×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Kills Build-out Requirements for Telecoms

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the new-rules dept.

Communications 325

Frankencelery writes "In a 3-2 vote, the FCC has altered cable franchising laws in the U.S. to the advantage of AT&T and Verizon. 'The FCC order imposes a 90-day limit on local communities' franchising decisions, but, more importantly, does away with build-out requirements. Those requirements generally insist that companies offer service to all the residents in the town, rather than cherry-picking the profitable areas.' Good news for the telecoms, but bad for cities who want a say in the fiber deployments."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

325 comments

Great news!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17322990)

http://www.netbeans.org/products/cplusplus/ [netbeans.org]

To all users of:
  -vi(m)
  -emacs
  -kdevelop
  -anjuta
  -eclypse

Shove your IDEs deep into your asses. They are shit and that's where they belong. Tx.

This is not for AT&T (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323002)

It's for everyone: if companies are forced to sell where wouldn't sell, this would affect the prices and quality of service for everyone.

There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323010)

You seem to imply that they will lower their prices or something. I don't see why they would. In which case they make larger profits.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323060)

In which case they make larger profits.
Which is bad how, exactly?

Re:This is not for AT&T (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323082)

> > In which case they make larger profits.
>
> Which is bad how, exactly?

At the expense of equal access, public infrastructure, and realistic phone rates to go along with those benefits.

Or, was there an upside to corruption that we weren't aware of? Enlighten us how buying off greedy politicians is so great.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323628)

> > > In which case they make larger profits.
> > Which is bad how, exactly?
> At the expense of equal access, public infrastructure, and realistic phone rates to go along with those
> benefits.

You need to think into the future.

If in a given field, a company is making excessive profits, the fact that that field is so profitable naturally leads it to draw in other companies. These new companies then undercut - just a little - the existing companies, to steal their customers. This is the beginning of the virtuous (for the customer) cycle of price cutting until companies cannot reduce prices any more.

Markets are not static entities - they are dynamic. They self-correct, in the absence of State regulation, which permanently distorts markets and either increase prices or restrict supply. (New York renting laws, for example).

Re:This is not for AT&T (2)

brennanw (5761) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323646)

Sure, but most of the time companies prefer to go after existing customers, because there's already an infrastructure and a market there.

Very rarely do you hear a company say "hey, we're going to market our wireless internet service in the slums, where no-one can afford the rates we want to charge!"

Re:This is not for AT&T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17324078)

And just why should we want companies to have to market in areas where there are small / no profits to be made? Sounds like a communist plot to force them to. It's funny how all the "markets should be free" folks are here all the time in force, but when you get something like this, the group think here seems to be "companies should have to build/provide stuff for free."

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323078)

You seem to imply that they will lower their prices or something. I don't see why they would. In which case they make larger profits.

I knew people will bend it like this, but there's the deal: you have a certain acceptable price range to offer to your customers, say ~100 ID/mo (imaginary dollars :P).. To break even without regulators, you need say, ~50 ID/mo, and with regulators: ~80 ID/mo.

If you need to sustain certain profitability with regulations that force you to do business where you don't want to, you have two options: neglecting reinvestment, support, quality, but keeping prices in the desired range, OR increasing prices.

It's as simple as that. Your logic makes sense only if they make their investments few times back in profit so they could afford to fix prices to whatever they want and not affected by their expenditures.

In reality however, the profit margin is much thinner, so no such perfect conditions exist.

Re:This is not for AT&T (3, Insightful)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323120)

Infrastructure investment through government mandate then leads to an effective subsidy on better communication. Better communication leads to more intelligent market choices. More economic exchange means better larger economy. Government collects taxes and spends much of it on R&D grants to feed the infrastructure loop.

At least, that's how the US Government helped Bell Labs with Ma Bell and we all benefited greater than all the libertarian marketscapes in third world countries combined.

Pick a better example next time you spout your neoliberal ideology around here.

Re:This is not for AT&T (4, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323212)

My phone bill after the Ma Bell breakup didn't reflect this.

All my bills following the deployment of broadband intraweb thingy didn't reflect this.

In fact, all my (tech) bills are rising faster than inflation and I have only experience more dropped calls, lower data rates, and poorer (image) quality television.

They may make in investment in infrastructure, but that doesn't mean a realized benefit to the customers in every case.

another explanation is at hand (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323260)

You do realize the market has been steadily deregulated as the prices have increased and quality has dropped, no? Maybe we need some more deregulation to help drop prices and increase quality? Right? Not deregulating fast enough? That's what Enron told us was the big mistake in California's deregulated market. Those lousy (and insanely high) price caps did deregulation in again! The Marketistas will always find some regulatory excuse for their own failing. Pretty soon it will be the prohibition on murder, I can see it now! Lousy beat cops holding the white collar down so he can't kill his rival and maximize his profits (and our 401(k))!

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323976)

I don't think I worked in the US pre-breakup, but over the years my landline phone services in both the US and Canada came down a lot in price. Internet prices in Canada have come down over time as the infrastructure got built out and less had to be collected to pay for capital investments.

Fortunately, our telcos and cable companies have remembered to include infrastructure maintenance and upgrade budgets, and used them properly.

Those requirements generally insist that companies offer service to all the residents in the town, rather than cherry-picking the profitable areas

One advantage of crown corporations, co-operative businesses, and similar structures is that the protectionism gets shifted to customer service and competition. If the US keeps going the way they are in this regard, I forsee them falling way, way behind the rest of the world.

