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!
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/
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.
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.
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"?
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.