Broadband Civil WarState deregulation conflict rumbles on ( old news - 01:04PM Monday Mar 10 2003) tags: dsl · competition · legislation The telco quest for state level broadband deregulation recently came to an abrupt halt in Kansas, despite millions of dollars worth of lobbying (and the long work hours of Kansas SBC exec. Randy Tomlin and his laptop). SBC's battle in its own state of Texas is looking equally dismal, even the traditionally pro-big business state lawmakers thinking recent FCC revisions should be enough. With several state battles lost, the telcos now turn their attention to Illinois and Missouri, where their chance of success looks promising. If there were ever a state where SBC has friends, it would be the telco's home state of Texas. Yet even lawmakers there aren't convinced that eliminating state level regulation would be in the region's best interest. In fact Rebecca Klein, newly appointed chairman of the state's Public Utility Commission, and former policy director for one time Governor George W. Bush, has apparently made it her mission to keep the state's broadband regulatory power intact. In Missouri it appeared as if the quest for state deregulation was all but dead last week when The Senate Commerce and Environment Committee deadlocked over an SBC supported "broadband parity" bill, effectively burying it. Cindy Brinkley, president of SBC-Missouri, at the time called the deadlock "a setback but certainly not a loss."Brinkley was right. House Bill 142, in essence a regurgitation of the deadlocked bill, avoided deadlock several days later and passed through the Communications, Energy and Technology Committee with flying colors, a 15-5 vote sending it on the the full house. As it has in other states, SBC has promised that if legislators deliver "regulatory certainty," SBC will in turn invest in state infrastructure. That promise wasn't enough to sway Kansas into buying SBC's sales pitch, as the Kansas House Utilities Committee last month voted 11-9 against lifting state level broadband oversight. The Kansas loss was particularly frustrating to SBC, who had spent an inordinate amount of money lobbying state legislators. Randy Tomlin, Kansas SBC president, logged thousands of miles in his car meeting and greeting state lawmakers. (You can find a .pdf copy of the failed legislation here if interested) With the Kansas loss, all eyes suddenly turn toward the next battlefield: Illinois. Despite the fact that the state's General Assembly ramped up state oversight of telecommunications just two years ago, a bill proposed by Democrat senator Denny Jacobs (which would bar the Illinois Commerce Commission from regulating broadband) passed 9-2 in its first appearance before state legislators. In Illinois, like in other states, consumer advocates and state PUC's are growing increasingly vocal in opposition to the telco push, charging that the elimination of state level broadband regulation will ultimately mean higher prices for consumers, and more importantly a reduced role in the state's (and in turn customers) ability to resolve service quality disputes. Meanwhile the telcos promise that lifted regulation means greater profits, more jobs, and speedier deployment of DSL networks to rural areas. Illinois employees in the state see (or are told to see) deregulation as a chance to slow or stop SBC job cuts, and recently showed their support at a recent state legislative session. Telco lobbyists and consumer advocates should be waging war in your state capital shortly, warning you of economic oblivion or promising a better tomorrow; both claiming they have your best interests in mind.
Related:- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Lawmaker Unveils Anti-Metered Billing Law
- Verizon Again Threatens Massachusetts Investment
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
|
 
BBC4544
join:2002-03-12
Saint Peters, MO | change is good states that do not accept change will be left behind | |
|  | Nightwchtr
join:2001-09-10
Falls Church, VA | Re: change is good Your are right Change is good but not a TELCO change thats for sure. They are a broken record with Broken promises, like every other Telco, they are full of *&^%. | |
| | 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| said by BBC4544  :
states that do not accept change will be left behind
Hey, the air you breathe being turned into chlorine is CHANGE...so not all change is good.
Using deregulation as a hostage-negotiation ploy with the states is pretty shortsighted, IMHO. Other states that don't bend over to SBC that end up doing better (as in better prices, better user satisfaction, more competition, etc.) will have those states that deregulate asking themselves....what the hell did we just do??
You have to ask yourself one question: Just what was it that got this industry regulated in the first place?
--
"The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted" James Madison | |
| | | 
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA
| Re: change is good CHLORINE? Am I doing this, too?
[text was edited by author 2003-03-12 17:30:57] | |
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Only a foolishly run company (such as SBC) would pass up the massive profits from upgrading a state regardless of regulatory conditions. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| what he said said by JakCrow :
Only a foolishly run company (such as SBC) would pass up the massive profits from upgrading a state regardless of regulatory conditions.
I have also said this before - if the bells had spent their money upgrading COs and rolling out DSL instead of
blocking competition and spending money lobbying for deregulation, a lot more people would have DSL available and they might even be ahead of the MSOs.
Instead, they stuck their head up their ass as the MSOs rolled out broadband.
Besides, if they wouldn't spend the money during the boom, what makes everyone think they will do it during the bust? | |
| | 
ib50MbSoon
Formerly TwoKDialup
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI
| said by BBC4544 :
states that do not accept change will be left behind
That is the telco attitude customers have all grown to love!
--
Earthlink/DirecWay SRS | SatMex 5-990 | |
| | 
akristov
join:2001-01-31
Tampa, FL
clubs:
| I believe change is good!!!
I believe that competitors should be granted even more market share by splitting the baby bells even further.
At this point in time with the technology available to us it should be possible to split the ilecs into separate entities.
One that provides the physical network and another that provides dial tone, data, and video, ie a clec.
That way there is no conflict of interest. You pay $10-12 for the physical line and however much you want to pay a company that provides Voice, Video, and Data.
Pay a little more if you want fiber bandwidth and hdtv.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-10 15:50:54] | |
| 
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
|  I've said it before. . . .
»Missouri Explores Deregulation
It's especially relevant given the advancement in the technology field. To whit:
said by LegoPower77 :
If an industry is unregulated, when there is rapid technological advances, the old facilities become obsolete before their historical cost is fully depreciated. Firms abandon obsolete facilities sooner than if there had been no advancement. But under a[ regulation] regime, the older facilities are protected by the averaging of their cost with the cheaper newer facilities into the rate structure. This has two effects that are exactly the opposite of what advocates of regulation say they want. First, since the older facilities are not abandoned and their cost is averaged with the newer ones, the price does not go down as quickly as it would if the old facility was abandoned altogether (assuming the new technology makes the product cheaper). Second, because of the guaranteed ROR, firms are more willing to try risky new technologies because they are less sensitive to cost overruns and since the consumer is made to pay for it anyway.
Firms operating under regulaton are less motivated to control costs than they would be in a competitive market and they do not abandon their older, inefficient facilities as readily. Prices under ROR regulation are set by adding capital cost and a profit rate to other costs, thereby attempting to reverse the competitive process by which prices determine the amount of capital cost one can profitably afford to incur.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-10 13:43:10] | |
| |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: I've said it before. . . . To find out how the bells haven't earned the privilege to be deregulated, read just about anything on teletruth.org .
[text was edited by author 2003-03-10 14:55:38] | |
| | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| More at stake then price said by LegoPower77 :
People make the case for regulation based on the natural monopoly argument. In order to protect the consumer, the state needs to regulate, usually by granting exclusive license and with price controls that guarantee "rate of return" (ROR for short) profits.
