Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Cable Won't Compete, Seeks Legislation
narramissic writes "The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business. Apparently they're having some success, as the NC State Senate has proposed bills that would do TWC's bidding.'"
It's sickening to watch massive corporations give up on the ideals of commercialism (competing for the consumer's dollars on the basis of quality, service, and price) and instead simply doing business through legislation (make it illegal for your competition to exist...). I feel like I'm watching someone's Cyberpunk or Shadowrun campaign come together as megacorps take control of governments... It's all sickening...
They have Greenlight and Time-Warner cables running in parallel to one another? Good!!! I wish more communities would do stuff like that. If every city had TW, Comcast, Cox running 3-4 cables in parallel, then the power would be in the hands of the People to choose which one they like best.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
But only when it is convenient. When it isn't convenient, they expect the government to prop up their business model in order to ensure that their profits are maximized and that their competition is none.
This is an extremely ugly an hypocritical face of modern business today. People want lower prices and more affordable services and if they have to build it themselves to get it, they should be allowed to do it.
This is not an entirely new story as other communications/media companies have sued municipalities to prevent them from making competitive progress in areas where they otherwise did not want to compete or operate. And these companies won. I am a little lost on what legal justification was used in winning their cases though... anyone have any insight?
Bubububbut I thought the market decided these things! I guess I didn't realize that the legislature was on the market as well.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Corporations have always used the power of government to stifle their competition. It has been this way especially since the advent of mercantilism 400+ years ago.
It was this way when the East India company was importing tea to England. It was this way with the railroads in the 1800's. It was this way under FDRs New Deal (which had the gove help big corps and put policies in place to screw over smaller ones). Its that way now.
The product may change over time but the methods used to bury your competition are ancient.
This is insanely stupid from TWC's point of view. If I can't charge a little bit extra for my muni broadband to pay for extra police (or a new SUV for myself, or whatever), then I'll just lower my rates to breakeven.
Which will just make it harder for TWC to compete, since they have to make a profit, and I'm forbidden to make a profit.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Do you really think that $99 is a good deal?
How much does TWC charge for similar service?
Yeah! Without lobbyist, the politicians would have to do their own research and make decisions for themselves! Just think of it, people whose area of expertise is in law and politics would be deciding laws in all sorts of fields they have no understanding of! And, er, wait...
Demented But Determined.
These are the same companies that scream "socialism" every time the government even HINTS at nationalizing anything, but the second they face any REAL competition they run screaming to the government to give them special protected status (with campaign donations and other bribes in hand). Their "free market" means "free for us to rape anyone we want market" and alternatives be damned.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Why not? Governments are "For the people, by the people" aren't they? So if the people all say "Hey, we want this. Do it." to their government, and the government does it, and well, more power to them. After all, if the private entities failed to react to customer concerns on such an epic scale, why should we be stuck with them? Aren't private companies supposed to be better by virtue of being able to respond to the changing market more quickly than public institutions? If they need to resort to legislation to keep in business, they're doomed. It's just a matter of sooner or later.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Not only easier, but fairer.
I have no love for TW -- I run a small ISP. But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business. I would certainly be complaining if it looked like my taxes dollars were being used to compete with me !
So let them turn it private. If they can THEN charge break-even prices great. More likely, they'll find they can't. Either way, it's then fair competition.
I'm a huge proponent of small government but I actually agree wholeheartedly with this argument. Particularly when you're doing this at the city level. This is a small community (of 50,000) that obviously agreed this was the right decision for them. This sort of project is a large undertaking and I'm sure everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion. If a monopoly is completely screwing your town over there's no reason you shouldn't be able to organize yourselves and roll your own solution.
What's happening at the state level where TWC is manipulating the law to prevent this is actually a perfect example of how broken government is the higher up you get.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government? Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea. The government is a special entity with special powers so you have to be very very careful when you allow government to go into "profit based business" - which is what this is. Tax spending on services/infrastructure is one thing. Profit based business is an entirely different animal.
I have no problem with the idea of busting up the monopolies but you don't do that by making your government compete with private industry. No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same). If you insist on putting your government "in business", then you will eventually drive out all the other competitors aside from the government. Remember, the government can do LOTS of things that private industry can't so, by default, it's an unfair playing field. Look no further than the banking system right now for an example of how that plays out. Government was never designed to "be in business".
For a bunch of tin-foil hat guys, the slashdot crowd really puts a lot of faith in government solutions of all kinds.....
I hate Comcast as much as the rest of you. But I cringe at the idea of my city government being in the ISP business.
This is ridiculous when a private company is stifling competition.
The benefits of competition are only of interest to companies as a mantra for getting government regulations eliminated. No company actually wants it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If the companies delivering internet doesn't deliver the speed or quality desired by the citizens of a region or city; then I see absolutely no problem with the people taking matters into their own hands. In fact I would call it democracy in practice. TWC trying to push legislation should be ruled as anti-competitive behaviour and they should be heavily fined.
