Slashdot Mirror
Telcos Want Big Subsidies, Not Line-Sharing
It seems that a recent survey of global broadband practices by Harvard's Berkman Center at the behest of the FCC has stirred the telecommunications hornet's nest. Both AT&T and Verizon are up in arms about some of the conclusions (except the ones that suggest offering large direct public subsidies). "Harvard's Berkman Center study of global broadband practices, produced at the FCC's request, is an 'embarrassingly slanted econometric analysis that violates professional statistical standards and is insufficiently reliable to provide meaningful guidance,' declares AT&T. The study does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless. Most importantly, it 'should not be relied upon by the FCC in formulating a National Broadband Plan,' concludes the United States Telecom Association. Reviewing the slew of criticisms, Berkman's blog wryly notes that the report seems to have been 'a mini stimulus act for telecommunications lawyers and consultants.'"
Free money, no mandates. This sounds like the initial Bush stimulus package, so it's entirely without precedent.
If their development is going to be subsidized with federal funds, they damn well better open those lines. And they should be required to meet coverage quotas if they want any of those rural development funds.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
have not read TFA but anything the teleco's HATE must not be all that bad...
In most cases, the "lines" (optical etc) are paid for with tax payer dollars. If the telecos cant play nice, we're just going to have to take our toys and go home.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
America is, and pretty much always has been, a fascist nation. I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830's. War and weapons define the American economy. Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.
Lew Rockwell is fond of referring to the central government as the Welfare-Warfare state. Our country has always defined itself through these two socialist conspiracies against mankind - welfare both corporate and personal, which stunts economic growth and creates a class of victims wholly dependent on the largess of their tormentor - and warfare, which is the extension of corporate power through the state in order to secure resources overseas. We should abandon this socialism, this corporatism, this fascism - and create a government that exists only within strict Constitutional boundaries. Nothing else will do for the good of mankind.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
I'm glad something finally brought AT&T and Verizon together, I hate it when big corporations get in fights. Also, fuck you both for calling the U.S. innovators in wireless broadband, we are in the middle of the pack at best in broadband services.
If the big telcos hate it, I like it.
"...direct government encouragement can facilitate deployment and drive penetration."
Verizon notes, open access and unbundling would be a bad policy for the United States, largely because of the rural nature of much of the country. "The problem in these rural and low-density areas is that they have been unable to attract even a single entrant," the telco argues. "Imposing unbundling will not only fail to solve this problem, but will only make things worse: if the economics do not currently support a single provider, they are even less likely to support multiple(and potentially an unlimited number of) providers."
I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service. There are many areas that only allow one (or a few) providers. If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it's service area, those people are screwed. Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition. It's called capitalism, but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Just require companies taking subsidies to cap wages including top executives at 100K a year and bonuses at 5K a year. They'll squeal like pigs and no one will touch the subsidies. Something similar happened with the bailout money. When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share. Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.
At least here in Finland line-sharing did wonders to consumers. It lowered prices and allowed small companies the possibility to offer broadband with completely different business models. Competition also forced the big ones to improve customer service quality. I can't think of any downsides for the customer.
Ahem.. (clears throat). FUCK YOU!
The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades. And now, a decade later, with YOU posting record profits, and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace, you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers, i.e. your CUSTOMERS?
Pardon me Big Telco, but FUCK YOU!
Walmart and Fox?
Deleted
Yup. Plenty of small companies would be willing to do it though. Hell, if the govt wants to pay for the fiber and install, I'll start a small company to manage it and happily take $105K/year to do so. And I'll run it with an open access policy.
