Supreme Court Rules Against Community Telcos 399
acherrington writes "Today the Supreme Court ruled against a group of Missouri communities offering telecom services where it is prohibited by Missouri law. At least eight other states -- Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia -- have similar laws. Today's ruling will most likely result in more lobbying by the Baby Bells at the state level to stop community-sponsored telecoms who are fed up with poor service and monopolies."
They saw it coming (Score:5, Informative)
Last month, we got a note in the mail that TVS was now "Cedar Valley Communications", and no longer directly affiliated with TVEC. This was pretty depressing... it was so nice to call up the phone company and talk to a person instead of to a robot.
Now, it makes sense. With an 8-1 decision in the works, TVEC/TVS must have known that they were about to get hammered by Texas law. With little hope for legislative help from the Republican puppet government [takingontomdelay.com] in Austin, they spun off TVS.
At least I don't have to worry about getting a bill from the clueless megacorporation [sbc.com] I was stuck with before.
It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tellcos (Score:5, Informative)
That seems an odd position to take, given that it's the Republican FCC commissioner that keeps pushing for the legalization of competition in communications, and fighting off the courts when they try to turn it back.
The local electric co-op, Trinity Valley Electric, had a phone subsidiary, Trinity Valley Services. [...] Last month, we got a note in the mail that TVS was now "Cedar Valley Communications", and no longer directly affiliated with TVEC. [...] Now, it makes sense. With an 8-1 decision in the works, TVEC/TVS must have known that they were about to get hammered by Texas law.
That doesn't make sense either. As another poster has already pointed out, the Supreme Court decision was against GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (cities, townships, counties, etc.) running phone companies. A Co-op is a corporation with its customers as its stockholders - as strictly private eneterprise as any other corportation. Unless TVE is a misledingly-misnamed government entity the ruling would not apply to it.
When we moved to [TVE's] service area last summer, I was exctatic to be out of the grasp of the scandal-plagued monopoly [bucorp] I'd been forced to buy power from before.
As far as scandal-plauging, there are few scandals to equal the routine operation of nearly ANY government operation. I, for one, am more than happy to see the big government, now that it's broken up the national telephone monopoly (a creature of its own regulation), telling the little governments to dump their own creatures.
To anyone who lives in a region with its own city phone service, who believes that their service is good and wants to keep it that way, I have this suggestion:
Go to the legislature of the governmental body that runs the little tellco (i.e. city council or whatever) and suggest they spin it out as a coop. (This will preserve much of its structure, and give the customers even more say in its operation than they had as citizens of the parent governmental division.)
If you don't do this, expect your government to sell it to the local corporate-behemoth tellco at a kickback-driven bargan price - which will be paid off at compound interest in your next telephone bills.
Re:It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tell (Score:5, Informative)
That's baloney. Powell's son is trying to get others to do his work for him, and the courts have stated he hasn't been granted the authority to do that by congress. You can paint it anyway you want, but I have paint thinner.
= 9J =
Republican FCC kills little tellcos (Score:3, Insightful)
The little guy in this case was a group of rural counties.
The court ruled that the word "any" in the federal law prohibiting states from regulating any telecom does not mean that states cannot regulate counties because they are political subdivisions of the states and therefore states should have a right to regulate themselves.
So much for the Rublican idea of local cont
Re:Republican FCC kills little tellcos (Score:4, Insightful)
The little guy in this case was a group of rural counties.
Which is exactly the position I'd expect him to take in this case.
Since when is a government, at any level, the "little guy"?
Re:Republican FCC kills little tellcos (Score:3, Insightful)
At least governments (especially small, local governments) have to answer to their voters. Megacorps answer only to their shareholders and executives.
Re:Republican FCC kills little tellcos (Score:3, Insightful)
Even shareholders get the short end of the stick, as evidenced by the recent situation at Disney.
Re:It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tell (Score:3, Interesting)
Rates are up 80% since. Sure we have 10 more channels, but most of them worthless.
I WILL be at the city council meeting if they ever even hint about selling of the municipal phone company.