If anything should be done it might be the privatization of the newly created service provider. The city should retain a minority controlling share, impose oversight and fair rules; and then let the company exist as a competitor. If TWC want to gain back their customers they should perhaps try to actually provide the services people want, at fair prices and with good service. Instead of using resources that could be better spent trying to hinder and punish citizens who's example should be honoured, respected and emulated.
The Long Now Foundation
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Personally I don't see how private interests are anything but harmful when it comes to running of important public infrastructures.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
So?
Seriously, if the people choose to provide the services themselves, why should they be prohibited from doing so?
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
TWC does not have a right to make a profit. No entity does. If they can't compete with government-provided service, then they should rightly have no presence in the market.
Unless of course, you choose to ignore the economics of the issue... please recall from Econ 101 that in an ideal free market, profits will approach zero anyway. TWCs profit is a sign of market inefficiency. The ideal outcome is for both (or more) competitors to fight over minimal profit.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I work for a government and I think you've been drinking too much Limbaugh kool-aid...
I am always amazed how industry has been yelling "big bad inefficient government; privatize now and we'll do it better cheaper quicker!"
Now that government is actually competing, they're yelling "big bad unfair government; they can do it cheaper than us and we need protection!"
So what is it? If government is so "inefficient" why does industry need protection? If privatizing is so much better, why worry about government getting into your business niche?
In other words, government all too often does do things "better cheaper quicker" - we may pay a lot for a consultant, but our CEOs earn $100K/year, and not $100M/year. You can buy a lot of consultants for what one private industry CEO gets in a year.
Yeah, I own a private road business, and all this government owned and operated road business cuts into my profits. We should make government owned roads illegal, that way I can charge everyone who uses it as much as they will take short of a revolt and make a tidy profit.
Seriously, these guys are producing poor results and charging a ton of money for it. This is pretty standard, but suing public townships who try to set up public works their citizens strongly favor so that the money will flow in their direction is extremely damaging. I cannot abide by that.
Except, if Time Warner is like most cable companies, they are not operating on a level playing field either. Most cable companies get a tax break on personal property taxes, often have subsidized costs on rights-of-way (because they are using municipally-owned RoW for their cables), and often had many of the startup costs subsidized by municipal and regional governments as part of the franchise agreements.
You, as a business owner, don't have a right to make money. For a group of citizens to invest their tax money to build infrastructure, it means the broadband providers have failed as business people.
TWC had a chance to provide the service, they declined. At that point, their moral right to complain disappeared.
apparently you missed the memo about our country being a representative republic, not a democracy.
Our representatives do, in fact, work for us and can be fired (recall election / impeachment).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I know, it's anathema to free-market idealists, but the end result is... better, cheaper service.
I would suggest that this is completely in line with free-market idealism. They found a better solution and decided to go with it. The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion (i.e., punishment). For example, if they found a better solution but were prevented by law. In that case the punishment is fines or imprisonment. And that is exactly what TWC is doing: using the government to punish the free-marketers who found a better solution.
The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion.
(repeated for emphasis)
But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business. But a government-run business charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business.
It's not fair competition because it's not competition: time warner refused to give them fast service, THEN greenlight was born. Furthermore, TFA points out that tax money is NOT used!
What is happening here is TWC offering B, the community wanting A and making it themselves, so TWC is trying to ban A so everyone has to buy their B.
Anyway, even if this were not the case, who cares? Maybe my pink roots are showing, but if the people of Wilson are getting a better deal, so what if it's not strict capitalism? I don't think most of us are capitalist because we think that's what God wants us to be. The only reason to go with capitalism is because it's generally more efficient. In cases of monopoly, like this basically is, it apperantly isn't more efficient. So why not do this?
And it's not like government goliath vs david TWC. TWC has way more money to invest, they have much more of an advantage than this grassroots organization. That they're unable to compete is all their failure and they should eat it.
I think most complaints are about the Federal Government. State governments can be bad as well, but when you get down to the municipal level, things can get a lot more efficient.
Wasn't your tax money used in the first place when TWC and almost every other utility, private or otherwise), got subsidies and rights of way to run their initial coax/fiber lines in the first place.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Compared to almost all corporations with more then about 100 people, the feds run very efficiently.
There are literal 10's of thousand of projects going on at any given time that run smooth, on time and at budget*.
Sure, sometimes things don't work out that well, but overall they are better at doing certain things.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
still...UPS/Fedex can't compete with the Post Office. Ask managers in those companies and they'll tell you how much they hate it and think they can do a better job than the Post Office.
I think they'd have a hard time providing both the coverage and all services of the USPS. When you actually talk to the managers, they really only want to provide service to high-density/volume areas. The hinterlands, not so much. So, as usual, private enterprise wants to cherry-pick the public service, letting the rest of us pick up the now increased costs for the problematic customers.
BTW, FedEx can't get a package to my (notably small) hometown in less than two days. The USPS can get me 24-hour priority delivery. Why is that? Somehow I think it has something to do with the fact that FedEx doesn't find it profitable to do so.
That is all.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection, etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise won't do that.
Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example and explain how it applies to this case?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Exactly, especially when the regulations are not beneficial. In the case though, TWC is looking for regs that harm their competition, and that they are ok with. The same goes for bailouts, which are a form of regulation. Real companies have never behaved as though they want real, fair markets with free access. They just want to win, and are happy to have that win handed to them by the government.