you have the emotional appeal down solid, its pretty good chest thumping stuff
but you're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of facts
good propaganda never lies, it traffics in half truths. so, for example, you don't want to say the usa has ALWAYS been a fascist state. not mainly because thats a lie, but also because you undermine your final appeal for a return to constitutional roots... well, if those roots are so strong, how come the usa has "always" been a fascist state? its a contradiction. you can't refer to a strong set of principles that never actually worked
no, you need a sympathetic narrative, a demagogue's best friend: its better to refer a mythological past where everything was perfect, the founding fathers reigned supreme. then evil influences crept in. in your particular fantasy, that would be corporations, and they subverted and ruined the garden of eden
so instead you want to say the usa WAS ONCE a solid strong democracy. instill chest thumping patriotism here with strong quasihistoric visions, you know the drill. then change the tone and talk about how money was thrown around and morals and integrity were corrupted, the founding fathers betrayed... good hollywood stuff
good luck to you sir, you're well on your way to being a solid propagandizing demagogue. you have the emotional appeals down solid. now just hone up on the half-truths and you'll be a rabble rouser supreme!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Separate the ISPs into separate entities. Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company
3. Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for access
4. allow any other company access to part 2's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies
5. don't EVER allow them to merge again
-SaNo
So that would be AT&T, Comcast and Verizon as opposed to AT&T. Comcast and Verizon, then.
This isn't insightful, mod me down. I totally misread the GP and thought his first sentence was sarcastic. It wasn't. His point was that, despite being a "welfare state", the US has clearly done alright, and that corporate welfare is the big problem, something which we both agree on.
I've got a wonderful idea - instead of giving telco's tons of cash to build infrastructure, why doesn't the government build the infrastructure itself (much like the highway system) and then simply lease bandwidth on those lines at a set rate to any company who wants it?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Considering the lack of attention to the details of improving rural service, I feel that they do not deserve a single nickle of gov't funding.
Fact is, they got a lot of gall for asking for more money after the stunning YTD they posted on the market, both wireless and wired.
Until they can show REAL (as in purchase orders for equipment, permits for installation of same, they really do not deserve any outside funding at all.
They've been living off the fat for this long, I think that it would be high time to put them on some lean rations for a while.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Getting my starts in IT at the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet and being present to see what it has developed into makes me think that the wireless telecommunications companies are off their bloody rocker!
One major difference from the Internet and the many wireless networks (3g, etc) out there is that the Internet through purchase or peering agreements are all interconnected. If the United States could dismantle the current wireless networks in place and deploy the strategically there would be no coverage gaps, even in the most rural of areas.
It makes neither technological or economical sense to maintain so many separate networks.
I don't know the answer, because I wouldn't want the government running the infrastructure, but if maintaining the wireless infrastructure was done by a single entity and if that entity was not any of the wireless service providers communications would be much better in this country.
There should be one unified wireless network that would sell its services for a fee, regulated by the FCC/FTC.
Wireless service providers would pay for access to this network and then resell it to consumers, with value added services.
Cell phone manufactures should not be allowed to be Wireless service providers. All phones made should work with any Wireless service provider. No locking, etc. Wireless service providers could still sell discounted phones in trade for contract commitments but there would never be a scenario like exists today such that a phone manufacture, like Apple, inc, could restrict their phone to work with one wireless provider.
Fees should be regulated to keep illegal price fixing that happens with all the providers today.
How providers bill would be up to them but real unlimited, all you can eat, service with absolutely NO restrictions. This is what happened with the Internet. It was once where you paid for a set number of hours per month or you paid by the minute as you used it. But, economies of scale and demand from the consumers forced the providers to go with unlimited service.
Today, even when a providers sells you an unlimited data plan, like AT&T forces you to do if you use an iPhone it is not unlimited. AT&T restricts tethering and if the feel you have used an excess amount of data they will terminate your account. So, it's not unlimited it just has a secret limit. This would have never been tollerated with Internet service.
True unlimited cell service is inevitable I wish they would go ahead and accept it. Unlimited minutes, Unlimited texts, Unlimited data, no restrictions on tethering, etc..
The day is coming when we won't buy broadband because everyone will have their own personal Internet connection with them, in their pocket (their phone).
I just hope I live through the cell wars to see it. The economics work for the same reason unlimited Internet accounts are profitable. That's because of averages of large numbers. I might use tons of data and talk minutes but my dad, my sister, my roomate don't. It averages out.
All this bickering is making my head hurt. Consumers should group together and sue for being overcharged and price fixing in the cell industry.
ppfffffttt...
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...