Slashdot Mirror
Telecoms Suing Municipalities That Plan Broadband Access
Law.com has up a review of ongoing and historical cases of telecoms suing municipalities that plan broadband networks. In many cases those same telecoms have spent years ignoring as potential customers the cities and towns now undertaking Net infrastructure projects, only to turn around and sue them. One lawyer who has defended many municipalities in this position says, "This is similar to electrification a century ago when small towns and rural areas were left behind, so they formed their own authorities." Bob Frankston has been writing for years about the financial model of artificial scarcity that underlies the telecoms businss plans. This post gives some of the background to the telecoms' fear of abundance.
The power districts I know of that are doing this don't sell retail. They'll open their network to any shmuck with a decent router. I could be an ISP. If comcast and AOL want to play on a level field, they're welcome to. They don't. The thought terrifies them. Hence the lawyers.
In Tacoma WA they have muni broadband, and they're more particular. OTOH their quality of service is stunning. You call, and get actual local people who know the area and the network and get someone out to you right away if you need it. Click Network is great stuff, even if it's only 10mbps over cable instead of 100mbps over fiber.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Reading the article, it sounds like the telcos are suing over anti-competitive tactics used by the cities. (Telcos suing the government for monopolistic practices? Reads like a certain slashdot meme...)
Attorneys for telecommunications companies say the litigation is needed because municipalities with the ability to borrow money cheaply -- and not hobbled by the need to return a profit -- have unfair competitive advantages
...which is an interesting point. I'm inclined to give some sympathy to the telcos because of another bit in the article:
Goodnight cited an association of Utah cities formed to promote the construction of a broadband networks in smaller cities and rural areas. "What we found during discovery was that the cities were providing facilities and personnel at no cost, interest-free loans and, in some instances, outright cash infusions," he said.
So, the Telcos make it sound like municipalities are arbitrarily picking "winners" in the broadband market. Kind of a no-no. But, I wonder if that's really the case, especially given the cities complaint of lack of service. Can you sue the city for anti-competitive practices (or whatever the actual suits are about, the article doesn't say) if you weren't competing there? If no one was offering broadband services prior to the cities mucking about?
I like the typo at the end, too:
A motion for dismal is scheduled to be argued on July 18.
(Sounds like it's already pretty dismal.)
DATABASE WOW WOW
Sure, POTS runs off batteries at the CO, but nothing says you can't run your cable/DSL modem and VoIP box from a battery. That's what I do. I've coasted through a number of power failures with no loss of service (I have Comcast as my ISP and AT&T's Callvantage for my VoIP service.) Plus which, the AT&T service allows you to assign a backup cellphone number, to which all incoming calls are routed in case they can't get through to your VoIP unit.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Stupidity runs in your family doesn't it?
I'll spell it out for you:
1. Municipality pays half the cost to get fiber run to them.
2. A selected telco pays the other half.
3. In exchange, they get exclusive access to the cable to provide Internet to customers in that town.
4. All the other telcos are suing the municipality for not allowing them access.
What is so fucking hard to understand about that?
How we know is more important than what we know.
What I find amusing is that, in most cases, the telcos have been given monopolies by the municipalities, so what grounds would the telcos have to sue the munis on? It's all very screwed up.
Ultimately, though, the U.S. consumer gets little choice in most cases.
Somehow, here in Korea, I have a choice of several broadband providers, including one that offers unmetered 100Mb/s downstream. There are also multiple Wifi systems for larger towns, though none in my little tucked-away village.
Put identity in the browser.
Last time I checked, it was always the way Microsoft cut deals.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Further to the AC's comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_(physician)#Cholera
Is this a rhetorical question?
The abundance concern of the telcos is a manifestation of Googin's Law, enunciated by Roxanne Googin, editor of a telecom-related newsletter. She stated that broadband (from an investor perspective) will either be a valuable monopoly or a worthless commodity.
The marginal cost of additional bandwidth is near zero. According to basic economics, the price should equal the marginal cost. That is the "worthless commodity" part. However, if there is a single monopoly owner who can play games and charge whatever they want for whatever they decide to provide, that is the "valuable monopoly."
Right now, we are in the valuable monopoly situation. Speeds are dumbed down (real broadband starts around 500 Mbps bidirectional, chips now in systems can support 1 Gbps). Cable TV providers use the rationale of limited bandwidth to choose the channels they provide and play games with tiers.
This situation is causing the US to fall behind in worldwide competitiveness.
We need to make bandwidth a worthless commodity. That may mean end-user ownership or municipal involvement. Our innovative birthright should not belong to the telcos.