Re:This is not for AT&T (3, Interesting)

acvh (120205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17324024)

I feel for you, but I don't see any way that this could be true. Fifteen years ago I paid Compuserve 6 dollars an hour for 2400bps online access. Ten years ago it was a local dialup ISP getting $29.95 a month for "offpeak" access at 56k. Today it's 29.95 a month for 3Mbps access.

My local phone service today includes all the long distance I can eat, voice mail, more call handling options than I'll ever use, and costs 60 bucks a month. My parents paid a base fee for service, had to buy "message blocks" for local calls, and paid anywhere from 45 cents to a buck and half for long distance minutes.

Ten years ago I got my first cell phone, and paid $1 a minute for the first 20 minutes of usage, then 69 cents after that. Today I pay 10 cents a minute for the first 700 minutes (on two lines even) and something for going over, which we never have. I can make calls anywhere I go, never pay for roaming, and the only time calls drop is when I'm driving.

I don't usually think of TV as "tech" in this context, but ten years ago our cable bill with HBO ran something like $75(?). Today Dish costs us $80, with HBO and a DVR.

Re:This is not for AT&T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323216)

Spout your keynesian/socialist ideology elsewhere.

We all know that subsidies work out just great, and that government investing always leads to "effective subsidies". You seem to think what you write Just Is True, which I for one contest. Government has a history of malinvestments.

"God is freedom, God is truth.
God is power, God is proof."
  - Porcupine Tree, Halo

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323338)

| Government has a history of malinvestments.

Governments have the opportunity to invest in the common welfare. That's the whole reason we enabled their power in the preamble to the Constitution.

Not all governments take the opportunity seriously, but those that have an aware, directed, and involved populace tend to make startlingly good investment decisions, and in fact, institutional investors such as governments statistically beat out rates of returns compared to individual investors, and even compared to financial investment institutions (e.g. mutual funds).

Put your faith away, it's making you irrational.

Maybe you should read about Kenesianism in, say, "Peddling Prosperity". Check it out from your local public library, or, pay full price for it if you hate public institutions so much.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Interesting)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323516)

institutional investors such as governments statistically beat out rates of returns compared to individual investors

That's because the government can print money faster than individual investors...
BTW, the government is not a direct investor in companies, i.e. stockholder. And while mutual funds and investment companies might beat out YOUR individual rate of return, they do not beat mine.

You might want to read some Friedman. His economics work a lot better than Keynes'.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Funny)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323576)

> Infrastructure investment through government mandate then leads to an effective subsidy on better
> communication.

People have n money available to them. They spend it optimally - at least, more optimally than anyone else can spend that money on their behalf, because they know most about themselves, more than anyone else.

When the State appropriates money and decides what to spend it on, that money is AT BEST spend as efficiently as it would have been otherwise (in the case where the State spends it exactly at the individual would have).

However, of course, what actually happens is the State spends is less - and usually far less - efficiently, by spending it on things that are way down the list of efficient uses of money for that person.

So, the State comes along and appropriates your money and spends it on telecoms.

Let's say for the sake of argument it actually works okay out, no corruption, political football, bad decisions, porkbarrelling, etc, and we actually *get* telecoms from this.

So now, here I am, when I need badly need cheaper winter heating and building materials because my house is in disrepair, and what have I got? well the State took the money I would have spent on that and bought me telecoms instead.

That's a pedagogical example to describe the concept; we, as a mass of individuals, direct our money towards the things we need most. We, individually, know best of all, what we need. We, as a mass, therefore provide a demand for a range of services and goods. The finite resources available chase this money and provide these services and goods.

Trying to shortcircuit this process is utter madness, because it is as optimal as we can get.

When the State gets involved, it's always *awful* - the wrong demand is created, the right demand is therefore unmet, the State generally chooses a *single* service and provides it to everyone (e.g. you will all use the State medical service) where the normal market provides a range of companies and so people have choice to suit their needs and preferences, and of course there's also the administrative cost overhead of State (another layer using up money to decide how to spend the money), and the deadly issue of State spending being corrupt, badly chosen, porkbarrelled and bounced around as a political football.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

pammon (831694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17324016)

> People have n money available to them. They spend it optimally - at least, more optimally than anyone else can spend that money on their behalf, because they know most about themselves, more than anyone else.
> When the State appropriates money and decides what to spend it on, that money is AT BEST spend as efficiently as it would have been otherwise (in the case where the State spends it exactly at the individual would have).

That is not true at all! Imagine a city full of people who each have a dollar to spend. Each person can spend it on a Big Mac or towards the city's street lights. Everybody would rather have street lights instead of a Big Mac. However, the individual marginal street light gain from a single dollar is negligible - how many street lights does a dollar buy, after all? So the optimal choice for each individual person is to buy the Big Mac, even though everyone would prefer the lights. The state, by appropriating the dollar, can spend that money more efficiently by buying street lights, and everybody becomes better off.

Locally optimal choices do not necessarily imply a global optimum! Investment in infrastructure is exactly the sort of public good where locally optimal choices can lead to poor global decisions.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17324066)

If you need to sustain certain profitability with regulations that force you to do business where you don't want to

This would be great and all, except that the telecom companies have already proven just how much pent up rage they can unleash at people moving in to serve markets where they "didn't want to" as witnessed by all the laws they have backed and tirades their CEOs have given against cities deploying the wireless services that they weren't.

Companies want to have their cake and eat it too. This is impossible, but they sure as hell will try. Let's see how long before a local player decides to run fiber through part of a city that AT&T "didn't want", before suddenly they want it so bad they're going to go to court to get it.

Re:This is not for AT&T (0)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323614)

> You seem to imply that they will lower their prices or something. I don't see why they would. In which
> case they make larger profits.