You assume the only form of regulation is pricing. I agree regulating price creates the wrong incentives and rewards the wrong things. Much more then price is at stake here.
said by LegoPower77 :
In a free market —one with no barriers to entry, the "monopoly" firm always would have to guard against upstart competitors seeking a part of their monopoly profit (which is why you'd never see $200/month broadband). In economics, we call this the contestable markets theory, for which there is much empirical support.
The problem is the incumbent is able to raise almost insurmountable barriers to entry. A competitor needs access to rights of way. Take rate strongly influences average cost per customer so before a competitor is able to overbuild an area they need to be reasonability assured of demand. The competitor is likely an island surrounded by hostile incumbents. Incumbents may be able to make it economically infeasible to backhaul data out of the “island” and connect to Interexchange carriers. The incumbent can easily lower price when faced with a competitive threat – undercutting the competitor’s biz proposition.
The incumbents are in a very strong position – the market is not as contestable at it seems.
said by LegoPower77 :
The point of all of this is that it's better to live with a temporary monopoly, subject to free entry, then to have Leviathan with threat of force limiting our choices and stifling innovation.
There are three aspects to broadband: transparency, availability, and price. Pricing is only one piece. Regulation should focus on high-level long-term goals – not technical minutia. The problem today is regulation is stovepipe based on historically business and distribution models. The Internet is a universal information system – this is in stark contrast to previous methods of distribution. Prior to the Internet each method of packaging information: telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, newspaper, magazine required a special purpose distribution network.
Transparency
As the Internet becomes more important we need safeguards to insure transparency. First-mile access provider must transport any technically valid data delivered to the network. The carrier is not allowed to pick and chose what is carried and what is refused.
Transparency is required to prevent first-mile network owners from becoming information gatekeepers. As the Internet matures more and more information will flow over it. The Internet is a very democratizing technology. It dramatically reduces publishing and access cost. It bypasses the traditional middlemen that used to control how authors and artists connect to patrons. The Internet promises to expand the number of voices by reducing entry barriers. But this will only happen if first-mile access providers are prohibited from limiting who is allowed to connect and how they are able to use the access network. Without enforced transparency the Internet will look like Clear Channel radio – hundreds of station all doing the same thing.
Regulating transparency is relatively easy and nonintrusive. The carrier cannot refuse to carry legitimate traffic, they must allow anyone to connect at the edge of the network, and they cannot provide preferential treatment to business partners. The first-mile access network must be a transparent bit pipe, between subscribers and information providers anywhere on the Internet.
Availability
Building the next generation network is a substantial undertaking and those who invest require a reasonable rate of return. Estimated cost of FTTH is between $1500-3000 per home. The US has about 110 million residences requiring a $200-300 Billion investment. Because the Internet is a universal network there is no economic incentive to build two next generation networks. Once a FTTH network is installed there is no financial incentive for a second player to enter the market. Building a second network does not expand market size it simply splits the market between two competitors.
Much of the cost of deploying FTTH is installation labor. Fiber installation costs will come down but not all that dramatically. The lower estimate for FTTH is already near existing telephone company copper loop costs. This means a late entrant into the market is unlikely to benefit from dramatically reduced cost. I think this is one of the reasons to RBOC are fighting so hard to kill the CLEC business. If a CLEC actually built an overlay network the RBOC could not justify building there own.
A mechanism must be found that encourages raising the substantial capital needed to deploy the network and at the same time remains responsiveness to the public good in the absence of local competition. This is the “natural monopoly” problem much the same as water, sewer, roads, power distribution, airports etc.
Pricing
The track record of government price control has not been particular effective. It is too easy for the regulated entity to play a shell game with regulators. Since local competition is unlikely we need to find other ways to prevent excessive or discriminatory pricing.
Pricing needs to be transparent to prevent discriminatory deals with favored partners putting competitors at a disadvantage.
Determining price points is more difficult, since geographical markets are unlikely to have meaningful competition. One approach is to limit the size of each first-mile access provider – say perhaps no larger then a single state. That creates 50 independent entities. This way even though competition does not exist at the local level one is able to compare prices to curb egregious abuses. Municipal ownership of the local access network is another way restricts excessive pricing.
Regulatory Rules for Broadband Network
Data Transparency
Non-discriminatory access at the edge
Effective price pressure in the absence of local competition | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16 | Re: More at stake then price That is one EXCELLENT post! | |
| | | 
allow me to reply
 from:
LegoPower77
| The three goals of broadband remind me of characteristics of the ideal free market (which does not exist, but that's another story) from "introduction to business 101"; chapter 1. But then the author advocates regulation, The arguments proposed in the essay sort bring up more questions about the author's point than answers. I am not claiming that broadand access is a free market, because there is no such thing as a truly free market. Free market's are inherently unregulated.
Per the definition the definition of transparency as delivering 'any technically valid data' [to the internet I presume.] I argue that this ideal has been met. Phone companies are responsible for OSI layers 1-2, ISPs are responsible for 3 and the rest. The broadband providers are not interested in censoring your posts on dslreports. The The RIAA and FBI would like to change this though. Though ISP's may to try to limit some 'invalid data' like DOS attacks and worms. Some might try and limit the number of one's and zero's that customers' computers spew, (bandwidth caps), they are not too interested in the content. The issue of censorship on the internet is usually related to hosting, not the last mile. I don't know what you mean by regulating transparency, what you call transparency is likely to be regulated away.
Availability
People on this site often forget that the cable companies built their own infrastructure, and they sometimes piggy-backed the phone company's poles. They used a common mechanism to raise capital: stocks and bonds. The CLEC's could build their own network, but they want to provide the exact same service as those the ILEC's already provide. CLECs are not innovators. They want to offer the same services as the RBOCs. The natural monopoly problem is also described as "economies of scale," which are a later chapter in the intro bus 101 class.
Pricing
Government regulation of pricing is not effective because they do not reflect the cost of providing service and the price that consumers are willing to pay. You know: supply and demand. Pricing is transparent already. CLEC's pay $3/month per cable pair. Geographic markets already have meaningful competition: Cable, wireless, RBOC, CLEC, WI-FI ,satellite, VOIP. WI-FI, satellite and VOIP access are not regulated, maybe they should be.
The recent FCC ruling already set up 50 independent entitites to regulate broadband. Providers already have to negotiate 50 indpeendent state PUCs to set prices, and each is ready to change the rules. This makes it difficult for both RBOCs and CLECs to determine how best to allocate capital to generate the best return. | |
| | | | rchdjellis
join:2001-01-14
Narberth, PA
| Re: More at stake then price said by allow me to reply:
Availability
People on this site often forget that the cable companies built their own infrastructure, and they sometimes piggy-backed the phone company's poles.
