OP nor the sycophant who posted alongside this seem to have a problem with THAT intervention.
If you want reduced government intervention, then why not remove the cable right of access through private properties? Less goverment intervention is, after all, what you say you want less of.
Having lived most of my life in a rural area only minutes from a major metro area, I can tell you if it weren't for buildout requirements, I wouldn't have phone, garbage or power service. Utility companies are GIVEN many privileges when it comes to their for-profit business, such as easements through public and private property to run cabling. Do you really think anyone would WANT a string of 200-foot electrical towers going through their property? Of course not. But the government allows easements through properties for the GOOD OF ALL. In exchange for these privileges, the companies are expected to service everyone. Also, requiring these infrastructure providers to service every area helps promote growth of both residential and business areas. How quickly do you think an area would develop if the basics like power and data had not been provided for during infrastructure installs and upgrades? There are those who say this sort of situation fosters competition, i.e., some upstart little company will come along and service those who the big boys won't. That may be true in some areas, but not telecom. If a company says area A isn't profitable, so we won't service them, how will another company be able to service them without the profitable areas to make up for it? The answer: they won't be able to. That's why these buildout requirements were set up in the first place. The goverment was essentially saying to the providers, "Look. You have to analyze your profitability across the board, regardless of whether that two square miles at the edge of your service area are profitable in and of themselves." Every business has an area (or more than one) that is less- or even non-profitable. It's called the cost of doing business.
Actually, the phone bills do reflect much lower costs after the breakup. Back in the late 79, my phone bill was 100. That was unlimited local calling AND a few calls from Colorado to Illinois and maybe one or 2 other states. Now, it costs me less than a 100 to have unlimited calling all over the states. In addition, calling Canada, Mexico and most of EU is not cost prohibitive. And there was no such thing as high speed access. The high-speed access is rising high because of the FCC (for the last 10 years). They are currently de-regulating the companies, but still allowing them their local monopolies. Until they force all monopolies out (i.e. do not allow state or even local monopolies except for limited time) or better yet minimize it (small monopoly from home to either green box or a CO), the prices will be high.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We have two kinds of companies offering broadband services, the cable companies, which have to offer service to everybody, and the phone companies, which only have to offer service where it is the most profitable. The most profitable place to offer service will be where it is cheapest to offer service.
The problem is, the phone company is allowed to set their prices based on the cost of providing service to a particular customer. If providing service toa customer is expensive, the phone company doesn't have to do it. The cable company doesn't have that option - it has to provide service to everybody. So the phone company drives down the price in the profitable areas, and the cable company is screwed - if they lower prices to compete, they still have to provide service to the unprofitable customers, and are eventually forced out of business because they arn't making any money. IF they don't lower prices, the phone company will just lower prices JUST ENOUGH to undercut the cable company, not really saving the cable company any money, while the cable company will probably have to raise rates for everyone because, now that they've lost their profitable customers to the phone company undercutting them, need to cover the increased per-customer costs of being saddled with only the expensive customers.
So, everybody loses - the profitable customers end up paying higher rates to the phone company because the cable company can't compete, and the unprofitable customers end up paying higher rates because they're not being subsidized by the profitable ones.
Now, I'm not saying that unprofitable customers should have the same rates as profitable ones - if you choose to live out in the boonies, that's your choice. But if we're not going to force phone companies to build out to everyone, then we shouldn't be forcing cable companies to do so either.
paintball
Yes, everyone should live in the city and food will magically appear in the grocery stores (or maybe we'll just switch to eating Soylent Green).
Honestly, do you really believe the crap you're spouting? Cities might be slightly better for the environment than sprawling commuter suburbs but they are certainly not better for the environment than self-sufficient rural communities (you know, the ones that put food on your plate).
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
California's market was never deregulated. That was just utility marketing speak. It was RE-regulated. They changed the old regulations to new different regulations. And the new regulations sucked. The REGULATIONS about how you could charge for power are what allowed Enron to do their dirty tricks.
paintball
computers went from 1MHz costing $5000+ to 33MHz costing $2000+ and now 3GHz at $1000.
Cable: 1,000 x faster and about the same price
Computers: 3,000x faster and 1/5 the price
NOTE: digital telecoms infrastructure speed depends on the speed of the hardware not the cabling, so the speed should scale with the speed of comuters.