And yes, I do believe that the cable was sold off for a kickback-driven bargin price.
Republican FCC screws humans for corporations (Score:3, Informative)
You're a Republican, your boys control Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and have taken "scandal" to depths unplumbed since Caligula: ignoring al Qaeda until 9/11/01
Re:It's the republican FCC that ALLOWS little tell (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans say they are for individual rights, states rights, free markets, free enterprise, and competition. But saying and doing are two different things.
In fact, "individual rights" is just a code word for pushing a Christian right agenda; when people try to assert their individual right
Re:TXU (Score:3, Informative)
In 2002, their European operations took a nosedive, and they had to borrow a wad o'cash to get things back together. I can't find any decent muckraking on the events, probably because the local paper [dallasnews.com] is widely known to be a corporate tool (just ask these guys [dallasarena.com] or these guys [dallasobserver.com]).
But here's one mention [bscc.co.uk] (2/3 down the page), and the local paper did mention the problems in a puff piece saying how great everything is now: turn of [wfaa.com]
Good news (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing precludes any small private coop, company, or partnership from becoming a telecom provider.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 says that "states may not prohibit 'any entity' from getting into the phone business. That does not include political subdivisions of states, said Justice David H. Souter, writing for the court."
This ruling is a good thing, as it keeps government out of the telecom business, where it belongs.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want it controlled by the gov't (even on a community level), but our local ISPs are pretty weak in service, support and pricing. They just can't compete.
I don't see why the gov't can't invest in (and get a return from) a local ISP. Let the ISP run the system, let the gov't. help to fund it and when the profits appear, some of those go back to the gov't.
It avoids privacy issues while still allowing the consumers (and the government) to benefit by providing reasonable competition against the giants.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not for it (or against it, really; I see both pros and cons to a local community running their own telco), I'm just making a point.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:2)
It is certainly possible that the judge would remain unbiased if any confrontations were to flare up, but we can't count on that.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
And what the hell is wrong with people, coming together as a community (perhaps in the form of the local government) and providing cheap telephone service? I'm sure you'd be happy as a clam if I hadn't included the parenthetical remark, but isn't the government of the people and for the people?
Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
That's fine, and there is nothing wrong with that, since people can choose to create a company to offer whatever the hell they want. GOVERNMENTS DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS ABILITY. As for your "parenthetical remark:"
> (perhaps in the form of the local government)
As soon as the government gets into things they get an unfair advantage over private companies because they can subsidize things with taxpayer money, thereby ruining the other business's chances. Also, when the government controls things, they have more opportunity to demand other things. They can then demand that EVERYONE pay a certain tax, part of which goes to upgrading their telecom infrastructure.
Well, if I don't use that phone service, I should not have to pay, but that is the way things work in the U.S. You always pay for things you'll never use.
> isn't the government of the people and for the people?
Yes, that statement is true. This one is not: "The government is of the people who want cheap phone service, for the people who want cheap phone service, at the expense of local phone companies."
Would you say it was perfectly fine for local governments to get into some other business, such as web hosting? What if, since they can support it, they decided that they would offer web hosting for their community at $1 per month. You own an ISP/host in that community. Wouldn't you be pissed off that the local government effectively put you out of business? Sure, you can argue about quality of service, but that is not part of this question, since we cannot guess what the quality of service would be for a nonexistant entity.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative)
There is no reason whatsoever that the local government should not provide any service its citizenry desires, so long as it does not conflict with federal law (though IMO federal law needs to be pared back considerably) or proceed in an anticompetitive fashion. The solution to avoiding that is to have completely open government process, and in a system without sufficient citizen oversight I would not think it was a particularly good idea to let the government run anything at all.
Using tax monies to fund the system, except as acting as its customer, is wrong. This is not solely because that would go against the will of the average taxpayer, but because it would be anticompetitive. Clearly at some point a governmentally-owned entity will have certain advantages because they will have inherent right of way on city streets, for example, but remember that carriers are required to resell some of their capacity, and they would be no different. Whether or not that's a good deal for anyone involved is another question but at least they are subject to the same checks and balances as everyone else.
