Slashdot Mirror
Telco Appeals Minnesota City's Fiber-Optic Win
tsa writes "In a predictable move, TDS Telecom has filed an appeal after its complaint against Monticello, Minnesota's new fiber network was tossed by a county judge in early October. As you may remember, the city decided to build its own fiber-optic network after the telco made it clear they wouldn't build it because it wouldn't be economically feasible for them. TDS Telecom then changed its mind and sued the city for unfair competition."
I don't see how they could unless the city made a law(replace with proper term) to not allow the building of another.
Because that's like me going to a store with 100 tacos getting to the front and saying "wow that's to much for my blood" then getting out of line watching 100 other people go through the line and once they are out of tacos going "Hey wait a minute i don't think its fair i didn't get a taco.
P Thats my 2 cents and no i didnt RTFA
Mom: Who wants the blue cup?
Kid1: I want the yellow cup.
Kid2: I want the blue cup.
Kid1: (screaming) No! I want the blue cup!
This is the company with a monopoly on [some|most] of rural MN telecommunications and broadband...
I live just outside Minneapolis, and I can't really blame them. Nobody up here thinks much of Monticello... Most minnesotans couldn't even find it on a map. That said, how is this "unfair competition"? They had their chance and they biffed it. They might have something to say if the city won't give them easement to lay their own fiber, at their own expense... But I'll lay odds that what they really want is access to the city's fiber network without paying for it. Good luck with that!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
With its public roads and fire stations, the government also killed private toll-road builders and private firemen through unfair competition. Where are we headed to?
Really, what is the fscking problem? If the city wishes to build a network it should be allowed to, period.
A real debate would be worth it if the city refuses to license bandwith on that network to operators...
.: Max Romantschuk
LITTLE TOWN: "Hey BIG CORP, you gonna build fiber in our little town?"
BIG CORP: "Nope."
LITTLE TOWN: "Ok. *to everyone* Hey everyone, lets build our own fiber network!"
EVERYONE: "Ok!"
BIG CORP: "Hey, you can't do that! We'll sue!"
*BIG CORP sues LITTLE TOWN, faces JUDGE*
JUDGE: "So let me get this straight, you're suing LITTLE TOWN for doing something that you never intended to do yourself?"
BIG CORP: "YUP!"
JUDGE: "...GTFO BIG CORP!"
BIG CORP: "We appeal!"
That sound like the jist of it?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
What the telco really means is that it wants no competition.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
If all cities in Minnesota did this!
Competition + highspeed can't hurt!
The telco did an analysis and determined that the project could not be done profitably. Governments are in the unique position of not having to turn a profit. Their "customers" are taxpayers, and legally required to pay whatever the government tells them to pay. Even the ones who don't want the particular service the government is about to provide.
The taxpayers can be astonishingly obtuse about that connection, clamoring for bread, circuses, and cheap fat pipes, and then griping when their taxes go up to pay for it. Or pulling money from other areas, like roads or education, without actually realizing why they have to make that tradeoff.
I can't help the obtuseness of taxpayers, and if they're (collectively) for building a fiber network then the telecom shouldn't be in a position to stop them. It's a privilege of government to force everybody to do what a majority wants, because often there's a profit of scale that goes beyond the obvious returns. Better education with kids doing research over high-speed lines? More web startups? Simple better quality of life?
Still, I think that the telco's suit is not as unfounded as the previous comments suggest. It's reasonable for them to at least make clear to the taxpayers that "government-funded" and "free" aren't the same, and that the confusion between the two can cause unfair competition.
I wish state governments would start revoking the corporate charter of companies that behave this way, as it is clearly manipulative and costs a great deal of money and wasted time while benefitting no one. As others have pointed out, the telco probably has no interest in actually building a fiber network, they just want to delay this process and make it as expensive as possible because they see this as a threat to their monopoly. They had their opportunity to build it if they wanted to -- the city consulted them first before it decided to build anything. That alone should absolve the city of any further obligation. The telco made their decision when they had every opportunity to make a different one; that's tough shit, let them accept the consequences of that decision.