I think that we should remember that these are called "Utility Poles". They are not owned by the phone company. Electric lines also are strung on them. Also remember that most cable operators are legislated regional monopolies (we don't see two separate sets of cable "wires" on a pole). Regulation is supposed to be implied in the "monopoly" status. Again, an analogy I presented before, restated: No one is going to build two roads directly from "Town A" to "Town B". It is a waste of resources and has no economic benefit. Unless we charge for individual road usage and reimburse individual "road owners" this makes no sense. I believe the correct solution (which will probably never happen) is to "governmentalize" (sic) the first mile access lines and rent them (or portions of them) to phone companies and ISP's. | |
| | | | 
Eatmeingreek
Gentard
join:2001-06-29
San Francisco, CA
| said by allow me to reply:
Availability
People on this site often forget that the cable companies built their own infrastructure, and they sometimes piggy-backed the phone company's poles. They used a common mechanism to raise capital: stocks and bonds.
That is a false analogy. The cable companies didn't have to compete with existing providers that would lower prices temporarily to drive them out of business.
Once the would-be competitor is gone, the monopoly will raise prices and reduce service.
Caps, tiering and rate increases anyone?
--
We must destroy liberty to make the homeland safe for democracy | |
| | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| said by tschmidt :
said by LegoPower77 :
People make the case for regulation based on the natural monopoly argument. In order to protect the consumer, the state needs to regulate, A: by granting exclusive license and B: with price controls that guarantee "rate of return" (ROR for short) profits.
You assume the only form of regulation is pricing. I agree regulating price creates the wrong incentives and rewards the wrong things. Much more then price is at stake here.
Look at what I just said. There are two sides of the regulation coin, the granting of licenses (not a price), and price controls (a price). Actually there are more than just two. . .
said by tschmidt :
The problem is the incumbent is able to raise almost insurmountable barriers to entry. A competitor needs access to rights of way. Take rate strongly influences average cost per customer so before a competitor is able to overbuild an area they need to be reasonability assured of demand. The competitor is likely an “island” surrounded by hostile incumbents. Incumbents may be able to make it economically infeasible to backhaul data out of the island and connect to Interexchange carriers. The incumbent can easily lower price when faced with a competitive threat — undercutting the competitor's biz proposition.
The incumbents are in a very strong position – the market is not as contestable at it seems.
Let me use the eeevil pharmaceutical companies as an example. They have an enormous expense with R&D even while most of their projects don’t even make it into testing. Add to that regulations —there’s that word again— from the FDA. But, after they get the drug on the market, it costs almost nothing to mass-produce the pill. By your logic, then, we should force the company to hand over part of the production of that drug to its competitors. Doesn't that seem a bit incongruous to you, if not downright unfair? Where are the property rights in all of this? Does not the firm own its own network?
Monopoly in the pure sense of the word cannot exist because there are always alternatives. When we do see shades of monopoly, it’s almost exclusively government created/enforced (think, the Post Office, Amtrak, the phone company . . .). That’s right, the irony is that Ma Bell and what you all are dealing with now was started by the FCC regulations imposed in the 30s.
In the case of electricity, from their first appearance in 1879 until 1907 the utilities did not face price controls, while they were required to have licenses (just a license, no regulations). The literature of the time speaks of unfettered free markets. It was, actually, the industry who wished to erect barriers to entry that first lobbied for regulations.
Besides all that, are monopolies all that bad? Let’s look at it: Standard Oil in 1870 sold refined oil at $26.4/bbl and had 4% market share. By 1911, they had brought the price down to $4.7/bbl and had 69% market share. Same scenario for Alcoa, in 1887 a pound of aluminum sold for $5-8, by 1941 it was down to 15¢/lb. In more recent times, Microsoft gets lashed as an eeevil monopoly while no one can argue with how much better off people are with their products —as if they’ve been coerced into buying them or something. Meanwhile, government subsidized companies flounder (the railroads in the 1880s, the shipping industry around that same time, the post office, Amtrak…Didn’t they just need another billion dollar bail-out?)
said by tschmidt :
Transparency
As the Internet becomes more important we need safeguards to insure transparency.
At first I could see your point here, but the more I thought about it, I started to disagree with you. It reminded me, the other day I went into the grocery store to get salsa. Now I think the best one is actually the generic store brand, but I like the hot flavor. They didn’t have hot, only mild and medium. So on my way out, I spoke to the manager about making sure he keeps stocked up on hot salsa. The point of this is, I can agree that it would be bad if say, Cox started closing off ports and certain IPs, but I don’t think they would do that. The eeevil corporation exists solely by the goodwill of its customers —they are the voters, and they vote with their money.*
Another post on this says it quite aptly, in the second paragraph, s/he takes issue with your definition of transparency.
said by tschmidt :
Availability
Can anyone tell me why residents who live in the city and suburbs should subsidize (by paying universal connect charges) people who live in rural areas? Then consider this, if you live in the Washington DC area, a townhouse less than two car lengths across could cost you about $275Gs. That’s a lot of loot for just a townhouse. How about someone subsidizing me when I go out and try to buy a house? One might want to live on a scenic mountainside, but he can’t just drive down the road to the convenience store and buy some milk; he has to drive 10 miles down a mountain road. Should we be forced to pay a portion of his gasoline bill?
said by tschmidt :
A mechanism must be found that encourages raising the substantial capital needed to deploy the network and at the same time remains responsiveness to the public good in the absence of local competition. This is the natural monopoly problem much the same as water, sewer, roads, power distribution, airports etc.
Funding should come from the investors and loans like they do for every other company. The quickest way to stifle investment in tech is to set up a structure where it's not profitable to deploy a network. (Say, if you required the company deploying the network to give usage rights of it to its competitors).
The natural monopoly concept is a rather weak theory. Part of the reason is because most (all? —maybe you can win a Nobel Prize if you can find one) markets we can turn to to study have been regulated ab ovo if not outright undertakings of the state.
Are you telling me that SBC invests in laying a public good network? Only if it’s agreed a priori that we must force SBC to turn over their network rights to some other company for the sake of “competition.” Last I looked, my ISP has the right to exclude me should I break their TOS. That shatters any public goods. Broadband may have the public goods character that after the initial startup costs, it can operate with a relatively low day-to-day cost, but another requirement of public goods is non-excludability. The third character of public goods is that ones use of it doesn’t diminish anyone else’s capability to use it. This is most certainly not the case with the internet. If everyone gets on and cranks up Kazaa, there goes my 1.3 Mb/s.
said by tschmidt :
Pricing
What’s wrong with price discrimination? Are you saying that someone who books a flight 2 months in advance should be made to pay more so the fella who wants to fly tomorrow doesn’t have to pay as much? Who’s going to decide which goods are close enough substitutes to be considered the same product? Who decides the cost? Why not just make Ford make one model and color car?
You said at the beginning of your post that a regulation shouldn’t get bogged down with minutia, but the problem with leftist regulation schemes are that they rely on some sort of planning board. Even if you could find enough qualified people to sit, who selects them? A plebiscite? Unfortunately, what we see is that a consortium of self-appointed consumer advocates had the largest hand in shaping the regulations crafted by the FCC after 1996. You know not one eeevil telecom executive sat in on the meetings? You would think they would get someone who was familiar with the workings of that marketplace. More of this here.
