Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Telco Appeals Minnesota City's Fiber-Optic Win

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-you-have-anything-better-to-do dept.

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."

17 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. wait wait wait by neo8750 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So they refused to build one. Then the city said well we are gonna build one and proceeded to build it. Then they sued the city because they built it?

    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

    1. Re:wait wait wait by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They were asked to deploy the fiber for the residents of the city. They said no. The city then decided to do the deploying itself for exactly the same people in exactly the same place.

      City to whiny spoiled brat of a company: "you snooze, you loose".

      This is part of a recurring pattern of corporations with an inflated sense of entitlement expecting for people to wait around in the dark ages until they ever so graciously choose to let them pay them for entrance into the 21st century. If the people decide that self help is in order, the companies suddenly whine to the courts that it cuts into their profits (that they had no plans to work for).

      If the telecom wanted to be the ones contracted to roll out the network, the suit would allege that the bidding was rigged or that they were not given a fair chance to bid. Instead, they're claiming that it is illegal for the city to contract to build such a network AT ALL with ANYONE.

      In other words, they didn't want to build the network, but DID want the area to remain without one just in case they changed their minds.

      Consider, if an independent group of citizens have the right to form a co-op, they also have the right to vote that their existent government be that co-op. They chose the latter by a decent margin in a referendum.

    2. Re:wait wait wait by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It gets down to philosophical differences about economic value and the role of government. According to one point of view, the government should above all do no harm to any business. If a business wants to sell government weather data, the government ought to make it hard for individuals to get the data directly. By the same token, if a private company wants to provide network services in an area, the government has no business providing better or cheaper services.

      That is one point of view regarding government, but there are others.

      In this case I would say that the more relevant point of view is this: A government's purpose is to use the resources available to it to provide as best as it can for its citizens.

      That is exactly what this city government was doing. The first attempt to do so included its corporate citizens, an attempt to utilize and provide for a corporate citizen while providing for the normal citizens as well. The corporate citizen decided against benefiting from that help.

      The government moved on with a plan to benefit all the other citizens, and now the corporate citizen is trying to stop the government for providing for any of its citizens.

      And that is where the corporate citizen is completely in the wrong. Not only did it opt out of getting greater benefits before, but it could still lease bandwidth in the new system to remain competitive. Their profits won't be as high as if there were no competition on the fiber network, but they can still make a profit. Instead, they want to interfere with the proper role of government so they can maintain their profits (or expand them) at the cost of the other citizens.

      From this point of view, the corporate citizen is clearly doing wrong to both the government and the citizens that that government is responsible for. In that point of view, the corporate citizen should be removed from where it can do further harm to that government and its other citizens (much like how we send people to prison when they assault other people).

      Hopefully, the courts will also see things from this point of view and act appropriately.

  2. just like kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. Yeah, about monticello... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Yeah, about monticello... by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd bet they simply don't want the prospect of any competition, since it will be substantially easier for any ISP to offer service to the city's residents. The city will be offering access to its network for any provider willing to pay for the interconnect, so there's a very low barrier of entry for any given ISP in that market.

      IMO, this is *exactly* how Internet service should be offered in the US - solid public infrastructure to the customer site, and let all the providers compete to transport the individual customer's traffic from the local net to the Internet proper.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:Yeah, about monticello... by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even as a libertarian, I agree 100%. There are some things that government can do better than private companies. Anything which requires a physical connection to every location and where duplication of that physical medium is not cost effective. Roads, water, sewer, and now telecom.

      We need to move to a new model where the local government (local mind you, not state or federal) needs to own the physical lines and ISPs can purchase access to those lines.

  4. The government also killed other markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. So let me get this straight... by Golddess · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)-
    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well except there's a bit more of an agenda.

      You see they're not suing to win - they're suing to delay.

      Maybe they'll be in a position to roll out something cheaper like wimax while still suing the county. Maybe newer technology will come along and allows them to deploy faster connections while the county is still being delayed by the lawsuit. Maybe the county will just give up due to the legal costs.

      All the company cares about it making the process as long and as expensive as possible. Even if they don't win here, they might put off some other upstart city from doing likewise.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Sniper98G · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Telco has used the time that they have delayed the cities project to begin laying its own fiber network. This is the very same fiber network that the city original requested to be installed.

      At this point, due to the legal delays, the Telco's network is now further along than the cities. I think that they are hoping that if they can keep the city tied up for long enough then the residents will jump on their network because it's done.

      I personally hope that the residents can see the advantages of their municipal plan and how it can create grater competition leading to better service for consumers.

  6. Re:Still not getting it... by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to TFA (and TF previous /. stories), they don't have any such agreement. They were suing just to try to stifle competition - ironically because they said such competition was uncompetitive.

    If you understand any of that, you may have a future career in law!

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  7. Corporate death penalty by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Corporate death penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the city of Tacoma in Washington state was able to lay their own fiber. As a result they city has turned a good profit from leasing the fiber to local ISPs. Comcast and QWest can't even compete in terms of speed and pricing. There is NO THROTTLING AND NO CAP!!! Every city should do this. The money they make from leasing their own fiber far outweigh any benefit those ISPs can bring to the city.

  8. Profit: Not either or by lenski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Bye-bye TDS by HikingStick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
  10. Public Power Revisited by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.