This applies to any other business as well, including your web hosting example. Unless they're spending tax money to do it, they can't offer you web hosting cheaper than it costs them to provide it. But if they provide it at their cost, then I see that as government serving the people, which is what it's supposed to do anyway.
OP is a troll (Score:3, Informative)
This was NOT a ruling against "community telcos" - in fact, it is a ruling for states rights. and the people of most states have not forbade their local governments from creating telcos.. whcih means (yo
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the government's purpose either. You are responsible for how you spend your money. Government's purpose is to only protect you from fraud and force. I can see how you might have come to your incorrect conclusion as the government has way overstepped it's bounds by granting corporations monopoly privileges.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
The government's purpose is whatever its citizens decide it should be.
If its citizens want to replace a quasi government entity like a phone company with a genuine government provided service, it's OK. We had a terrible power crisis for example in California. Who avoided being raped by Enron, et al? LA County, since they generated their own power.
There are reasons to privatize things, and their are reasons not to. Don't make it out like it's so obvious.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Interesting)
Phone service is an integral part of our lives. But even disregarding the necessary aspect of it, phone service is one of those systems where a natural monopoloy forms (at least locally.) It doesn't make sense to have 5 lines going into your house, from 5 different companies. It's more efficient and cheaper to have one organization responsible for local service. A corporation will naturally leverage this monopoly to increase profits, at the expense of consumers.
Re:Correct, and that's why you're wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, it turns out that in this case I DO agree with the Court, since they are simply allowing State law to trump that of municipalities.
However, I was actually commenting on various jackasses talking generally about the role of the government... my point is that it's generally whatever we as a people want it to be.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in some cases it is. (Roads, Buses, etc)
Consider the postal system for example. It's a government-run monopoly that seems to work just fine, doesn't it?
The gov't DOES have a place providing services like this when whoever provides the service is going to have a local, regional, or country-wide monopoly. Without heavy government regulation, or a gov't run service, customers are going to be forced to pay the "monopoly price" instead of the "fair market price" this is a bad thing for everyone except the monopolist.
The gov'ts purpose is to provide for the welfare of its citizens. Keeping them from getting raped for telephone service falls under this goal.
IMO, the power and phone lines should be gov't owned, just like the roads. They are a public utility.
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it hasn't. [usps.com] Net income from the last quaterly report is listed as 1.817 Billion dollars.
I don't know why you're posting financial information from 2001, but things have changed quite significantly since then. Either you were unaware, or you're one of those types who believes that "the gov't can do anything right and we might as well do away with it."
Re:Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Hit that man with a cluestick!
I've often lived in places with local power utilities. And water. And sewage, and waste disposal. And cable TV. The reason telco is often such an exception is that telco service was historically highly regulated, to serve the same goals as other local utilities.
The government's purpose is to support a healthy community, and oddly enough it turns out that everyone wins when utilities are affordable .
Govt || Monopoly corp? They can be alternatives (Score:3, Informative)
The city of Alameda, on the SF Bay, generates their own power. In the year of extortionistic prices(1), residents of Alameda maintained low prices.
Public utilities will often fail when the don't innovate where private companies could.
Clearly, despite (ironythere) the
Re:Good news (Score:2)
In light of what is currently going on with the FCC and the F word, Janet's boob, and Howard Stern, do you really want their hands in your internet traffic?
'Invest in' will = 'control of'.
Re:Good news (Score:2)
Therefore, you'd rather see the tax rates of your community go up to in part pay for your Internet service, especially because that distributes the cost onto people who don't care about that service?
Inefficient municipalities (Score:5, Funny)
You would think that the Congress of the 90s would be unafraid of small towns starting their own telcos. After all, governement is so "inefficient" in their minds that they couldn't possibly compete with such "efficient" and capable telcos like SBC, MCI and Global Crossing for services like DSL, etc....