Rural communities already went through this with cable tv -- cable companies wouldn't put down the cable because it was too far away, and then when some communities tried to go with satellite TV instead the cable companies got a COURT ORDER forbidding them to do so because the cable companies had exclusive agreements with the states.
Profit is made off of these services because the companies that sell them want the services to be *indespensible*. Trying to market a service as indespensible while refusing to provide it to certain segments of society does not make for a healthy society.
So in answer to the question:
When a company decides to claim a monopoly on a service (and when you purchase a franchise from a community or state government you generally wind up having a monopoly in that area) then they have a responsibility to make that service available to all citizens. A monopoly is a different beast from standard business practices, because there are no other choices to make.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Please allow me to plug the open source mesh network project that I've been involved with. If the residents feel that they are being treated unfairly, they should just put up CUWiN nodes, and share to all areas in the city with minimal cost.
http://cuwireless.net/
> home of the libertarian trotskyite.
My thoughts have recently been leading me to that same view.
Readership seems to be all in favour of freedom and liberty, except when it comes to business, where the State should provide pretty much everything and private business is a Bad Thing.
The fact is that the more the State does, the less freedom you have.
This issue is not perceived.
There are a lot of people complaining about this like it's a bad thing. A prime reason that the franchising regulations started was the fear of monopolization. The idea was that if you had a single company providing cable TV service, they would do things like limit service and cherry-pick deployment areas for the purpose of maximizing their profits. Franchising gives the local government power to force the cable TV company to offer services and pricing that would not have done if left to its own devices. But, it's not a perfect solution since (1) the government has its own interests separate from that of the community (which is why you always see a few horribly used public access channels), and (2) the government often doesn't really know what the citizens want.
That landscape changes dramatically when you have multiple players -- instead of the cable company dictating what the market will get, the market dictates what the cable company will provide. (If company A doesn't give you what you want, you will switch to company B.) Franchising authorities are no longer needed.
Competition also gives incentives to build-out to rural customers. Sure, they may have to pay more than city-dwellers, but why should somebody in the city subsidize internet access for somebody in the country? There are lots of things that are more expensive in the country -- why should internet service be kept artificially cheap. Besides, wireless technologies have already made reaching rural areas much less expensive. If you force wired technologies to deliver service to rural areas, you will supplant the more efficient wireless services.
Break the monopoly! Local governments want universal access? Then they should build it. Fund it through long term bonds like other infrastructure. Let ISPs, Telcos and Cable TV companies compete to provide service through the community owned fiber. Now you're not locked into carrier owned infrastructure. End of monopoly. Watch for the big companies to hate this as much as they do municipal wireless. Then you'll know it's good for the consumer.
I understand how someone living in a rural area might want build-out requirements for cable francising. But let's face it-- TV viewing and internet access are NOT phone service or electricity.
Living in rural areas with our current lifestyle incurrs a lot of societal costs in terms of pollution and infrastucture expenses. Rural development uses more land. Rural areas create more transportation costs, most indirect causes of which are born disproportunately by urbanitees. I could go on. In short, EVERYONE pays for those expenses, NOT just the folks living out in rural areas. It is not only unfair to ask urban dwellers to finance these inequities, it also creates an artificial incentive to develop rural areas and encroach on natural preserves.
It's bad policy. For phone and electric, I'm willing to hold keep my peace and underwrite expensive outlays to rural areas-- these are necessities, and I'm willing to take a hit so that other people can have those necessities. But to incurr those costs for entertainment seems a bit much-- particularly since for broadband and TV, viable alternatives do, in fact, exist. Sure, there aren't as many choices, but that applies to everything out in the country, from everything from stores to restuarants to places of worship.
Why should broadband/TV access be any different?
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
There are certain necessities in life, staples if you will, that are the building blocks of society and everyday life. Without regulation many utility companies would ignore the majority of the US and focus solely on the areas with the highest concentration of people, primarily the seaboards. Without regulation costs of delivery services to these areas would be levied solely on the shoulders of those in rural America. Why should my fuel cost me $10/gallon when your's only costs you $2/gallon? Regulations spread the load out evenly across all members of our society. Without regulation the country couldn't maintain a balance between producers and consumers. Without balance you consumers die. It's a simple as that.
Before anyone goes off on a rant about me being a Republican or a Bush ass-kisser let me kick that in the nuts right now and say I am a Liberal.