If you have two or more companies selling much the same product and people can choose between them, the companies are both tempted (unless they form a cartel, which is both illegal and unstable) to lower their prices "just a bit" to make their product cheaper and so win more sales and make more money.

Eventually, both companies reach the point where they cannot reduce prices any more.

Neither company can increase prices, since to do so would lose customers to their competition.

I'm amazed that this isn't obvious. Surely you do really know this?

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323876)

Nice in theory, but what companies actually do is look at the numbers. First, they take their price cut and multiply that by their number of customers. This gives them a number which they then subtract from the profit per customer multiplied by the number of customers that they think they would gain. The smaller the price cut, the smaller the number of switchers, so you need a big price cut to get enough to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, a big price cut will eat up their profits. So, in most situations, there is no incentive for a price cut.

What they do instead is offer '50% Off!!!oneoneoneoneeleveltyone' (for the first three months).

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17324018)

> The smaller the price cut, the smaller the number of switchers, so you need a big price cut to get enough
> to make it worthwhile.

This makes no sense. Changing price is trivial - you simply change what you charge. If reducing your price increases your profit (which it will do if someone else is undercutting you), then you will do so, because you will make more money.

The idea that you'll shrug your shoulders and go "I can't be bothered" isn't there.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323942)

This is really coming down to AT&T and Verizon wanting to get more into the "Triple Play" market -- telephone, high-speed internet, and television distribution. Although they're already entrenched in the telecom market, they have to go head-to-head with the cable companies on the last third of that combination.

So posit this: you have Comcast, who currently has to support all of the users in a municipality, urban and rural both. AT&T comes in, and builds out in the most profitable areas (wealthy/dense) only, and starts providing a choice in digital television service. Well, what with Comcast's local history of gouging the hell out of everyone as the only service provider, a substantial number of people in this area switch to AT&T (especially since AT&T is running that price break special for new customers...) Comcast is then forced to do something to compete with AT&T -- offer more services, lower prices, whatever. The two get into a price war, and the customer is offered a decent economic/service environment to get things piped into their home. John Smith, who lives in suburbia, is really benefitting here.

However, AT&T can focus all their attention on this (much smaller) market. The price wars can continue until John Smith is getting the best deal ever. Frank Farmer, though, who lives about 5 miles away, but in a more rural area (or even just a neighborhood that isn't as new), still only gets Comcast. And Comcast, who used to subsidize their rural buildout by keeping prices at a certain level across all their customers, now has a dilemma. In order to help keep their prices in the AT&T zone competitive, *someone* has to take up the slack for the lower prices *and* the loss of customers. Comcast is only going to jack up the prices outside the zone and rape the customers that don't live in AT&T's area. AT&T doesn't give a damn; they don't figure it's profitable enough to roll outside their zone, and Comcast is suffering (it might serve them right for past behavior, but that's another story). Eventually, Comcast has to consider pulling out of the market, because they can't serve everybody. AT&T *now* has a perfect chance to expand to these new, unserviced areas, thus becoming the new sherriff in town. Lather, rinse, and repeat a few years later, when someone else moves in to compete, but in the meantime, you're back to the single-operator monopoly.

Suddenly, you've created a tiered service structure within town. If Frank Farmer wants better service, sure, he can just move...but there's only so much urban density that a city can handle. Sure, he can do without having fancy television, but you start creating zones of haves and have-nots, and the population starts getting really embittered. With their service providers, with their governments, and with each other.

The simplest solution is to treat the fiber/cable infrastructure as a public service, much like power or water, and allow competition on the wires. This is what the government was *trying* to do with telco subsidies the past 30 years; they just got really lazy about cracking the whip, and the telcos started to get out from under the rules that were giving them the tax breaks and cash infusions for buildouts and services.

I'm amazed this isn't obvious. Surely you've considered the potential realities of a market, and not just stuck to a fairytale environment of theoretical economics?

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17324048)

> So posit this: you have Comcast, who currently has to support all of the users in a municipality, urban
> and rural both. AT&T comes in, and builds out in the most profitable areas (wealthy/dense) only, and
> starts providing a choice in digital television service.

This is the crux of the problem.

Comcast is being forced by the State to behave in ways it would not otherwise behave. It makes no sense to offer a service in a location where it loses you money.

Comcast is forced to do this, AT&T apparently isn't, naturally, AT&T wins.

This is harmful State intervention and interference in the market.

Comcast, AT&T, etc, are privately owned. They belong to people, just like you and me. There is no obligation upon them do *anything*. If they just wanted to offer cable in the middle of Kansas, then they could; it's a free country. The State however has, on behalf of the selfish voter, *forced* them to spend - to lose, in fact - their money. This is wrong. It is a violation of freedom and liberty.

If the State passes a *law* saying Rural Farmer *will have* cable, then the State has passed a law which says Cable Provider *will spend -their- money thus*. It is *absolutely and catagorically wrong*.

wow, so naive... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323042)

...to think monopolies are reigned in by market forces.

Last I checked, the raison d'etre of monopoly regulation was because market forces had failed.

Re:wow, so naive... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323104)

wow so naive...to think monopolies are reigned in by market forces.

I don't see the world in black and white, I said:

There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it.

Which part of "there are cases" and "certain aspects" is unclear to you? There also such thing as overregulation, heard of it?

still so naive... (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323154)

Monopolies are forbidden from entering other markets because their effective subsidy on another market makes them able to grant their own entrance to the other markets without the same growing pains everybody else has. No, certain aspects of their business should not be left to deregulation. The only way to control a monopoly is to actually control it, not slap it on the wrist and tell it to turn away. It will turn away, onto other markets, if left to its own devices.