So still, my new point is I’d rather be under a temporary monopoly than have to live under a regime of endless bureaucrats and government planning boards.
*The very fact that customers have the ability to go somewhere else discredits the idea of monopoly.
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | |
| | | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: More at stake then price Thanks “LegoPower77” and “Allow me to reply” for your thoughtful comments.
said by LegoPower77 :
Let me use the eeevil pharmaceutical companies as an example. They have an enormous expense with R&D even while most of their projects don’t even make it into testing. Add to that regulations —there’s that word again— from the FDA. But, after they get the drug on the market, it costs almost nothing to mass-produce the pill. By your logic, then, we should force the company to hand over part of the production of that drug to its competitors. Doesn't that seem a bit incongruous to you, if not downright unfair? Where are the property rights in all of this? Does not the firm own its own network?
I don’t understand your augment. Patents are a temporary monopoly – when the patent expires so do the property rights. The problem of first mile access is similar – how to create incentives for private investment while circumscribing how that power can be used.
said by LegoPower77 :
Besides all that, are monopolies all that bad? Let’s look at it: Standard Oil in 1870 sold refined oil at $26.4/bbl and had 4% market share. By 1911, they had brought the price down to $4.7/bbl and had 69% market share. Same scenario for Alcoa, in 1887 a pound of aluminum sold for $5-8, by 1941 it was down to 15¢/lb. In more recent times, Microsoft gets lashed as an eeevil monopoly while no one can argue with how much better off people are with their products —as if they’ve been coerced into buying them or something.
I agree. In general monopoly power occurs because an entity is a more able competitor – eventually eliminating all or most of the competition. The question is what happens after monopoly this power is obtained? Competitive checks and balances no longer operate. How much power do we cede to monopoly interest. The wisdom of the founding father was to create a system where vested interest of each actor is played off against the interest of other. Checks against abusive behavior are greatly weakened once an entity attains monopoly dominance.
said by LegoPower77 :
At first I could see your point here, but the more I thought about it, I started to disagree with you. It reminded me, the other day I went into the grocery store to get salsa. Now I think the best one is actually the generic store brand, but I like the hot flavor. They didn’t have hot, only mild and medium. So on my way out, I spoke to the manager about making sure he keeps stocked up on hot salsa. The point of this is, I can agree that it would be bad if say, Cox started closing off ports and certain IPs, but I don’t think they would do that. The eeevil corporation exists solely by the goodwill of its customers —they are the voters, and they vote with their money.*
I think your example is grossly inaccurate – the storekeeper does not have a vested interest in the outcome – other then to sell you more salsa. A better example is the store carries the in-house salsa brand. The closest competitor is a long distance away. Your request will likely receive a different response. The profit margin on the in-house brand is greater then your preferred brand. The store owner has little incentive to accommodate your wishes.
Let me paint a more realistic picture. In the early days to of the country roads were private – paid for by whoever built them. The builders then charged tolls. So far so good. As long as the tolls were non-discriminatory everyone paid the same amount and competed equally – capitalism worked well. Lets say I own the toll road and my brother in-law is in the grain hauling business. All I need to do is charge his competitors slightly more to eventually drive them out of business. I am able to use my control over a scarce resource – the toll road – to determine winners and losers in other areas. The early railroads did much the same.
So the question is do we cede total power to monopoly business interest or create a regulatory regime to limits the exercise of that power – with all its attendent problems?
said by LegoPower77 :
Can anyone tell me why residents who live in the city and suburbs should subsidize (by paying universal connect charges) people who live in rural areas?
Where did I say I’m in favor of subsides? Creating incentives and reducing barriers to entry has nothing to do with being subsidized. For example, in our area we are looking at building a municipal broadband network – none of the incumbents are interested or have the wherewithal to do it. This is self funding – not dependant on taxpayers. For this to work we need access to rights of way, elimination of laws preventing municipal ownership of communication networks, ability to interconnect to the incumbent’s network, etc.
said by LegoPower77 :
Are you telling me that SBC invests in laying a public good network? Only if it’s agreed a priori that we must force SBC to turn over their network rights to some other company for the sake of “competition.” Last I looked, my ISP has the right to exclude me should I break their TOS. That shatters any public goods.
Because first-mile access will likely be a monopoly in any given market then yes they need to agree to limits on what they are allowed to do. Lets look at the recent history of telecommunication to see how important limiting carrier’s rights are. The Bell System used to prevent any connection to the telephone network – even such innocuous passive device as Hush-a-Phone. During the early development of the Internet ARPA went to AT&T and asked them to help develop this new technology. They refused – on two grounds. First they did not think it would work and if it did why would they want to help create a competitive network.
If it were not for regulations treating the telephone network as a common carrier the Internet would not have happened – or it would have looked like the French Minitel system. Because the phone systems was regulated as a common carrier, as long as technologists could make what they wanted to do fit within the technical constraints of the phone network, the traffic had to be carried. The other critical regulatory aspect was nondiscriminatory access – ISPs were able to connect at the edge of the phone network – perform their magic and connect traffic to an entirely different network.
A similar proposition is needed for first mile Internet access. The access owner has limited power to enforce restrictive terms and conditions on network use. I am not in favor of unbundled network elements – I think that is in workable. What I am proposing is transparent carriage and non-discriminatory connection at the edge.
said by LegoPower77 :
What’s wrong with price discrimination? Are you saying that someone who books a flight 2 months in advance should be made to pay more so the fella who wants to fly tomorrow doesn’t have to pay as much? Who’s going to decide which goods are close enough substitutes to be considered the same product? Who decides the cost? Why not just make Ford make one model and color car?
You misinterpret what I said. Pricing must be transparent. Ford can charge whatever it wants, what is cannot do, if it is a monopoly, is sell a car to Avis for less then it sells the same vehicle to Hertz – giving Avis an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
said by LegoPower77 :
You said at the beginning of your post that a regulation shouldn’t get bogged down with minutia, but the problem with leftist regulation schemes are that they rely on some sort of planning board. Even if you could find enough qualified people to sit, who selects them? A plebiscite? Unfortunately, what we see is that a consortium of self-appointed consumer advocates had the largest hand in shaping the regulations crafted by the FCC after 1996. You know not one eeevil telecom executive sat in on the meetings? You would think they would get someone who was familiar with the workings of that marketplace.
This is the argument that really cuts to the heart of the matter – who control social policy? On the one hand we have folks with faith in unfettered markets and those who feel it is the roll of government to set the rules by which businesses play. Which side of the argument one comes down on is a deeply held philosophic belief not amenable to intellectual argument.
For me I believe the roll of government is to set the rules by which business operates. That is why we have a representative form of government As long business plays by the rules they are free to conduct their affairs how ever they want.
said by LegoPower77 :
The very fact that customers have the ability to go somewhere else discredits the idea of monopoly.
Let me play devils advocate here. In the aftermath of radio deregulation we had the collapse of independent radio stations – subsumed by a single entity called Clear Channel radio. Since radio spectrum is a scarce resource – with only a limited numbers of possible players where do I go if I don’t like what they have to offer? The same fate awaits the Internet if first-mile access providers are allowed to act as gatekeeper. | |
| | | | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: More at stake then price said by tschmidt :
I don’t understand your augment. Patents are a temporary monopoly – when the patent expires so do the property rights. The problem of first mile access is similar – how to create incentives for private investment while circumscribing how that power can be used.