This should all be plainly obvious at this point, and anyone who thinks that mantra has any meaning beyond a marketing ploy to fool citizens into working against their own interests, well, there are some painful conclusions to draw about those people.
http://www.unfocus.com/
So should all government utilities only run at a profit? The point is, these things cost money, and someone has to pay for it. The question then, Is it cheaper (per user or if important enough, per captica) to use tax money instead of allowing a company to skim a profit (or bull doze a profit in the case of large American companies)?
If your questions about efficiency are only centered on turning a profit, then you are probably missing the point of a public utility.
http://www.unfocus.com/
If the companies delivering internet doesn't deliver the speed or quality desired by the citizens of a region or city; then I see absolutely no problem with the people taking matters into their own hands. In fact I would call it democracy in practice.
It's more like socialism in practice. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let's call it what it is.
Ok, there's a bit of a distinction here. "Citizen-owned" and "City-owned" are two different things. A "citizen-owned" entity would just be a corporation like any other, subject to the same rules as Time Warner. Time Warner itself is "citizen-owned". But such a competing corporation couldn't operate in most cities because of franchise rules that on the one hand keep there from being a tangled mess of wires and torn-up streets everywhere but on the other hand also sanction monopolies.
This is a city-owned entity. It is a government organization that is undercutting a private company by selling its products and services at cost. There's no way for any private for-profit company to "compete" with that. Socialism is not about competition; it's about government providing services at the lowest cost possible. Businesses exist to be profitable; they're not charities. The goal of a business is to sell products for the highest price possible, not the lowest.
Now, I'm not arguing that there's anything wrong with what this city is doing. But I wonder how many people who are criticizing Time Warner over this really understand what they're arguing in favor of. They're arguing in favor of an economic system that is designed to be anti-competitive and to provide services for less than a private company ever could. Given that most seem to be criticizing Time Warner for "not competing", I would say very few understand this.
Democracy means you get to choose *either* the socialist or the capitalist solution. As the health care system, the banking system, the real estate market and cable de-facto monopolies have shown, capitalism is NOT a one-size-fits-all solution.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
But I wonder how many people who are criticizing Time Warner over this really understand what they're arguing in favor of. They're arguing in favor of an economic system that is designed to be anti-competitive and to provide services for less than a private company ever could.
This is conjecture. Just because people are critical of the way TWC have handled this case, and just because they took matters into their own hand to find one solution (temporary or permanent}; does not mean that it have to lead to the implementation of a socialistic economic variation. Even if you accept that the solution they adopted here is moving into one of the fundamental concepts upon which the numerous variations of socialistic philosophy is based.
I would urge you, and others, to keep in mind that reality is not easily put into one category or another. Socialistic and Capitalistic concepts and ideas are not all Either Or; one or the other. What matters is practical implementation of ideas; something that makes no distinction between the various ideologies behind the implementations chosen or attempted.
While they people in question here might have taken the path the did because of perceived flaws in the system in place; does not mean anyone is advocating a total replacement of the system; or that following up on what they did with Greenlight will necessarily lead to the total implementation of a variant of a socialistic economical model; or that all socialistic economical models are hostile to all sorts of competition.
Of course on the last point I will agree; very few seem to understand this; or that reality is not easily divided into ideological camps. Few things are black and white, one or the other. Our society and government(s) are what we make them, shaped by our ideas and actions.
The Long Now Foundation
Unfortunately corporations are structured in a way that only benefits greed and shareholders, not stakeholders. If bullying, corruption and toxic law promise a higher profit, even by a margin, that's where these entities put their efforts. Better service and healthy competition do not guarantee profits higher than the promise of competition-killing laws.
If corporations were truly persons, many of them would be in jail or mental health institutions.
Excuse me, english is my fourth language, so, pardon my french, but what the fuck are you talking about?
TWC was invited to come in and provide the service. They refused. So the city built its own. And now you're saying TWC can't "compete" with that? Well, too bloody bad. The government offered it to TWC, and TWC turned it down. And now they want to cry "bad city"? Well, I'd like a pony with that too.
That is a problem with government not with businesses. Business should be seeking to win government should not be enabling them to cheat! Certainly not explicitly in the form of bailouts and granted monopolies. Ideally government would seek to avoid being gamed, where regulatory legislation is passed to that is more beneficial or less harmful to one player than others.
The problem is the government is currupt through and through, its structure, our constitution, and stat constitutions are probably fine but the people at all levels everywhere need to be thrown out. The president, Congress, the Senate, Justices on almost all our courts at the federal level. Most states would be well served by a complete house cleaning as well. It might be a good idea to toss out last 40 years or so legislation and start over.
The biggest problem is though people are lazy and way to willing to accept style over content. When this nation started voters read pamphlets like Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers which laid out complex arguments and political theory. Today they vote based on who can come up with a catchy slogan like "Yes we can!". So the biggest jerk wins.
When people hear "Yes we can?" the response should be "Okay, that may be but should we really and explain to me why you think that, essay format response preferred."
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html