If the telcos no longer have to service poorer or more remote or inconvenient areas, does that mean they will no longer receive Federal Universal Service Fund payments?
Does that mean I can keep my FUSF fees?
Of course not. Gah.
Unfortunately, both parties only support federalism and the 10th amendment when it suits their interests.
Here in Nashua, New Hampshire, I've heard the reason Verizon does not offer TV service along with their fiber optic Internet service is that the mayor is insisting on universal access until he allows the franchise (and conveniently preventing competition with Comcast). So I get my TV via a ugly Dish Network dish on my roof, and my Internet via the zippy fast Verizon fiber optic service.
This is not exactly pushing the limits of the bandwidth of the fiber.
Nahh theres no agenda here.
So a company wants to be profitable and everyone gets mad. This isn't about them not serving those remote areas at all; they already do that. They just want to deploy fiber to the areas that are most likely to pay for it. Also, some municipalities take more than a year to decide whether the telcos can deploy fiber. That means that YOU are waiting for more competition for more than a year.
So why should I, the consumer, suffer?
I reversed red and blue inadvertently. :)
and take back the infrastructure that the taxpayers paid for. We lease the lines to the companies.
They can either pay or find another way to get their product to us.
Fair?
The telcos have a choice. Nobody forces telcos to sign these franchise agreements. They could simply not provide service at all to a city if they don't want to provide service to the whole city.
By restricting the free market in this way, the regulators are only going to hurt the industry, stifle competition, and make things worse for the consumer.
Actually, it's good news for smaller, neighborhood-based companies that can now move in where the giants don't. We shouldn't forget that monopolies tend to go even into areas that seem "unprofitable," because, if they don't, a competitor can grow up there, lean, mean and efficient, and beat the socks off them when it moves onto their turf. This is "good news" for giants like Comcast, only if they're stupid enough to regard it as such and 'redline' some neighborhoods--which they probably are.
Interestingly, I'm told that getting a cable franchise in Seattle requires that all city-owned buildings get a full package cable feed for free. One consequence is that the city could offer everyone in low-income housing full cable, HBO and all, for little more than the cost of running cables to apartments. That they've carefully avoiding doing, fearing the political fallout. But then maybe I heard wrong.
Sweet! Maybe when netbeans finishes loading next year I'll try it out.
...Slashdot takes its web design cues from the Uno card game.
You're asserting that governments can't "make money". I presume you mean they can't "make capital". But, they can. They make capital all the time. If you meant they can't "make value", under what theory of value are you assuming they can't make value? The labor theory? What theory? Come on? The CCC didn't make labor and thus make value?
Wow, you really are deluded, or you just don't know the terminology. You call yourself an Economist?
I include investors who invest via a representative. Even if they could match an institutional investor's baseline, the fees they charge are exorbitant and skim much of the profit out.
...what will the FCC do WRT frequency licensing of those frequencies that people want to use for last-mile solutions? Because basically by not running wires to everyone the cable companies and such are leaving the door wide open for a wireless solution.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
can != does (EOM)
So, municipalities have a 90 day limit to make a decision on the franchise. It the telcos don't satisfy some local requirement to provide uniform service, the answer can always be 'No'.
Have gnu, will travel.
Considering that California produces more food here than any other state in the country, that would mean that we can withhold our goods and our welfare dollars (which we contribute far more of and which you red states consume far more of) from you.
You can keep your oil, too. We'll do fine with importing ours, while building up our biodiesel & hydrogen alternatives. When you burn through all your oil reserves well badebadebadebadethat's all folks!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I have seen this happen with phone, electricity and television. Some for of government local or national will have to provide the fiber network(not incentives) if Americans want to be able to have the kind of connection the rest of the world has had for years now. I don't see Corporations being able to pull off something like fiber rollout since they would have to invest now for future gains. The Corporate culture with their "shareholder value" mantra and nearsightedness will leave America in the dark ages of the Internet.
If you want a good model look at what Utopia has been able to do despite bitches and cries by the likes of Qwest and Comcast. Also one should realize that fiber will be the last rollout of cables needed for the foreseeable future(unless of course we find something faster than the speed of light).
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
speak from the gut, man!
p.s. Look into the prisoner's dilemma for research info on this issue.