Re:Inefficient municipalities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inefficient municipalities (Score:3, Informative)
YEah ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like basic municipal services, roads, sidewalks, water, sewers, and trash that facilitate good health and transportation and indirectly
Na, I think that facilitating communication is one of the jobs municipalities. This is one of the purposes of roads and sidewalks. Lest we forget how mail travels and the greatest communication organization in the history of the world
Of course we should remember that the Postal Service has been supplanted by quicker, more agi
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
This is incorrect.
The ruling states that a state may make a law banning local municipalities from providing telco service. If the state chooses not to make such a law, local municipalities are still free to enter the telco market
Re:Good news (Score:2)
BUT it won't stop the community from banding together after the city gets done with the a$$kicking and going Co-Op!
Read the bloody ruling BEFORE going off half-cocked, please?
This thread is pretty much owned by the Chicken Little Synd
Re:this keeps DEMOCRACY out of the telecom busines (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
Technically ... (Score:2)
Well, technically a citizen is a subdivision of your local government. It sounds pretty stupid, but don't be surprised to hear SBC using this argument to shut down community telcos.
Shit under this definition, even a community co-op could be considered a government organization.
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
good for the telco business (Score:4, Insightful)
states' rights (Score:2)
Hands OFF! (Score:3, Funny)
Rail Trains
Pharmacies
Telecom
Current status:
Rail Trains - all but dead
Pharmacy - corrupt and overpriced
Telecom - sucks oh so bad
If only there were a pattern so we could learn something from this.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:3, Insightful)
E-Voting
Operating Systems
Broadband
Current status:
E-Voting - Sucks and keeps showing problems yet they keep using it
Operating Systems - One monopoly in charge
Broadband - Sporadic and oligopoly in charge
If only there were a pattern so we could learn something from this.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:4, Insightful)
Telecom sucks oh so bad because of the telecom companies.
Just look at the pricing, support and service agreements for the major players. Those are their rules - not the government's. When it comes to the government passing legislation that benefits those companies, look at what's behind them - usually a lobby group or one of the companies themselves putting heavy pressure in the right places.
Which leads many people to question why these corporations have so much influence....
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe he was referring to the excessive FDA regulations. One of the reasons drugs cost so much is because of all the hoops you have to jump through to get a new drug approved. Average time from start to finish to get a new drug from molecule to FDA approval is 15 years. [nationalreview.com]
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
My wife just went to Mexico. She said you can buy ANYTHING you want there with no prescription for a couple bucks. There are obviously problems caused by such a loose system (some regulation is good). But they don't have the same problem of poor families and elderly not being able to afford the medicine to keep them alive and healthy.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:4, Insightful)
You say this like it's a bad thing. It's because of the FDA's rigorous testing process that America didn't have several thousand Thalidomide babies along with the rest of the world. On the other side of the coin, we've had a steady stream of scares, scandals and deaths from the largely unregulated herbal/dietary suppliment industry in recent years.
Do you really want to be taking a drug that causes permanent hearing loss in 7% of patients, results in a six-fold increase in your chance of having a heart attack, or causes degenerative nerve damage after eighteen months' worth of use? Because if the FDA didn't test drugs thoroughly enough, that's the kind of risk you could be exposed to every time you took a new drug.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:5, Informative)
Rail Trains
Pharmacies
Telecom
I usually agree with your comments, but I think you're a bit off today.
Rail Trains - all but dead
True, but not because of government regulation. In fact, it was lack of government foresight that allowed the auto and tire industries to shut down rail-based public transit.
Pharmacy - corrupt and overpriced
In what way does this have to do with the government? Compare the "market-based" (read: monopoly-controlled) US system with the Canadian system. Note that buses of US citizens head to Canada for cheap drugs -- not the other way around.
Telecom - sucks oh so bad
The comparison this time would be with Europe. I'm no expert, but everything I read on Slashdot indicates that Europe's regulation of telcos resulted in a superior wireless network, while the US corporate welfare system caused a tangled mess of incompatible systems.
