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.'"

21 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. We paid for the lines. Share them or get off. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?"
  2. Fascism, DUH by czarangelus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:Fascism, DUH by czarangelus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't find it, but the old Italian's speech in Catch-22 sums it up best; what good is it being a superpower if you are always caught in a state of conflict and you're always in economic turmoil as a consequence? Nobody ever bothers Lichtenstein.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
  3. Must be doing something right by deprecated · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the big telcos hate it, I like it.

  4. Re:I see what they did there... by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Informative

    The internet industry was already given tax money to implement infrastructure once. That money was distributed to shareholders as profit. And since there was no punishment clause, they never had to implement the infrastructure that they agreed to.

  5. More competition needed by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:More competition needed by portnux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the broadband companies take legal action to prevent private citizens and communities from creating their own broadband systems why?

    2. Re:More competition needed by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why not more regulation?

      Telecom is by all appearances a natural monopoly, like other utilities. If you take AT&T and Verizon and break them up into little pieces, in about 15 years you'll be right back to where we are now in this market. We know this because we tried breaking up Ma Bell, and within about 15 years we were back to an oligopoly (and probably would have been back to a monopoly had the FCC and FTC allowed it).

      The ways to handle utilities, in order of my preference at least, based on the experiences of residents where each of these are applied:
      1. Publicly owned and operated: This isn't perfect, but by all appearances can do a really good job. When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service? That's the sign of a well-run utility.
      2. Heavily regulated monopoly: This is the electricity market in a lot of places. Again, far from perfect, but customers generally aren't bilked and service is usually pretty decent.
      3. Less regulated oligopoly: This can be decidedly unpleasant if the various players realize that they can earn more by both of them bilking their customers rather than trying to take market share away from each other. The regulations can help prevent problems, but are generally less extensive than the regulated monopoly.
      4. "Free-market" free-for-all: Think California during the electric deregulation. This typically is really an unregulated oligopoly.
      5. Unregulated monopoly: Standard Oil et al. Typically, the monopoly makes a huge bundle of cash while all the customers (who often have little choice but to pay) get bilked.

      Right now, telecommunications is sitting at option 3. AT&T and Verizon would both love option 4, and whichever one is capable of buying out the other would really really like option 5, but for the purposes of serving customers you're typically better off with option 1 or 2.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. No problem, give them all the subsidies they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Linesharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Attn: Telcos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Attn: Telcos by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We can't hear you now"
      -Verizon

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Attn: Telcos by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades

      That's over 200 billion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. Re:I see what they did there... by Zerth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We already did that once and I've got relatives that still only get 9600 on dialup, no chance at DSL, and they live in a town with 1200+ people/sq mi, if only 10,000 or so people.

    They'll take the money, kick out a fat dividend, and then spin off a paper company with the responsibilities, destined to fold.

  10. you're a middling propagandist by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. Separate ISP's businesses by sanosuke001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  12. So that would be..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So that would be AT&T, Comcast and Verizon as opposed to AT&T. Comcast and Verizon, then.

  13. Re:I see what they did there... by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos, not the Obama administration. The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama. Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it, not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads "will lobby for cash".

    For Christ's sake, man, open your eyes. Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.

  14. Re:I see what they did there... by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we need is a publicly owned infrastructure and privately run services.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  15. Re:I see what they did there... by cc_pirate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What crap. Trickle down is a failure.

    We just saw the era of lowest taxes on the rich and corporations since the introduction of the income tax and the highest level of corporate welfare ever as well... and the job generation rate during that time was one of the LOWEST EVER.

    So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money. It doesn't work that way now if it ever did and the DATA doesn't lie.

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

  16. Re:I see what they did there... by uuddlrlrab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trickle Down Economics: Since 1981, Reaganomics has been unzipping the secrets to arcing, golden streams of wealth, allowing it to flow freely and splash down on all peoples of the middle and working class, so we may bathe in its warm and slightly bitter essence, and glory in the amber fountains of our masters. Here, have a towel. Wait, go buy your own.

    --
    Odi profanum vulgus et arceo