I think it is a good analogy, what you want to do to broadband is the same as if you forced the pharmaceutical companies, after they went though the expense of developing a drug, to make that formula available to its competitors in the name of “competition”
said by tschmidt :
The question is what happens after monopoly this power is obtained? Competitive checks and balances no longer operate.
Absolutely wrong. The only way a firm would not face the challenges of the marketplace is if it were a government-closed monopoly with high barriers to entry. The contestable markets theory that I mentioned is rather robust. On the other hand, the record of regulation is that of high prices and poor service. As Friedrich Hayek points out in his essay The Meaning of Competition, “Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together” (emphasis added). (I could only find a summary of the article on the web here.) The reason for this is that people get so caught-up in trying to make everything “competitive” that they end up distorting the market by excessive regulation, which drives high-cost producers out and discourages would-be competitors from entering. Firms that have monopoly status are still constrained by costs, they still face a downward-sloping demand curve, and the only thing they do differently is instead of in a perfectly competitive market where firms produce to where marginal cost = price, in theory, monopolies will lower production to where marginal cost = marginal revenue. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. I say “in theory” because a large number of economic historians have found that the opposite is the case. For instance, Dominick Armentano examined the oil, steel and tobacco industries and found that all the “monopoly” companies (Standard Oil, US Steel, and American Tobacco Co.) had a record of continually increasing output and reducing price (see The Myths of Antitrust chpts 4 & 5). Furthermore, Yale Brozen says that, “the few trusts that actually did attempt raising prices and reducing outputs, such as the American Sugar Refining Company in the early 1890s and the American Can Company after 1901, quickly lost market share to new entrants attracted into the market, which bid prices back down to competitive levels” (see The Attack on Concentration).
said by tschmidt :
The storeowner has little incentive to accommodate your wishes.
Only if it’s a closed monopoly with no threat of new entrants. Otherwise, a monopoly will behave just like a perfectly competitive firm in that it will still seek customer good will.
I reject your roads hypothesis on two grounds. First I’d need to see data on your proposition and second, I don’t have a problem with firms charging people different prices (called price discrimination —heck, the coupons the grocery store issues are a way to price discriminate —we need to regulate them). This is just a normal attempt to increase profits and when done right, it accurately reflects the intensity of demand of the individuals. As for railroads, the Interstate Commerce Act didn’t regulate them until 1887. Before that, Arthur Hadley at the time found that between 1865 and 1880, railroad prices fell and average of 50 percent (see Railroad Transportation; its History and its laws G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1885, p 17). John Stover estimates in American Railroads that railroad rates fell 70 percent between 1870 and 1900. The irony is of course, that railroads were actually very anti-monopoly, because they connected once isolated locals thereby breaking up local monopolies.
said by tschmidt :
Because first-mile access will likely be a monopoly in any given market then yes they need to agree to limits on what they are allowed to do.
The other critical regulatory aspect was nondiscriminatory access – ISPs were able to connect at the edge of the phone network – perform their magic and connect traffic to an entirely different network.
A similar proposition is needed for first mile Internet access. The access owner has limited power to enforce restrictive terms and conditions on network use. I am not in favor of unbundled network elements – I think that is in workable. What I am proposing is transparent carriage and non-discriminatory connection at the edge.
I certainly hope that these discussions are not for naught because they are “deeply held philosophic belief[s] not amenable to intellectual argument.” While I disagree with you on the majority of what you’ve said, I would like to know more about your views on what I just quoted from you. Tell me why you think first mile access is a monopoly, what you mean when you say “ISPs were able to connect at the edge,” and more about this transparent carriage deal. We’re talking about the network and transport layers (in OSI model), right? Are you suggesting my ISP would actually block me from being able to surf marijuana.com or something?
said by tschmidt :
For me I believe the roll of government is to set the rules by which business operates. That is why we have a representative form of government As long business plays by the rules they are free to conduct their affairs how ever they want.
Exactly. Government’s only job in this regard should be to enforce contracts and prosecute people who break the law (such as Enron, and note that we don’t need more laws, just enforce the ones on the books).
One further point. Someone in here has (had?) the tag line, "When the day comes that anyone can bend our country’s laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies" -- Preston Tucker, 1948
That's true as far as it goes. History is replete with companies who cannot compete using government to impose barriers or legal penalties to "level" the playing field (think Netscape and Sun). And let's not forget the protectionist arguments for tariffs and quotas —same thing, people using government to further their (un)competitive ends (we pay 3 times the world price for sugar to "protect" the beet farmers from the efficient sugar cane farms of the Caribbean). Regulation was started because firms saw that competition was driving down prices, so they erected barriers to entry under the guise of "protecting the consumer."
Keep in mind, though, that this country was supposed to be a Republic. This guy would also probably decry the undue influence of "big money" in politics. That's precisely because government has so much control over the marketplace. Do you think Phillip Morris gave 3.7 million dollars to the political parties last year just for civic duty? No, it was protection money because the government has a monopoly on force. And it cannot be said enough: politicians and government bureaucrats are subject to the same "greed" and lust for power that eeeevil corporate executives are. The difference is the corporation can't show up to your house with guns and police to make you do what they want. If you want to get the money out of politics, get politics out of money.
As Ron Paul says:
Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government's goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property, and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality, micromanaging the economy, and protecting citizens from themselves and all their activities."
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell
[text was edited by author 2003-03-19 23:01:24] | |
| | | | | |
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: More at stake then price said by LegoPower77 :
While I disagree with you on the majority of what you’ve said, I would like to know more about your views on what I just quoted from you. Tell me why you think first mile access is a monopoly, what you mean when you say “ISPs were able to connect at the edge,” and more about this transparent carriage deal. We’re talking about the network and transport layers (in OSI model), right? Are you suggesting my ISP would actually block me from being able to surf marijuana.com or something?
As soon as the first entity delivers fiber to the home/business there is no longer incentive for a second player to enter the market. Fixed cost is high market size is fixed. In the past each method used to package information required its own delivery mechanism: telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, book, newspaper, magazine. Internet digital networking is a disruptive technology because it creates a universal delivery network independent of content. This means a single physical network is able to transport anything. Once the network exists in a given market there is very little incentive for another player to enter.
Pretend you are planning to invest in a startup going to wire an area in competition with an existing player. The deal may make sense at the prices currently being charged. However once faced with competition the incumbent can easily reduce prices. So unless you have significantly lower cost and the incumbent has not locked up service providers with exclusive contracts your biz plan lacks viability.
In the early days of the telephone network one of the methods Vail used to crush independent phone companies was to refuse to let them connect to the Bell system – effectively making them an island. For all its flaws common carrier telecom regulation was a stroke of brilliance enabling as yet unforeseen technologies to be developed.