"The Government" isn't the solution to all problems... but neither is "The Market".
On the other hand, your comment has been moderated as "Funny", so maybe I just didn't get the joke and should come down off my high horse...
Rightly said (Score:2)
The "over-regulated" pharmacies in Canada have far lower prices than their American counterparts.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Undoubtedly they usually get it right. And only the bad outcomes stick in our minds.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Look at the new privatized British train system - it's doing horribly. Did the government take over AmTrak, Rite-Aide and At&t or did I miss something?
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:5, Insightful)
Cable TV - rates increased, quality decreased
Airlines - rates increased, quality and choice decreased, most of the "big 6" now rely on government bailouts
I know there are more examples of this, but I can't think of any right now (in my post-lunchtime food coma).
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:3, Informative)
If only there were any context to this, so you could learn something meaningful from it.
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:2)
Wrong. Rail transit (especially intra-city rail transit) is so feeble because automakers (especially GM) conspired to make it so [culturechange.org].
Re:Hands OFF! (Score:3, Interesting)
Breaking up large monolithic industries into lots of little companies and contracts can also be bad. Look what happened to the railways in the UK. We originally had separate companies running the railways profitably in each part of the country. These were then nationalised into British Rail (and ended up requiring government subsidies to keep running). Then the government decided to privatize the company again. But instead of keeping
Don't forget (Score:2)
- defense of victims against robbers, burglars, muggers, rapists,
- construction and maintainence of roads and bridges
- maintainence (especially fire-protection) of old-growth forests and waterways
I could go on for pages. B-(
Disheartening (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a case in Roswell (or was it Alpharetta), GA where a car (Lexus?) dealership huffed and puffed and blew down the wishes of the people who wanted to keep the area as a nature preserve. That community lost the battle to the car dealership. Not related to telco, but none the less, an erosion of community rights, not to mention common sense.
Sigh....
Re:Disheartening (Score:3, Informative)
Common sense says that if the community wanted a nature preserve there, they should have purchased the property and made it one. Running to the government to ba
Re:Disheartening (Score:2)
Think about that situation for a second. The soccer mom wants the new subdivision created because it creates a nice new house for their family to move into, and lowers the price of housing in the area through the nature of increased housing supply. However, they want no further development because such development then devalues their house...
pro states' rights (Score:4, Informative)
Re:pro states' rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:pro states' rights (Score:3, Informative)
Title 47, 253(a), states, "No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."
The Court sees the state as the regulator regulating itself.
Re:no to ALL telcos, or just city/country run ones (Score:3, Informative)
Incorporated cities are, also, subject to regulation by the state. In fact it is the states grant of regulatory powers to cities that allows them to exist at all.
This ruling only affects a state's ability to regulate subdivisions of state government.
This just in, Supreme Court re-defines (Score:4, Insightful)
Was this case badly reported, or did the Supreme Court just ignore the plain english used in the law?
Re:This just in, Supreme Court re-defines (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, of course, nor do I really agree with the concept behind the decision. Towns and cities that fill in service gaps by building and maintaining infrastructure (like power plants and transmission lines) shouldn't be precluded from offering other services that take advantage of that investme
Read the headline as... (Score:4, Funny)
The Unjust Supreme Court (Score:2, Funny)
How about a Topic Name Change (Score:4, Informative)
The article wasn't that long, took all of half a minute to read. It boils down to:
1. Earlier law states entities may create their own telco groups (close enough, I don't have that window open anymore)
2. Local and city governments are sub-parts of the state government
3. The government doesn't count as an entity in part 1
4. Therefore: Local and city governments do not have this allowance under the specied law.
3 cheers for all the posters crying about loss of rights and rewriting laws and such, if they had read the article it probably would have been slashdoted by the time I got there
What about VOIP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't these companies use VOIP? As of right now VOIP isn't considered a typical phone service and regulated by Big Brother correct?
Or are they typical overly broad and generalized laws that apply to any way of providing a service using a phone?