Re:still so naive... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323168)

Monopolies are forbidden from entering other markets because their effective subsidy on another market makes them able to grant their own entrance to the other markets without the same growing pains everybody else has. No, certain aspects of their business should not be left to deregulation. The only way to control a monopoly is to actually control it, not slap it on the wrist and tell it to turn away. It will turn away, onto other markets, if left to its own devices.

Congratulations, you've just managed to be 100% irrelevant to the particular issue we're discussing (built-out requirements).

Re:still so naive... (3, Insightful)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323214)

build-out requirements are part of the franchise bargain that telcos get when they want to run their lines through public property. Franchises are a form of monopoly. How is my discussion of monopolies and regulation irrelevant to franchises without a regulatory balance?

Would you rather nobody be allowed to burrow on public property to build out the infrastructure for the Internet? That's what we'd have if the city were not allowed to make such bargains. Unless, of course, you want the city paying for all its own infrastructure, and owning it directly. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

I'd take either, but you can't pick and choose who wins in such a bargain unless you want to be thought of as interfering in a business negotiation.

How many other ways can I deduce your philosophy into a contradiction? Shall I continue?

Re:still so naive... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323266)

How many other ways can I deduce your philosophy into a contradiction? Shall I continue?

Feel free to continue, you're apparently not even reading what I'm writing. I just said the FCC decided properly in THIS EXACT CASE, I have neither "philosophy" nor I'm saying "hey let's take this special case and apply it to everything".

But I clarified myself 3 or 4 times. It's getting boring.

Re:still so naive... (2, Insightful)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323294)

You gave a sentence that gave a general rule that was then specified to apply to this case.

I challenged your general rule. If it's not applicable, and if it's not your philosophy then something doesn't connect.

If you think this case is an exception to other philosophies regarding monopolies, then you have yet to give a basis. Build-out requirements are one of the fundamental bargains telcos make to become a franchise operator.

This is big government interfering with the market-based decisions of a local government. How you sided with big government in this case is beyond me. I'm still searching for why.

Re:still so naive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323526)

Unless, of course, you want the city paying for all its own infrastructure, and owning it directly. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

You seem to assume that we all deem it A Bad Thing. Please explain why we should consider it bad? IMHO, city should have right of ownership on own infrastructure and use this right to offer limited concessions to companies who find interest in maintaining services on it for profit. That way, city "holds the key" and can ditch maintainers if they fail to comply to regulations and city policies. If public infrastructure is fully owned by monopolist service providers it is far worse situation for citizens then if service providers are just "hired". Bargaining, of course, stays.

In fact, every monopoly should be regulated by laws (established by people voted, people-representing lawmakers), as most important necessary ones already are: monopolies on abduction (arresting), enslaving (detaining and imprisonment), murder (death sentence and police and army permits to use lethal force under certain circumstances) and extortion (taxing, fining... "Pay or else..." see previous monopolies), otherwise the freedom is void. Now, I hope this didn't give "deregulate!" proponents any dangerous ideas...

Re:wow, so naive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323642)

the *only* source of monopoly is from government interventions stopping competition. Your view is upside down.

Re:This is not for AT&T (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323046)

It's for everyone: if companies are forced to sell where wouldn't sell, this would affect the prices and quality of service for everyone.

Except the people who, thanks to this decision, can't get any service whatsoever.

There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it.

Anything that's vital for the proper functioning of society, and has a tendency towards a natural monopoly - water, electricity, telecommunications, transportation - should be controlled by the society and not by "market forces".

Re:This is not for AT&T (0)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323074)

Anything that's vital for the proper functioning of society, and has a tendency towards a natural monopoly - water, electricity, telecommunications, transportation - should be controlled by the society and not by "market forces".
If something is controlled by market forces then it is controlled by society.

Re:This is not for AT&T (2, Insightful)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323102)

No, it is controlled by a small subset of society, i.e. the decision makers of the (small number of) companies that control the market. Since their mandate is to increase shareholder value, their view of 'society' tends to be myopic.

Re:This is not for AT&T (0)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323092)

Except the people who, thanks to this decision, can't get any service whatsoever.

It's up to me as a business to decide whether I wanna sell you christmas lights, or I don't wanna sell you christmas lights. If my shop is in New York and my profits are just fine, it's not up to some regulatory institution to insist I open a clone shop in every single little village in the country.

If you want my service, move to a place where I offer it, or use someone else's service. Simple as that.

Well said (2, Insightful)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323114)

I say we go back into time and repeal the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electrification Act so that neo conservatives like your forefathers would not get electrical service in the rural areas of the country.

This way, the electric companies would not have to serve you and your parents most likely would have never survived to spawn you as they would have died of exposure.

Or, more likely, they would never have learned about the world beyond their tiny little farm, and would never have Beverly Hillbillied their way out to whatever sub/urban place you live now that has electricity.

We in the Blue States proudly endorse the FCC's move - in the hopes that more rural neo cons will be denied high speed internet access, thus hindering the spread of the plague that is your corporate statist "let them eat cake" line of thinking.

Re:Well said (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323326)

We in the Blue States proudly endorse the FCC's move - in the hopes that more rural neo cons will be denied high speed internet access, thus hindering the spread of the plague that is your corporate statist "let them eat cake" line of thinking.