The goal should be to deliver a high-speed fiber optic network, with or without the telco in question. Petty squabbles like this are probably a big reason why the USA is so far behind many other countries in terms of bandwidth speed and availability. Corporations seriously need to be sent a message (before it's too late, if it is not already) that they are here to serve us, that their interests have the lowest priority when they are at odds with those of the community and that they will be gone the moment they stand in the way of advancement. Any damage that could possibly be done by revoking their corporate charter, seizing their assets and selling them at auction (or however it would be done), and replacing them with a more reasonable provider is nothing in the face of setting such a good example.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Profit is not a bipolar concept. The telco probably concluded, possibly correctly, that building fiber infrastructure would not provide adequate ROI. That's perfectly within their rights.
The community probably concluded, possibly correctly, that building fiber infrastructure would provide adequate ROI. That's perfectly within their rights.
As soon as the telco decided not to build the network, their participation in the decision was OVER. Their decision not to bother terminated their part of the discussion.
Bringing in the "clamoring for bead, circues, and cheap fat pipes" may be valid argument, but there's no guarantee that just because Government Does Something that it is guaranteed to be inefficient, or have inadequate ROI for the community.
Bringing a suit after the fact is bogus, unless they can show evidence that the community committed fraud during the original discussions about costs and revenue sharing (for example). So I agree with the earlier comments about the suit being unfounded: Absent evidence of governmental shenanigans, the suit bogus.
My company has TDS as an Internet service provider, and I've not been impressed with their service of late. This takes the cake. I am the decision-maker at my workplace, so Monday morning will feature a few calls--both to TDS and to our regional cable provider.
I had been investigating a cable Internet on-ramp as a backup connection, but now I think we should just move our account away from TDS. My sales rep will hear from me on Monday morning.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Having been in the private utility biz, I know better than to say, "Not economically feasible. We're not building it." We always said, "Not at this time, but it is in our long term plans".
Within the territory in which we were franchised to operate, we were required to build out to any customer requesting service. As long as we were compensated for expenses beyond those for which revenue would cover costs. That means, as long as the customer paid the extra cost, it was always economically viable.
Have gnu, will travel.
Roads are a necessary component to mail delivery. As such, the government can build a road wherever the federal legislature deems suitable.
Think back to the pre-1930s where power companies refused to provide service to rural communities and small towns because the profit margins were not great enough for them to bother. Only the Great Depression and Roosevelt got public power to those communities.
The "free market" ignored those small communities. People forget real fast and history repeats itself.
how this is 'competition' and 'free market'.
Read radical news here
A laissez-faire approach was tried first for some of these things. Roads and firestations are not as compelling an example as old-school telecom is. I've seen pictures of telecom and power systems prior to the granting of the Bell monopoly: There were poles with 20 wired cross-members on them. Google around, there must be a picture of it somewhere.
Some things are "natural monopolies", where the entry of multiple players would be so contrary to the general good, that government must step in. Roads, firestations, and telecom infrastructure are all great examples.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
... the telco doesn't want the city to build the network infrastructure because in the long run the telco will have to maintain it? I presume that when a telco has the contract for the city they are under contract to maintain the lines? Having said that, maybe TDS knows that it will cost them money to maintain a non-profitable network and they are suing because they don't want to be forced into it from the city. Or I dunno, could be for profit too.
Clearly the judge needs to dismiss this lawsuit as frivolous.
J
This is just an attempt to use the courts as a weapon to protect a monopoly position. The tip of that weapon is an injunction delaying the public network while the private one is built, resulting in a "win" for the company regardless of the actual outcome of the lawsuit.
Really, it just amounts to a "hack" of the legal system. The process itself can be hijacked to delay competitors, or even bankrupt them outright through legal fees and other costs in the pre-trial parts of a case.
Telecos have historically been far far more monopolistic than any other organization that I an think of. I always find it amusing that people complain about the CATV industry when in reality the Telecos are far far worse about upgrading infrastructure and providing a reasonable level of service. The primary reason that DSL service is so much cheaper in cable is because it is piggybacked on lines that are very very old that somehow manage to do the job (My parents can't think of the last time someone from SBC/Ameritech/Whoever the hell it is now called has ran around in their backyard and the voice quality on their lines shows it; Some CATV systems have been upgraded twice in the past decade.)
