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.
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!
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?
build-out requirements are part of the franchise bargain that telcos get when they want to run their lines through public property. Franchises are a form of monopoly. How is my discussion of monopolies and regulation irrelevant to franchises without a regulatory balance?
Would you rather nobody be allowed to burrow on public property to build out the infrastructure for the Internet? That's what we'd have if the city were not allowed to make such bargains. Unless, of course, you want the city paying for all its own infrastructure, and owning it directly. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
I'd take either, but you can't pick and choose who wins in such a bargain unless you want to be thought of as interfering in a business negotiation.
How many other ways can I deduce your philosophy into a contradiction? Shall I continue?
You gave a sentence that gave a general rule that was then specified to apply to this case.
I challenged your general rule. If it's not applicable, and if it's not your philosophy then something doesn't connect.
If you think this case is an exception to other philosophies regarding monopolies, then you have yet to give a basis. Build-out requirements are one of the fundamental bargains telcos make to become a franchise operator.
This is big government interfering with the market-based decisions of a local government. How you sided with big government in this case is beyond me. I'm still searching for why.
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.
whilst I applaud your irony, as with the best irony there is truth in it. The snag is that we the public are responsible for rapacious control by the big corporates. Yes, really, because our pensions are invested in corporations and we demand the highest growth in our savings and most people have no interest in how the money is invested or the consequences of the pressures to perform placed on the investees. If a corporation fails to meet the demands of its shareholders, it is punished hard. The snag is that people most dependent on managed pension funds are those most likely to be hurt by their actions - people who can manage their own pensions are likely to be wealthy enough and high enough up the corporate ladder to have some say in their life.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That certainly explains why the 5 nations of Scandinavia (socialist hellholes all) regularly top the list of the world's least corrupt countries. I'm sure it's their brutal, dictatorial regimes that makes the difference.
Good thing we live in America (which barely makes the top 20), land of the free. I can't imagine how horrible and repressive life would be with socialized medicine and $20/mo 10 megabit (up/down) broadband in my home.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
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.
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?