While I don't disagree with your position, would you mind toning down the rhetoric a little. I actually live in a "red" state and am tired of the over-generalizations people keep making. This is a complicated issue, without the black and white outcome both sides are claiming. The fact is, without some movement in the system, it is not profitable at all for the telcos to build their infrastructure nationally, if every single municipality they go through is able to negotiate individual terms. Which would be bad for consumers as the infrastructure remains stagnant. At the same time, the telcos have done an excellent job of $elling the politicians on the idea that no regulation is the way to go. I think it's obvious that they are doing this to have a freehand in maximizing their profits.

But the way both sides in this discussion are allowing a political and philosophical discussion to degenerate into name calling is about as productive as beating each other over the heads with bats. It might feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything. Whatever happened to the days when people were actually willing to consider the other side of an argument, and at least concede that smart people are going to disagree on just about anything.

Now before anyone shoots back with the "I do consider the other side, but they are just stupid," line, take a moment, breathe, and consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be responding emotionally to a logical issue. When you dismantle a bomb, you don't cut the red wire because you think it's an ugly color.

Re:Well said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323340)

Whatever happened to the days when people were actually willing to consider the other side of an argument, and at least concede that smart people are going to disagree on just about anything.

They never existed.

Re:Well said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323520)

Oh yes they did.

Re:Well said (4, Insightful)

smchris (464899) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323690)

OK. moment. moment. moment.

No, it's stupid.

I'm so old and grew up in so rural an area, I realized very young that I profited from rural electrification. My mother still displays an "antique" kerosene lamp. Didn't purchase it. Family possession.

Sure, people complained that rural electrification was unprofitable. We could probably find some blowhard who complained at the time that it destroyed the opportunity for rich people to experience a Deliverance Weekend amongst the simple people who still played banjo on the porch in the evening. But can't most of us agree that _some_ national infrastructure standards are good for everybody? The libertarian miserliness screaming that somebody else is getting a few of their projected pennies of savings makes a mockery of the idea that there is an "American People" and that we are a "society" that share anything at all.

Re:Well said (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323798)

OK. moment. moment. moment.

Hey, at least you tried... ;)

No, it's stupid.

I agree that giving telcos carte blanche is a bad idea. But I can't tell if you mean your comment to reflect that or not. If you are saying making any compromise on the role municipalities have in controlling all areas of build outs is stupid, I don't think that is the answer either. If a telcom had to go through 20 municipalities to get a line through, and each one could take up to six months of negotiations, town hall meetings, public forums, and some litigation, then you are looking at years just to get the rights to lay the lines. So I'm arguing that the other side has at least some logical stance for their position. So instead of calling them stupid, would it not be more useful to suggest a solution for a very real, practical problem?

The libertarian miserliness screaming that somebody else is getting a few of their projected pennies of savings

This is the type of over simplification I was referring to. You are understating the issue. We aren't talking about a few pennies, we are talking about millions of dollars. Now, if you want to make the argument that even though the issue is about millions and millions of dollars, fine. But to paint the other side as stingy bastards who only want to save a few pennies, begs a visceral and caustic response. Then you perpetuate the issue.

friendly amendment (-1, Offtopic)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323398)

Also on behalf of red states, I'd like to request our hundreds of billions in federal tax dollars back from the blue states, who've had an effective pork subsidy due to the disparity of unequal representation I like to call "The Senate". I shiver to think where the heartland would be were it not for government services paid for by liberals pushing their economic bonuses on them. To think, they may have become self-sufficient technology hubs were they not "punished by rewards". It's time for some compassionate, tough love.

Re:Well said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323468)

corporate statist

There's no need for a new phrase. The word you are looking for is "Facist". Really.

Re:Well said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323488)

I say we go back in time and ban the Pacific Railway Acts so that defeatocrats like your forefathers would not get food, freight and interstate communications in the metropolitan areas of the country.

This way, the railroads and telecommunications companies would not have to serve you and your parents most likely would never survived to span you as they would have died of starvation.

Or, more likely, they would have never learned about the world that facilitates their cosmopolitan life, and would never have sprawled their way out to whatever sub/urban place you live in now that has food.

We in the Red States proudly endorse President Lincoln's veto - in the hopes that more metropolitan self righteous defeatocrats will be denied food and communications, thus hindering the spread of the plague that is your communist oligarchy "let them serve me cake" line of thinking.

Re:Well said (1)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323750)

I say we go back into time and repeal the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electrification Act so that neo conservatives like your forefathers would not get electrical service in the rural areas of the country.

Except for those small communities who built their own power plants and now sell electricity to the locals for less than what the big boys are willing to charge. I don't recall the city offhand, but within the past couple of days I saw a blurb about a city that runs their own generating plant and charges only 2/3 of what everybody else in the area pays.

If there is a demand for electricity and the locals aren't too lazy they will find a way to get it.

Re:This is not for AT&T (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323252)

Your Christmas light shop doesn't benefit from owning rights-of-way (or benefitting from another company's right-of-way) on both public and private property. It doesn't hold monopoly power over Christmas lights.

In exchange for having their monopoly and rights-of-way protected by the government, it's only fair that utility companies would be required to give something back to the community, especially since there's such a huge public benefit at stake. If a utility company is considering moving into a hence-unserviced market, they can take into account servicing that market's outlying areas when they make that decision.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323308)

On the other hand a community can decide whether to allow anyone to conduct a business unless they meet certain criteria. The right to conduct unregulated business isn't God given.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323332)

Cool, so I can refuse you a right of way or an easement on my property when you decide to do a build out? What's that? I can't refuse you a right of way or an easement? Oh ok, I'll just talk to your competitor then. Oh wait, you have a state granted monopoly and there is no competitor? Ermm... Seems rather one sided.