The Internet would not have expanded as fast is it did in the US if it were not for common carrier regulation. The phone system was designed to carry voice. Without regulation the Telco’s would likely prevent the network being used to carry non-voice traffic or charge extra for the privilege. The Telcos are still lobbying to discriminate against data traffic. FCC regulation prevent them from doing that. As long as technologists stayed within the technical limitation of the voice network it could be used in any way the customer desired.
The other key regulation was nondiscriminatory access to the network. The Telco cannot refuse to deliver service to any qualified entity.
These two restrictions on Telco freedom to exercise its monopoly power facilitated the growth of the Internet. Engineers were able to figure out how to modify computer data to allow it to traverse the phone network. ISPs were allowed to connect to the edge of the Telco network – terminate the call and connect customers to the Internet. This occurred without the ISP having to obtain the permission or cooperation of the telephone carriers.
Restriction on customer use the access network is already happening.
1) Some ISP’s prohibit customer use of local network – only a single computer can be connected to the service.
2) CableLabs is working on techniques to allow the CableCo to manage and charge for each networked device.
3) Some ISP’s block ports, Port 80 to prevent customers running servers, port 500 to prevent use of Ipsec VPN, some block ports used for P2P sharing.
4) Some ISPs use NAT to assign customer's private addresses effectively preventing the customer from running any server class applications.
5) Asymmetric speed packages are not only the result of technical limitations they are deliberate effort to shape and limit how the service can be used.
6) A while ago Cisco got into hot water by proposing use of IP Quality of Service (QOS) mechanisms to provide better user experience to partners while disadvantaging competitors.
In a competitive marketplace these restriction would be of no concern because customers can easily switch to a different provider. This is the danger of combining a scarce resource – first-mile access network with higher-level services. It allows the owner of the scarce resource to leverage its dominance and dictate winners/losers in what should be a highly competitive market.
Innovation flourishes when barriers to experimentation are low. This creates a low risk environment to try out new things. Most fail but a few become culture changing events – such as the Internet. One of the goals of regulation should be to limit the ability of first-mile access carriers from locking in the status quo. Experimentation and novel usage should be encouraged.
I think the critical point we disagree on is whether or not first-mile access is an inherent monopoly. I claim it will be winner take all. The first player in the market with FTTH/FTTB will be in an almost unassailable position unless they are incredible stupid or are displaced by disruptive technology. That is why it is critical restraints be placed on how first-mile access providers are able to control how their network is used.
said by LegoPower77 :
History is replete with companies who cannot compete using government to impose barriers or legal penalties to "level" the playing field (think Netscape and Sun). And let's not forget the protectionist arguments for tariffs and quotas —same thing, people using government to further their (un)competitive ends (we pay 3 times the world price for sugar to "protect" the beet farmers from the efficient sugar cane farms of the Caribbean). Regulation was started because firms saw that competition was driving down prices, so they erected barriers to entry under the guise of "protecting the consumer."
I agree to an extent – that is one of the reasons I’m not arguing for the government to set “fair price.” That is virtually impossible and actually acts as a barrier to competition.
The Netscape debacle was interesting, I witnessed it play out directly. While I think Microsoft abused it domination in the desktop arena Netscape acted incredibly foolishly. As an OEM, at the time, we would have been happy to include the Netscape browser. However Netscape wanted us to pay a significant royalty – compared to zero cost if we went with Microsoft IE. Plus the Netscape folks tended to be pretty arrogant. Netscape would have been much better served to attack where Microsoft was weak – in servers, and concede where they were powerful. Alas they choose not to do so and we know what happened.
said by LegoPower77 :
Keep in mind, though, that this country was supposed to be a Republic. This guy would also probably decry the undue influence of "big money" in politics. That's precisely because government has so much control over the marketplace. Do you think Phillip Morris gave 3.7 million dollars to the political parties last year just for civic duty? No, it was protection money because the government has a monopoly on force. And it cannot be said enough: politicians and government bureaucrats are subject to the same "greed" and lust for power that eeeevil corporate executives are. The difference is the corporation can't show up to your house with guns and police to make you do what they want. If you want to get the money out of politics, get politics out of money.
I agree. We have perverted democratic process – mostly due to the way we fund campaigns. The brilliance of the founding fathers is they designed a system of governance that did not required – goodness. They were very aware of human frailties and designed a system that attempted to balance everyone’s greed and self-interest. Unfortunately today politicos serve two-masters – the electorate and the companies that fund their campaigns. In any other situation we would call it extortion and bribery. We call it freedom.
Most regulation perpetuates the status quo. I’m arguing for regulation to encourage as much competition as possible.
I posted more information about first-mile access on my site. Do Third Party ISPs Facilitate Broadband Completion? and Effects of ISP Business Practices on Home Networks
I maintain the best way to deliver high speed service to everyone is:
1) Require transparent data carriage for first-mile carriers – first mile access just delivers the bits.
2) Nondiscriminatory access to first-mile network at the edge, eliminate notion of unbundled network elements (UNE)
3) Limit maximum size of first-mile carriers – to encourage innovation nationally even though a particular player dominates a specific market. Prevent the Internet from become “Clear Channel” radio.
I look forward to your feedback. | |
| | | | | | |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: More at stake then price The backbones are owned by large institutions, right? ISPs provide connection to that, and an accompanying basket of services, e.g., mail and hosting services, depending on their business model (gee, you want to stop that, even). You’re worried about the ISPs preventing certain types of traffic and think that it should be anything goes as to what the end user wants to do. For my part, I don't run a formal server (though I share files on Aol Instant Messenger), and I'd rather not pay for my next-door neighbor to run web servers —he can buy a business account for that. On the other had, I do have a home network (Linksys wireless router) and enjoy free riding on my neighbors with that.
I don’t understand how you can say connection of the user to the internet backbone is a monopoly. In my area, I can get cable, DSL, ISDN, T1, and Dial-up (you’re speed-bases (semi)flat-rate prices). Aren’t all of these different technologies so they wouldn’t have the same “facilities based carriers,”* as you call them? I’m happy as a clam with my ISP, but if they started disallowing certain services I like, I would be forced to take a substitute (though an inferior one, I get c. 1.3 Mbs with cable, I think DSL, the next best alternative from where is see it, is $10 a month more and maybe only 700 Mbs). Hopefully there would be enough people like myself who would do the same such that this would cause the firm to realize the error of its ways, but if not, what can you do? Perhaps I attempt to start a boycott, but otherwise, I don’t like the fact that Eminim becomes so popular and I think the whole music industry is just about Marketing and the PR campaign, but should the government force people not to make those choices?
The only case for governmental control is where there is a market failure, and so far I fail to see one (I know we have regulations in effect, I say probably too many). I agree that DARPA created the internet (Defense is a legitimate purpose of the government), but now it’s a private sector market. From what I can tell, you want to have the proverbial cake and eat it too. Just as you can’t arbitrarily set prices, neither can you expect to arbitrarily alter the market forces that drive network providers to try to limit some services that significantly diminish everyone’s connection (every service has an associated cost —a cost is a price).
*Companies that own the connection equipment rather than firms that lease the connection through such firms, right?
