The companies that go under may be the one's currently providing the 'last mile': services for millions of americans. You cannot abandon the current ability to provide reliable communication service at a reasonable price to many rural and even suburban areas. Many of these people cannot afford cell phones (if available) or obtain any other alternative to land-line. I'm sure it is not cost-effective to solely serve them, while allowing major custoemrs to go elsewhere.
This is where the government bailout would help, by allowing access to areas that would be under-served, and allow time for solutions to that problem.
Jeez, pretty hefty rant this early on a Tuesday. Must be fear of sniper-related traffic in DC.
The companies that go under may be the one's currently providing the 'last mile': services for millions of americans.
Note that the companies will go under. No-one will go around digging up the fibre and copper which are already under ground. Companies that fail will have their assets bought by someone who is not failing. Control of the last-mile will move. The companies are trying to avoid corporate failure. The reason there is an argument, at a philosophical level, is not that some companies will die, but that control of the last-mile will move to companies which have a different paradigm entirely. That is what the corporates are trying to make the government fear, not the actual economics of bankruptcy for certain specific players.
...but that control of the last-mile will move to companies which have a different paradigm entirely.
Yes, I see a new paradigm. I'm not going to let competitors use my assets to compete against me. I'm not going to provide any services that are not cost effective. I'm not going to subsidize residential service by higher business line rates.
If you want economics to rule the last mile, don't be suprised by what you get.
This new paradigm will have to deal with the following:
Who is the provider of last resort? Who subsidizes those costomers?
How do you un-do the current business subsidization of residential service?
At what point do you insist that new capital investment be made?
The big bad greedy phone companies are playing the complex rates and regulation game that the people/government gave them. If you plan to replace them with little greedy phone companies with different rules, I don't think things will have improved.
A certain amount of confusion about what I was actually saying seems to have entered your post, but there are a couple of points to which I can sensibly respond:
How do you un-do the current business subsidization of residential service?
... Why would you want to?
At what point do you insist that new capital investment be made?
... Why should you need to? (an example: who 'insisted' that AT&T spent capital in the 50s? No-one needed to. AT&T needed new equipment to keep their business running, so they bought it.
If you plan to replace them with little greedy phone companies with different rules, I don't think things will have improved.
I don't recall saying I planned anything. I recall saying that the infrastructure which was built by one group of companies (which were divergent elements of an earlier stat-sponsored monopoly) would not be removed from existance or service were the company that dug the holes and pulled the wires to go bust. They would still be there. They would simply be owned by a different company. That was my point, in it's entirity.
~cHris
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
'Little' people would suffer the most (Score:4, Interesting)
This is where the government bailout would help, by allowing access to areas that would be under-served, and allow time for solutions to that problem.
Jeez, pretty hefty rant this early on a Tuesday. Must be fear of sniper-related traffic in DC.
Re:'Little' people would suffer the most (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the companies will go under. No-one will go around digging up the fibre and copper which are already under ground. Companies that fail will have their assets bought by someone who is not failing. Control of the last-mile will move. The companies are trying to avoid corporate failure. The reason there is an argument, at a philosophical level, is not that some companies will die, but that control of the last-mile will move to companies which have a different paradigm entirely. That is what the corporates are trying to make the government fear, not the actual economics of bankruptcy for certain specific players.
~cHrisRe:'Little' people would suffer the most (Score:1)
Yes, I see a new paradigm. I'm not going to let competitors use my assets to compete against me. I'm not going to provide any services that are not cost effective. I'm not going to subsidize residential service by higher business line rates.
If you want economics to rule the last mile, don't be suprised by what you get.
This new paradigm will have to deal with the following:
Who is the provider of last resort? Who subsidizes those costomers?
How do you un-do the current business subsidization of residential service?
At what point do you insist that new capital investment be made?
The big bad greedy phone companies are playing the complex rates and regulation game that the people/government gave them. If you plan to replace them with little greedy phone companies with different rules, I don't think things will have improved.
Re:'Little' people would suffer the most (Score:1)
A certain amount of confusion about what I was actually saying seems to have entered your post, but there are a couple of points to which I can sensibly respond:
How do you un-do the current business subsidization of residential service?
... Why would you want to?
At what point do you insist that new capital investment be made?
... Why should you need to? (an example: who 'insisted' that AT&T spent capital in the 50s? No-one needed to. AT&T needed new equipment to keep their business running, so they bought it.
If you plan to replace them with little greedy phone companies with different rules, I don't think things will have improved.
I don't recall saying I planned anything. I recall saying that the infrastructure which was built by one group of companies (which were divergent elements of an earlier stat-sponsored monopoly) would not be removed from existance or service were the company that dug the holes and pulled the wires to go bust. They would still be there. They would simply be owned by a different company. That was my point, in it's entirity.
~cHris