Re:This is not for AT&T (4, Insightful)

rollingcalf (605357) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323480)

"It's up to me as a business to decide whether I wanna sell you christmas lights, or I don't wanna sell you christmas lights. If my shop is in New York and my profits are just fine, it's not up to some regulatory institution to insist I open a clone shop in every single little village in the country."

With your Christmas lights shop you aren't digging up miles of public property to create the means for selling your lights. If you ever do start to do that, it becomes the public's business to say under what conditions you can dig up their property. People in a town may not want to deal with road closings and jackhammer noises and other disruptions if their block isn't going to be able to make use of the infrastructure buildout that is causing that disruption.

"If you want my service, move to a place where I offer it, or use someone else's service. Simple as that."

If you want to disrupt my days to build out something for your service in my town, you better make it available to me, or go to another town. Simple as that.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323508)

"If you want my service, move to a place where I offer it, or use someone else's service. Simple as that." - no you fucking idiot, no one is forcing the cable companys to install cable at a loss. the cable companys don't like the terms of a cable franchise in some towns so they've begged/bribed the fcc into changing to law to suit them. i say agin so your thick head gets it - they aren't forced to do anything - THEY are the ones persueing the business.

Re:This is not for AT&T (3, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323198)

I lived in York when the water company got privatised. Never seen such a disaster. It wasn't just a license to print money, it was also a license to be incompetent. Now with telecom, one can argue to which extent it stil is a monopoly. And people wo go living in the middle of nowhere should learn that this comes with a price tag. I can remember stories from Belgium where millionaires built illegal expensive villas in protected woods. Even though the constructions were illegal, the utility companies had to spend fortunes to connect these houses, paid for by suckers who live in appartments. And five years later, when they get kids, they go and complain to local politicians because there is no busstop anywhere near. So now the bus from A to B has to stop 10 times instead of 5, doubling travel time. Living in a city is better for the environment (less transport) and better for the community (public transport, utilities, schools...). It should be rewarded.

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323484)

no one is forcing them to sell there. what this means is communities don't have to right to demand equal service to all it's citizens in exchange for a cable franchise.i say again, no one is forcing them to sell anything at a loss. they could just not take the deal offered. what you will see come out of this, the poor getting poorer, and the rich getting richer. which never ends well for society, be it technical or financal matters.

Re:This is not for AT&T (-1, Offtopic)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323594)

Moderation abuse.

Expressing an opinion in favour of the free market is NOT flamebait.

Marking this *as* flamebait is the suppression of free speech; "I dislike your opinion, so I will make sure it is modded down, which means others will be less likely to read it".

Welcome to slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323740)

home of the libertarian trotskyite.

Heres a guide to moderation
Flamebait = Challenges ideas the moderator is comfortable with
Interesting = Seems like the moderator might be comfortable with it but not certain
Insightful = Moderator agrees with you and thinks this will stifle debate
Overated/overrated = Moderator wants this gone but doesn't want to risk karma loss

Funny = Slashbots have no sense of humor they are trying to convince themselves otherwise

Re:This is not for AT&T (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323986)

This flies in the face of the century old concept of universal access whereby we pay slightly higher rates to insure that everyone has an equal opportunity to take advantage of the telephone system. I'm not so worried about the idea of IPTV not being available in the sticks as there are alternatives, but no FIOS means that they are shut out of the infrastructure that will power the 21st century.

You can't beat the 'phone company. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323026)

Especially when they own the regulators.

Good to see corruption and graft still thriving in the USA.

Re:You can't beat the 'phone company. (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323116)

Meh corruption. The FCC is going to get a very public spanking from Congress in the new session. There will be some legislation reversing this decision, and they will probably throw in some boundaries to rein the FCC in.

Re:You can't beat the 'phone company. (-1, Offtopic)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323174)

There will be some legislation reversing this decision, ...

And a veto by Dubya.

Re:You can't beat the 'phone company. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323382)

Followed by some "investigations" of various members of his administration to the point where Michelle "Blabbermouth" Malkin gives up on trying to spin things.

It's not like there's not enough material to cover 2 years straight to make it worthwhile enough to use a veto.

who is getting paid off? (4, Interesting)

bakana (918482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323028)

Somebody just got a brand new phantom in their driveway via payouts from Telecoms. The FCC are the ones that required cable companies and sat companies to sign individual franchise agreements with each city that service was offered. Why would they go and allow telecoms to skip that step with their services? At the minimum mandate that they have to roll out their products to everyone. Crazy!

Re:who is getting paid off? (3, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323274)

Why would they go and allow telecoms to skip that step with their services?

There has been a revolution. It was even televised, so I'm not sure what your excuse for missing it is.

KFG

Re:who is getting paid off? (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323364)

The problem is, as we have seen in some cases already is that if Verizon, AT&T and the other companies rolling out various kinds of fibre data networks are required to roll it out to everyone (including all the non profitable areas) they wont roll it out at all.

Re:who is getting paid off? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323414)

Srip them from their monopolies, use public money to roll out (dense) fiber data networks (instead of buying bridges to nowhere), then rent fiber to any private companies (for a fee).

The current telcos lose their power, everyone gets potential access to the network, new (disruptive) telcos can appear on the market without being strangled by teh mini bells.

Not going to happen of course (since the mini bells have pretty much bought out every telco-related regulator), but that's the best thing you guys could do.

Re:who is getting paid off? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323476)

The problem is, as we have seen in some cases already is that if Verizon, AT&T and the other companies rolling out various kinds of fibre data networks are required to roll it out to everyone (including all the non profitable areas) they wont roll it out at all.