Effect on non-profit telcos? (Score:2, Interesting)
JGG
Government should only operate unprofitable biz's (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, take the US Postal Service. A daily mail pickup and drop-off at every address in the USA (including the most rural) would simply be impossible if there was not one and only one company providing that service. This is a perfect case of a service the rest of the government depends on, that likely would not exist if the free market was left to fend for itself. FedEx and UPS can compete in the high-price overnight market with the USPS, but nobody else has the ability to get a physical document from any point in the USA to any other point in the USA for 37 cents, or less than that even if you have a large volume of mail and pre-sort it properly.
In the case of Amtrak, the government is keeping the national railroad network alive for the sake of transportation redundancy. This came into play after the 9/11 attacks when all air traffic in the USA was grounded... the trains were able to keep running and some people and things were able to reroute themselves to get where they were going.
This is also why the government keeps up the Interstate highways. In theory, in the state of war on the US mainland, the Army could easily control any stretch of Interstate highway so that vital convoys could have a fast and trafic-free mostly-direct path from one metro area to another.
So long as there's still a profit to be made in the ISP business, then the government doesn't belong in it, just to regulate it so things don't get out of hand. If things ever do get totally out of hand (and we're nowher near that yet), then the government should step in to make sure there's affordable Internet access for the sake of keeping the network alive.
Re:Government should only operate unprofitable biz (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, get a clue.
Rail traffic ... have you ever considered the subsidies
the government offers to the auto, road, and aviation industries?
In terms of subsidy per passenger mile, those industries
are far more heavily subsidized than rail traffic.
Or to put it differently, the problems rail traffic has
are basically that its competition is so extensively subsidized
that it's all but impossible to compete.
"Our" government is quite heavily in the business of distorting the economy. Primarily to benefit military industries (the auto industry only really took off after WW2, as a way to turn tank-production capacity into a dual-use technology) at the expense of more naturally efficient mechanisms. Although the individual characters in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? were clearly not real, except maybe Jessica Rabbit!, the plot to abolish the public transport system is very well documented as being true. But the major war contractors were allowed to get away with it.
Profit is not God. Although far too many of the people now running "our" government worship it, even when it conflicts with their basic responsibilities to support healthy (local) communities and to support civil rights.
Not quite correct (Score:3, Informative)
In Flagstaff, Arizona you see 60+ trains carring thousands of tons each day.
Passanger transport isn't the railroad's main use. It's not like Europe. In Europe, there's a ton of light rail, made for high speed passenger trai
Re:Government should only operate unprofitable biz (Score:3, Informative)
This is also why the government keeps up the Interstate highways. In theory, in the state of war on the US mainland, the Army could easily control any stretch of Interstate highway so that vital convoys could have a fast and trafic-free mostly-direct path from one metro area to another.
In theory nothing. This is exactly why the U.S. interstate highway system is so well developed. The intent was speficially to allow military vehicles quick access to any part of the country. Interstate highways were also d
Re:Government should only operate unprofitable biz (Score:3, Funny)
The five State capitals not directly served by the Interstate System are Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri; Carson City, Nevada; and Pierre, South Dakota.
Wow. How'd they get Honolulu, Hawaii connected to the Interstate system?
This is great (Score:4, Interesting)
Article Troll (Score:5, Informative)
There is a reason gov't isn't supposed to compete (Score:3, Insightful)
Privately owned co-ops are OK, but the costs may be prohibitive.
Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
The area that I'm concerned about here: will this regulation retard development of free wireless services like The Personal Telco Project [personaltelco.net].
Things were so good before competition. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Bell Canada. It was the only game in town. A MONOPOLY. But, it was under government control, and (at that time), the government wasn't (so much) the enemy of the people. In regard to the telecom game, they pretty much did a worthy job. That is, if Bell screwed you, a simple call to the CRTC would get their butts kicked into shape and your connection flowing nice and smooth.
In the Eighties, it cost $15 a month for basic service. There were no extra fees, and Bell couldn't refuse to hook you up. FIFTEEN BUCKS a month.
What did competition bring?