The part you left out is that while comcast is technicaly losing money in some areas, they are also make more money than we would expect the market to bear in other areas; AT&T on the other hand wants to earn more than the market would be expected to bear, while avoiding the areas that will lose money. Comcast for all of their faults, has struck a deal with communities to provide services to all in a juricdiction in return for the monopoly protection of the franchise. Citys will now have to renig on their end of the deal becuse the FCC made this decision, and they quite possibly don't have the authority to make the decision. A lot of cities are going to be seriously pissed off at AT&T, and hell hath no fury like a pissed of city zoning inspector.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Economists call it externalization, not the neighborhood effect. At least those that care to trap all externalities. Only those that want to limit externality cost to those that affect close-in neighborhoods use such a couched term.
And yes, you did imply force. You said "there's a solution". The other solution which you were abandoning in favor of yours was to not bargain with these people until they bore the cost -- the cost was repaid in build-out requirements.
If it really were optional, then you'd have no problem with the public holding out for equal access, WHICH IS THEIR SPECIFIED PRICE. IF they can't demand this in return for what they supply, then the market "should not" make this arrangement. Even in your world view.
Damn, you're so contradictory.
> The fact is that the more the State does, the less freedom you have.
If the state uses a progressive taxation system, then your association is no longer linear.
In fact, you may end up getting more freedom as a result of an increase in progressive taxation and a corresponding increase in public service availability.
An increase in progressive taxation may mean a tax break for the poorest majority. That consumer spending then drives up the economy more than the tax lessened it since money in the hands of aggregated wealth is much less likely to be spent than somebody living paycheck to paycheck. Trickle up.
Do right-wingers try to institute regressive taxation schemes as a self-fulfilling prophesy for their own ideological "facts"?
I used to consider that a remote conspiracy theory. Perhaps it's not as far-fetched as I thought.
It's not so much a community that gets cherry picked (though it can be), but individual households.
For example, in my town Verizon has run fiber to every house serviced by overhead lines (though if only the last 250ft is buried, they will still offer you service).
It is too expensive to pay to dig under streets to run cable and still turn a profit, so they simply choose not to offer their service in those neighborhoods, or even for individuals (who may be more than 250 feet from the nearest pole). This isn't a problem for telephone and internet, as they don't have to get local approval, but when they wanted to do television they had to accept build-out requirements. It sucks to be them. They signed the license with the requirement on the 12th of December.
So cut us off then, retard. America's biggest food producer won't be able to supply the rest of you. That ought to drive your food prices up a tick or two. But don't worry about us - we can eat what we produce and survive on our own. Besides, we have the whole Pacific Ocean and endless fleets of supertankers to help us reach around the world. Don't even think for a moment that we're cut off.
BTW, in California we have something else called trucks that move goods throughout our state and to other places. We'll survive without you, but you'd starve without us.
And spare me about the energy b.s. If you had California's energy demands, you'd be knee deep in hot kimchi. As it is, storms rage through Jebediahland and cut you off from power for weeks at a time.
And if an Earthquake takes us down, once again, there goes America's biggest supplier of food. And the world's sixth largest economy. And a major exporter of domestic WELFARE dollars (which the red states heavily depend on). We'll be dead, and you'll be envying us - at least until that New Madrid thrust fault out in the midwest hits you completely by surprise like it did in the last century. Boy, what a mess that was. But then again dem dar Category 5 hurricanes are already wreaking havoc on your trailer parks.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Or, maybe someone else would have come along and done it. Someone who wouldn't bother even considering it now, because they have to deal with your corrupt local government.
If the community does not like the telecom project, the community can just say "NO!"
Telecoms can then resubmit, revise, or cancel the project.
I suggest a community make the local law default to reject the project if not approved by vote.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
I'm so sorry, I was slipped up by your use of a categorical "monopolies are inherently unstable" placed near a "most" qualifier.
Please accept my apology. Now, please explain how they are "inherently" unstable "most of the time". If it's an inherent property that monopolies are unstable, then how can they be at all separated from this? What condition happens that makes monopolies inherently unstable? What then makes them stable other than government intervention?
If there are any monopolies that are stable without government support, then your argument doesn't really address the problem that a free market is unable to control all monopolies, now is it?
Are you retreating again?
Some corporations and government entities seem to miss the fact that not fully deploying infrastructure cost more in the future to complete the task. If one uses forethought and not near term profit as a guideline we would be better off in many ways. Bet on a sure thing, in the short term, or create a market for the future.
-Eric
Could this be anymore boring?
Support the FairTax