No, the problem is we have already paid them to roll it out. Not just once but many times over and by multiple levels of government. The Bells were supposed to have had fiber directly to most homes in America years ago by their promises given to obtain huge tax breaks and credits. Instead they have used these increased profits from lower taxes to expand around the world while providing very limited and relatively slow broadband in the US.

Re:who is getting paid off? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323812)

" . . . we have already paid them to roll it out. Not just once but many times over and by multiple levels of government."

(I'm not trolling) Could you please provide some links or references to back this up?

Re:who is getting paid off? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323546)

Somebody just got a brand new phantom in their driveway

Did they bribe Infinium to actually build one then?

Its the FCC on monopoly and duopoly (0, Troll)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323058)

In Capitalist West US government only listen to rich telco.
In Soviet Union everybody listen to you!

Re:Its the FCC on monopoly and duopoly (2, Funny)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323616)

Should be:
In capitalist West the government listens to rich telcos.
In the Soviet Union the rich telcos listen to the government!

some days I really do wonder who is in charge

Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323080)

Anyone know where I can get some weed in the south Redmond, WA area? Thx.

That's alot of power / control (5, Interesting)

It's Atomic (986455) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323184)

I'm not from around your neck of the woods, and honestly couldn't tell you if the decision was a good or a bad one. Nor do I understand the consequences or background to the situation, even after RTFAs.

The very fact that the decision had to be made leads me to believe there are communities, cities, populaces with many thousands if not millions of people who want a say in how their town is serviced by a telecommunications company. Some kind of kickback, like a swimming pool, or some franchise fees.

To my naive way of thinking, it seems incredible that 5 (3-2) people can veto the decision making process / power of entire cities or possibly even states, throughout the entire country.

It also seems kind of wrong. Power, corruption, ultimate power, you know, that kind of wrong.

Re:That's alot of power / control (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323250)

To my naive way of thinking, it seems incredible that 5 (3-2) people can veto the decision making process / power of entire cities or possibly even states, throughout the entire country.
Look pal, a modern economy needs efficient, lean companies squeezing every last drop out of their emloyees and resources so CEOs can be amply rewarded for growth at any cost. How are our companies supposed to remain lean if they have to go chasing 30, 40 500 or 5000 or whatever other communistic amount of regulartory board members so they can be given their brown paper envelopes containing unmarked used dollar bills?

No, I say. No. What we need is a small manageable amount of bribable individuals so companies can spend less resources on bribery, and more on running their business more efficiently.... into the ground. The current number is great. Sometimes you don't even have to pay them. You can just bombard them with marketers, PR guys, dime a dozen scientists and regatta parties and they mostly just end up actually believing what you say. Great stuff.

Re:That's alot of power / control (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323702)

No, I say. No. What we need is a small manageable amount of bribable individuals so companies can spend less resources on bribery. . .

And this is why socialists want strong, central government, because only a strong central government has the power to fight corruption.

KFG

Re:That's alot of power / control (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323800)

because only a strong central government has the power to fight corruption
... and no intention of using it.

Re:That's alot of power / control (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323878)

because only a strong central government has the power to fight corruption
... and no intention of using it.

Well of course not, that would only interupt the flow of bribes.

KFG

Re:That's alot of power / control (3, Insightful)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323778)

whilst I applaud your irony, as with the best irony there is truth in it. The snag is that we the public are responsible for rapacious control by the big corporates. Yes, really, because our pensions are invested in corporations and we demand the highest growth in our savings and most people have no interest in how the money is invested or the consequences of the pressures to perform placed on the investees. If a corporation fails to meet the demands of its shareholders, it is punished hard. The snag is that people most dependent on managed pension funds are those most likely to be hurt by their actions - people who can manage their own pensions are likely to be wealthy enough and high enough up the corporate ladder to have some say in their life.

all levels of govrnment are corrupt. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323948)

a local municipality here was doing exactly what the FCC blocked, trying to get some sweetness to permit some services.

of course who would be wired first? well, gee, the government itself, followed by certain neighborhoods that a paper determined to be, guess where, the same people voting to approve it lived.

sorry, but I understand that it may annoy people that businesses putting down high speed means of access should be allowed to determine where their market is, let alone where they start deployment. It only makes sense to take it where you will make the most of your money back the quickest and then deploy from there. High speed internet service is not a right and locals should have no say in how its deployed unless said local government is going to subsidies it or pay for it outright.

In other words, its not being paid for with government money then the government should not be able to set service requirements, the market will clobber anyone who doesn't do it right. It has before and is quite capable of doing it again

Why is the FCC making policy? (3, Insightful)

dircha (893383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323196)

Presidents adding oral ammendments to bills and unelected agencies enacting legislation.

This is just yet another example; it is rediculous. Where is the mass outrage? Shouldn't Republicans be outraged by our government wiping its ass with the Constitution - limited government and separation of powers? Shouldn't Democrats be outraged as the government continues to redistribute our hard earned money into the pockets of its corporate sponsors?

I mean ordinary people. I'd like to think I'm an ordinary person, but polls say otherwise. Why aren't ordinary people outraged when they see these abuses and corruptions?

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (1)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323236)

Why aren't ordinary people outraged when they see these abuses and corruptions?

Ordinary people *don't* see these abuses, because they aren't paying any attention. If they took the time to understand how our government actually works, they probably would be outraged at the regulatory power wielded by unelected agencies -- most attorneys I know are!

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323384)

"If they took the time to understand how our government actually works, they probably would be outraged at the regulatory power wielded by unelected agencies -- most attorneys I know are!"

You mean the demons are mad that the devil is having all the fun? [/Lawyer joke]

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323282)

Franchise agreements are pretty stupid, and it would be fair to say they play a large part in holding back progress in the US. Why should every little podunk suburb have a say in national networks? If you want to regulate them, fine, but that's the wrong level of government.