Well, first of all, there isn't actually any competition. There's STILL only one phone system; it's just that now third party companies are allowed to buy discount bandwidth on that one system and re-sell it at lower rates. --And they don't have to pay to help maintain the physical system. Hmm.
And how does the phone company react to all that dropping revenue and the increasing cost of maintenance and development in a growing market? Why, they raise the cost of basic local service! Something goes wrong with your land line? Well, now it costs $100 bucks just to get some contracted company out to look at your phone. (Unless you buy the 'insurance' package for a few extra dollars per month).
And now if somebody screws you, who do you call? That's right! Nobody. Now, if you're unhappy, you're supposed to switch over to a different carrier, because that's how competition works!
On paper, anyway. --And only if a couple of chapters and logical positions are deliberately missing from the Free Market handbook.
If there was 'real' competition, there'd be more than one company stringing lines up all across the country. And that's called, "redundant, wasteful stupidity". Because competition slims down bloated structures, right? Sure.
There is NOTHING wrong with the idea of socially controlled telecommunications. Communications shouldn't BE a profit-making venture. It's a vital resource to a healthy society. Do you want to talk to people who enjoy sharing ideas, or would you rather communication happen among a bunch of Lawyers who think in terms of "Billable Minutes"?
I think enough discussion and information has been presented over the years to quite put an end to the reign of 'Free Market' armchair philosophers who read a book on it once, and who vote for square-jawed right-wing criminals who promise to punish the 'lazy' unemployed, but who make policy to ensure that unemployment is nice and high so that Big Business will have permanent access to cheep labor.
My phone service and phone bills suck now thanks to 'free market' politics and the people who push for such things. Thanks guys. The worst part is that I saw it coming, bitched and complained, and the world patted me on the head and called me silly.
Ah well. At least most of the hobbits are using cell phones now. It's easier than ever to walk through the world unchallenged, now that most people have voluntarily radiated their brains. Just don't get caught playing by the house rules! Man! Hell hath no fury like a muggle trying to categorize you on a computerized form!
"I don't need one of those awkward and painful a brains. See? Instead, I have a set of instructions! Much easier! Amd Thou Shalt Not. .
-FL
Depends ... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, actually it's NOT a free market decision. It prevents local citizens from using THEIR institutions to band together and fight monopolistic utilities.
Since private corporations are so "efficient" they should have ZERO trouble defeating "inefficient" government organizations with superior products and service. For example, the stellar service of SBC could just blow ANY municipal telco away!!!!
BTW, this law is plainly unconstitutional. It denies state governmental agencies from exercising a "non-enume
Hey moron (Score:3, Informative)
No, there isn't. But what the SC did was allow states to prevent cities from starting their own telcos, if the state wants to. In other words, the SC gave more power to the state... by taking it away from cities and other, smaller government bodies.
Re:Depends ... (Score:2)
Some might argue that this is why they should be allowed to provide these services (because part of the infastructure already exists). I am pretty sure that I think it should be a free market competition.
Re:Depends ... (Score:2)
You also have a funny definition of "regulating interstate commerce". They can regulate it to be forbidden, too, to my line of thinking. Your interpretation is just that - an interpretation.
As for "banding together and fighting THE MAN", no one's stopping the citizens from doing so. They simply cannot involve their government. Let them form a non-profit and do it from there.
-Erwos
Re:Depends ... (Score:2)
Local citizens can band together all they want... but creating an entity that competes with a freestanding business is not a legit use of any local government's power to tax.
That's the key thing here. Anybody but a government with taxing authority can start a competiting telco...
Re:This is bullshit!!! (Score:2)
If he did it, then yes.
Mod parent troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see...... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can remember when my telco used to be run by the government (in New Zealand). The service sucked. It sucked in ways you could not possibly compare to the relatively minor ways in which the privatised telcos in NZ now suck.
When I first ordered a phone line that I wanted to run a BBS on I...
(1) Had to take a day off school just to make the phone call to order it, because it took 2-4 hours just for someone to answer the c