Anyway, +1 for revocation of corporate charters of dishonest companies that do not work in the interest of the public.
Remember, Andrew Jackson Dissolved the farging BANKS. Why? (As taken from Wikipedia, but pretty dang accurate:)
"The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:
It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
It served mainly to make the rich richer.
It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
It favored northeastern states over southern and western states. "
Sound Familiar to anyone?
republican party got blasted, but apparently that made republicans and libertarians in slashdot even more extremist. anything we say that contradicts with their holy church of holistic economy's preachings gets downmodded.
flamebait my butt. we are still going through a global crisis those people brought upon us. excuse me for voicing the truth, but you will have to stomach it.
Read radical news here
they are behaving like the music industry.
That first example is the perfect for what is the wrong reasoning. That guy who threw alcohol down his own throat and drove a vehicle not owned by him should be sued by that city and the person who's house was destroyed. When you sue the government, it's not like the politicians write the check. We do. Being able to hide behind the government or any company's checkbook should never have been allowed.
To say the city "illegally charged" someone presumes that guilt has already been determined and all debts are square. And no, that is a ridiculous reason to exclude someone from a contract, anyone would agree.
Your previous argument is self-serving and naive. A company's only goal is to make money, they care nothing for the people they service. They saw no immediate return and refused to build the lines. The PEOPLE, not the government, which you should think of as the same thing, wanted the connection. Who are you to tell the people of a town they cannot build a fiber optic network, of their own expense, in their own town?
Sounds like another american business group, with a flawed business model.
1) Over promise / don't deliver
2) Don't invest in the future
3) When the users get sick of it sue them when they try and do
4) Cry foul cause you monopoly goes away
5) buy off the politicians
I'm curious as to what the telco is going to tell its stockholders when the city completes its system and they are stuck with all the unused infrastructure that they have built in an effort to skip ahead of the city? Spending a whole lot of money on a project that won't make any money is usually not considered a recommendation for management.
The city should just go along with them until they lay all the fiber. Then they should use eminent domain to just take over the fiber and give ownership of it to the town.
Any additional actions like sending the company a box of dead rats in the mail are entirely optional.
Cow Cube
You could have moved there and gone to the council meeting about it to tell them your idea.
But if more people thought you were wrong, you would be overruled.
It's called "democracy".
And it requires only the input from the people who live there. Not everyone else too.
Option 1: Big Improvements For Free.
Probably not, but may have been made up to work with biff.
Option 2: Biff the understudy. Older, but probably not. Check out Baldurs Gate CRPG.
Option 3: Biff from Back to the Future. Bingo, I reckon. Oldest version and gives us the right context use too. Biff was an arrogant idiot that was not "the Big Bad" but just an annoying bully obstructing the aim of the hero.
I have worked and lived in dozens of countries, including many developing countries, that have far better and cheaper internet access than the United States. It is the Telco's monopoly and anti-competitive practices that have kept the last mile of internet in the States years behind much of the World.
It is another form of corruption (just because it is legal, does not make it right).
Living in Chile
If automakers operated like phone companies, they would insist on owning all of the roads.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
GTFO AC! I've totaly had it with your idiotic racist trolls! One more fuckup and I'm goin' to /. HQ, tracing some IPs, AND HANGING YOU WITH YOUR GUTS!
Ahhh, that's better...
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
I feel that any company that finds this story as a threat should really just keep in mind the USPS. Think about the various companies that compete against the USPS today and how they forced this government agency to reform its business strategies in order to compete with these companies but only after many years of its birth. The USPS was set up initially for a fast reliable and efficient means of transporting physical mail. This situation is similar. This local government, seeing that the current state of isp's is dismal, decided that the market failed them so they had to act. I feel that since the market can't provide an inexpensive, reliable, and fast service nationally the government should put in place a system that is like the USPS but for delivering packets not packages. Fiber is the future and any company getting in the way of that is only hurting our national interest.