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (1)

sethawoolley (1005201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323314)

What is wrong with you people? Local governments should always usurp the interference of larger governments unless the tenth amendment deactivates and the fourteenth amendment activates (btw, that combination is not met in this case). Did they miss out on The Constitution in all your collective civics classes?

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (4, Informative)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323376)

The FCC makes telecommunications policy via regulations because that limited power was expressly given to them by an act of Congress. Congress has the power to modify the FCC's authority, and has done so on numerous occasions. If you actually read the proceedings of the FCC, they often make reference to the statutory authority that empowers them to deal with an issue, or that limits what they can do.

Re:Why is the FCC making policy? (1)

shams42 (562402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323856)

> Shouldn't Democrats be outraged as the government continues to redistribute our easily borrowed money into the pockets of its corporate sponsors?

There, I fixed it for you.

Your tax dollars at work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323200)

So, they are using changes to cable regulations to avoid telco obligations [niemanwatchdog.org]?

-quickly Googled link, there are more and possibly better. Certainly been considerable Slashdot comments in the past on this.

good (1)

SlashDread (38969) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323344)

Everyone knows the rights of megabusiness count for -two- citizins.
In case of a conflict, choose megamoney. Always.

This IS A Good Thing!! (0, Troll)

sciop101 (583286) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323436)

Local governments still have the authority to say "NO!" If the local government does not like the telecoms plan, the plan can be killed in entirety. No foul, No gain!

Other businesses have the privilege of deciding where to do business and open/close stores. Telecoms deserve the same right!

Resources should not be wasted on installations that cannot be profitable, or at least break even!

Re:This IS A Good Thing!! (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323684)

Just see how that idea works out.

"Oh, so you are telling us we have to play fair in your city?"
"That's right."
"Oh, ok. Then we are leaving. We will be waiting here when you... want us to come back."

Yes!! (1)

sciop101 (583286) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323804)

Fair is fair!! If a city mandates full coverage, the city government can pay for it!

This is a service sold by a business, NOT a service provided by a government.

Re:Yes!! (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323896)

This is a service sold by a business, NOT a service provided by a government

This is a monopoly granted by a govt., not a promise of unlimited profits provided by a government.
  There fixed it for you.

Re:This IS NOT A Good Thing!! (4, Insightful)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323922)

No, this sucks.

You're talking about marginal profits and not aggregate profit. The local government is making a deal which guarantees that the provider has a monopoly on the market. What's wrong with them negotiating a part of the contract which mandates a rollout plan to all citizens?

So, they have the right to say "NO" but they don't have the power to negotiate if they say "YES"?

Your "other business" comparison is generally ridiculous. Although you could probably come up with some parallels, these would be the exception. What other business has a barrier to entry like the cable and telecom industry? A more appropriate parallel would be giving a convenience store exclusive rights to the market in a particular town, and allowing them to refuse to sell to anyone that isn't within 20 miles of the town center.

Local control is best. We don't need the draconian FCC enforcing the will of the empire on every town and city in the U.S.

Re:This IS A Good Thing!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323974)

Yeah! And stop plumbing too where it can't be profitable! Damn hicks don't deserve amenities!

Ammo for communities building their own fiber ? (3, Interesting)

StarsEnd (640288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323544)

As seen on slashdot before
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/05/02 9222 [slashdot.org], various companies attempt to hinder broadband rollout by governments.
Will this decision then reduce the resistance against municipalities building their own infrastructure? If my township isn't one of the cherries to be picked by the companies, we can pick it ourselves.

Good for small telco's too (5, Interesting)

zaaj (678276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323620)

In my area, there's an ISP that's also a CLEC (Competing Local Exchange Carrier - they offer dialtone). They're building out fiber to buildings for Ethernet and telephony services, and would like to get into video (TV) but since they're a small company, they just can't do it if they're going to be required to build-out to the non-profitable areas. It's not just a matter of raising prices for everyone to subsidize the sparsely-populated areas, it's a matter of not having the access to the capital required to do such a build-out in the first place. That, and the "densely populated" areas around here are not big enough to make the subsidization idea feasable even if the build-out could be done.

Here's another perspective - the telco's are only offering DSL in specific areas - sure it's probably primarily for technical reasons - certain radius from the CO for DSL to work, but if they can "cherry pick" for DSL, why not the rest of the services they offer.

On the other hand, arguments about large numbers of rural residents not having phone or electric sevice now if the build-out requirements were never in place are hard to ignore, and high-speed internet is being considered a basic necessity by more and more people as time goes on. Perhaps the FCC doesn't agree about that, or perhaps they figure having wide-spread fiber deployments at all would be a better starting point to eventually get fiber to rural areas than if fiber wasn't in the city/town at all.

Franchise laws *need* to be repealed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17323654)

Look - franchise laws are all about creating legal monopolies. It's wrong for a city to decide which company wins or loses. At least in a capitalist society. That's the job of the free market. The reason cable bills are so high, service so poor, and choice so limited is all because of franchise laws that give clowns like Comcast free reign.

That said I hate Verizon and AT&T as much as the next guy. In fact my phone service comes from a Skype phone, and a cell, so I can choose my provider.

I see the FCC decision as encouraging competition.

LOl now municapalities can just say no (1)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17323680)

So now if verizon comes to a town and these fcc rules are in effect wouldnt towns be more likely to say no now? This ruling still states that they have to gte a franchise from each town but they wont be these huge things, basically pay the town and they allow you in the town. Now wont towns be more likely to just say no ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...