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | |
| | cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
|  Re: I've said it before. . . .
said by LegoPower77 :
Find out how regulation actually sets up a harmful incentive structure.
»Missouri Explores Deregulation
It's especially relevant given the advancement in the technology field. To whit:
said by LegoPower77 :
If an industry is unregulated, when there is rapid technological advances, the old facilities become obsolete before their historical cost is fully depreciated. Firms abandon obsolete facilities sooner than if there had been no advancement. But under a[ regulation] regime, the older facilities are protected by the averaging of their cost with the cheaper newer facilities into the rate structure. This has two effects that are exactly the opposite of what advocates of regulation say they want. First, since the older facilities are not abandoned and their cost is averaged with the newer ones, the price does not go down as quickly as it would if the old facility was abandoned altogether (assuming the new technology makes the product cheaper). Second, because of the guaranteed ROR, firms are more willing to try risky new technologies because they are less sensitive to cost overruns and since the consumer is made to pay for it anyway.
Firms operating under regulaton are less motivated to control costs than they would be in a competitive market and they do not abandon their older, inefficient facilities as readily. Prices under ROR regulation are set by adding capital cost and a profit rate to other costs, thereby attempting to reverse the competitive process by which prices determine the amount of capital cost one can profitably afford to incur.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-10 13:43:10]
Will sbc lower my cost and improve my service? I don’t think so because they have not so far. At least with regulation in place they have to pay fines for my crappy phone service! | |
| | |
i heard it all befo
| Re: I've said it before. . . . Consumers pay for what they want.
All private companies are inclined to control costs, not just regulated ones.
Companies upgrade facilities to keep up with consumer demand.
Prices are not necessarily set by "adding capital costs and profit rate." This is a common falacy in the US that price=cost+x% profit. Prices are set by analysis of a supply and demand to determine the maximum profit rate.
What's wrong with your crappy phone service? If you don't like your dial-tone, go with MCI or upgrade to an ISDN line. | |
| | | | cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
| Re: I've said it before. . . . said by i heard it all befo:
Consumers pay for what they want.
All private companies are inclined to control costs, not just regulated ones.
Companies upgrade facilities to keep up with consumer demand.
Prices are not necessarily set by "adding capital costs and profit rate." This is a common falacy in the US that price=cost+x% profit. Prices are set by analysis of a supply and demand to determine the maximum profit rate.
What's wrong with your crappy phone service? If you don't like your dial-tone, go with MCI or upgrade to an ISDN line.
that is what sbc is fighting here now in the state house, to keep other phone lines out of indpls. i hope they do make it in so sbc can't just say, it's in the house, and blow you off! and the poles do belong to the light company here, and they will rent space to anyone! | |
| 
Archivis
Your Daddy
Premium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Can we trust SBC? Trust them to keep the prices at what they're at now and provide better service?
Or just jack up the prices and drop the quality, like every other instance in history with these telcos.
--
May 26th. D-Day for dslreports.com | |
| | | | | | herberthm1
join:2002-04-06
Van Nuys, CA | That depends were you live.
Like in san diego ca. You can choose cox digital telephone,use their high speed data and cable tv, so if sbc jack up the prices you can jack them up | |
| 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI
| I take exception with calling SBC "big business" and lumping them in with fiercely competitive giants like GM, Coca Cola, and P&G. It's not the size that's the problem, it's the monopoly. They could be a tiny telco only servicing like 1 county, but if they are a monopoly it doesn't matter. I'm am an extreme left-wing liberal, and I am as pro-business as anybody. I support the dividend tax cuts. I support modest capital gains tax cuts, however allowing one monopoly to squash all other companies is not "pro-big business". It's pro-monopoly. Republicans tend to be pro-monopoly and don't see the difference. Thus they are all hypocritical. | |
| |
LegoPower77
Abecedarian
Premium
join:2002-08-03
Arlington, VA
| Re: I take exception with calling SBC "big business" "We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." — Nikita Krushchev
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | 
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| Re: I take exception with calling SBC "big busines Quoting two national leaders who's biggest achievements were rallying nationalism, but whom failed miserably when it came to economics, social welfare, and environmental consideration - surely does not give your point any clarity nor credence.
In order for our country to survive, we can not depend on capitalism in a pure form. Just as human fallibility brings down communism, so to does it corrupt capitalism.
We simply must embed some socialistic principles into this great democracy to balance our economic model. Without social responsibility, we end up with the corporate scandals we are all too familiar with; and it won't stop by throwing money at the SEC.
And even if Krushchev's theory were at all plausible, would that not mean that all socialist countries are bearing down to a communist end-game? Surely that would surprise countries like the Norway, Sweden, Netherlands...which, btw, have scored higher than the US as far as 'most desirable places to live' (according to some nonsensical poll, I'm sure).
KM | |
| | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Yup.
If they wanna be compared to another business, the only one I can think of to compare fairly would be DeBeers, who incidentally, are not allowed to operate within the United States because of their.....uh......monopoly status.
change is good
states that do not accept change will be left behind
SBC's proposed changes and current strategies are designed to be good for no one other than SBC. States who resist will be left behind?
I think that the current environment reflects the fact that the states aren't all buying into the Bells' arguments.
The only reason that Bell landed Oklahoma was that all the opponents were all sleeping for various reasons, and SBC had no real opposition there.
Having said that, I reiterate-
They now have Oklahoma locked up....demonstrate that you (SBC) are going to do everything you promised. The Okie state is your test bed. Cut loose and prove all of us wrong.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know....briandamage@dslr.net | |
| | |
See 55 replies to this post | |
| 
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| said by 2farfromCO7 :
Republicans tend to be pro-monopoly and don't see the difference. Thus they are all hypocritical.
Not all Republicans. "Our attitude is let the chips fall where they may," says Texas Public Utilities Chairman Rebecca Klein. From her “official” bio - - “Rebecca Klein was appointed by (Republican) Governor Rick Perry as Commissioner in 2001 to the Texas Public Utility Commission and as Chairman in 2002. Prior to her appointment as Commissioner, Rebecca was a consultant with KPMG Consulting, heading the development of the company’s Office of Government and Industry Relations headquartered in the Washington, DC area.”
“Rebecca Klein has had a substantial career in public service. From 1999 to 2001, she served as a Policy Director for then-Governor George W. Bush, engaging in a variety of statewide issues and projects in the areas of telecommunications, energy, technology and banking. Prior to working for George W. Bush she worked at the Public Utility Commission of Texas between 1997-1999 as a Senior Attorney in the Office of Policy Development.”
“Rebecca moved to Texas in 1997 from Washington, D.C., where she had lived for eight years. While in Washington, she first worked for the Secretary of the Air Force, in the Legislative Liaison Office. From January 1989 to January 1992, Rebecca worked at the White House under President George H.W. Bush, as Associate Director for National Security in the Office of Presidential Personnel. After her three-year tenure at the White House, Rebecca worked as Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Trade & Development Agency, where she oversaw accounts at numerous multilateral banks.”
“Rebecca is a Major in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. She was awarded the National Defense and Southwest Asia Service Ribbons for her service in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Rebecca graduated from Stanford University with a BA in Human Biology. She received her Masters in National Security Studies at Georgetown University, and earned her JD at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas. She is married to Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Programs.”
++++++++++
Given her strong ties to the Republican party, evidenced by her work for both Bush Sr. and Jr., she is one Republican, at least, certainly not following the dictates of “big business” or “big monopoly.”
Disclaimer: The above was presented, in part, by PETR (People for the Ethical Treatment of Republicans). | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| cableblows3
join:2001-06-17
Indianapolis, IN
| said by 2farfromCO7 :
and lumping them in with fiercely competitive giants like GM, Coca Cola, and P&G. It's not the size that's the problem, it's the monopoly. They could be a tiny telco only servicing like 1 county, but if they are a monopoly it doesn't matter. I'm am an extreme left-wing liberal, and I am as pro-business as anybody. I support the dividend tax cuts. I support modest capital gains tax cuts, however allowing one monopoly to squash all other companies is not "pro-big business". It's pro-monopoly. Republicans tend to be pro-monopoly and don't see the difference. Thus they are all hypocritical.
I agree with most of what you say, except that I AM a republican and I am NOT pro monopoly! | |
| |
comeonnow
| The garbage company, water company and electric company are local monopolies also.
Monopolies are dangerous when they can raise prices with imputiny. If the RBOC's raise prices, cable will undercut them and seize the market share. | |
| | |
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: I take exception with calling SBC "big business" said by comeonnow:
The garbage company, water company and electric company are local monopolies also.
Monopolies are dangerous when they can raise prices with imputiny. If the RBOC's raise prices, cable will undercut them and seize the market share.
More likely, they'll just match prices and services like they've pretty much done so far. It's $60 1.5/256 for all! The regional telcos and cablecos, at most, will just feed off each other, matching prices both up and down, while features and functionality disappear. Remember, they both want customers to just "surf the web", but not do anything useful. Don't expect too much with the bells getting monopoly control. | |
| | | | Gordon Gekko
join:2003-02-18
North Little Rock, AR
| Re: I take exception with calling SBC "big business" "Remember, they both want customers to just "surf the web", but not do anything useful. Don't expect too much with the bells getting monopoly control."
What the bloody h&ll wil most users in oklahoma do with their dsl other then surf the web
Why dont you just break it down by demagraphics
I would bet 95 % of consumers would not care for anything other then surfing the web for content
what the bloody h&ll do you do at your home that you need more band width and if you do....what is the percentage of users fall in line with you.
just like this message board, it is a small minority of people.....in fact it is the same group of basher ! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Gordon Gekko
join:2003-02-18
North Little Rock, AR
| Re: I take exception with calling SBC "big busines Your points are taken....I can see yours......that is why this is a forum. I believe I am pretty high tech savvy and dont see the point yet for a 6.0/1.5......I would like to know how many US households are using it for basic content and how many are using it for streaming video both ways .. | |
| | | | | | kmoss
join:2002-09-14
Lisle, IL
| SBC is a bad company SBC is a bad company, period. Now they're targeting Illinois, a state that has been terribly broadband deprived for years. Municipalities like tricitybroadband.com who want to build their own networks, basicly get their customers harassed by SBC via phone surveys about municipal "porn networks" and flyers distributed during St. Patricks Day family parades to lobby their cause? Supporters of SBC then cry about network sharing and how CLECs are leeches. Fine, well, some people out there are TRYING to build their own networks, and guess who is fighting it tooth and nail?? Yep, good ole SBC with their typical unethical and evil tactics. | |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| Here's a thought: How about the FCC, FTC, and the DOJ enforce the terms of all the merger deals that have never been fulfilled before allowing any of this bell-written "deregulation" to pass? That would, of course, require most of the bells to wire all their regions for broadband the way they were supposed to in the first place, keep them out of the long distance market, and fine them heavily. Ironic, isn't it? While we're at it, the FCC should be smacked down for violating the TA96.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-10 14:53:10] | |
| jazzmaniac
join:2002-08-04
Lombard, IL | Satan's Bell Company I worked for SBC in Illinois just long enough to learn that the initials really stand for Satan's Bell Company. If SBC says something will be good for consumers, you can rest assured that it will be very, very bad for consumers. | |
| | 2farfromCO7
join:2000-10-14
Farmington, MI | Re: Satan's Bell Company jazzmaniac: I thought it stood for Same Bull Cr*p (referring to AmeriCrap). | |
| | 
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State | Amen. Its wicked, wicked ways get worse once you cross the Mississippi. | |
| 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| My humble opinion How about instead of regulation vs. no regulation how about sensible regulation? Like the state regulates their business but in a way that benefits both the ISP and the consumer. It's not impossible and I don't think it would take someone super smart to do. Just someone honest who cannot be bought. If you deregulate you screw over the customer. If you regulate with the current regulations in process you screw over the customer and the ISP. I'd like to hear your responses.
--
»www.maxolasersquad.com/ | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
kauiman3
join:2002-08-16
Redondo Beach, CA | SBC bought Ameritech 3+ yrs ago and still sucks SBC gets fined every qtr from Illinois for not completing its promises on the purchase of Ameritech. Why would anyone in IL believe SBC now? | |
| |
akristov
join:2001-01-31
Tampa, FL
clubs:
| Re: SBC bought Ameritech 3+ yrs ago and still sucks Why can't Illinois make the fines substantial? Something to make the bean counters sit back and say "We should start building these networks while we still have our one." Make it like 1/2 their profit every quarter. That would light a fire under their collective asses. | |
| | |
whyshould they
| Re: SBC bought Ameritech 3+ yrs ago and still sucks Why should they build up their network and be forced to give it away for less than they paid? | |
| | | |
letsgetem
@64.72.x.x | Re: SBC bought Ameritech 3+ yrs ago and still sucks Hey I Wouldn't put billions in a network just to let someone else leach off it! You guy's may state bell is lying but do you have the facts to state it. Please no flaming only facts! | |
| rhett33
join:2001-01-26
Woodstock, GA
| Georgia-BellSouth and NO State Reg of net access BellSouth refuses to run a DSL line .3 mile from a highly profitably area to an older neighborhood. This is a highly discriminatory practice and tells me Georgia needs to empower the Ga. Public Service Commission ( who regulates utilities ) with some regulatory powers in regards to the Internet. I have no choice but cable. Cable in two years has gone from mediaone to attbi to comcast. Yes, some regulatory power via the State. Also it, BS policy, shows what are poor business practices,in my opinion. | |
| kroberts4
join:2002-10-23
Flossmoor, IL
| Where is deregulation working for the customer? I don't wholeheartedly buy the SBC argument. I, for one, am tired of the commercials to back up their lobbying. Tell me someone, where is the deregulation argument working in the US? Why don't we have 2 or 3 Mbps service for $30, like in Canada. Why is it that my suburban house in the Chicago metro area, can't get broadband access? The danger here is that SBC will so alienate me as a customer, that I won't buy their broadband service after waiting years to get it. This should be customers first, but it appears to be greed first. | |
| | | |
|
|
