Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Media Television

FCC Kills Build-out Requirements for Telecoms 325

Posted by samzenpus
from the new-rules dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Kills Build-out Requirements for Telecoms

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21, 2006 @05:26AM (#17323026)
    Especially when they own the regulators.

    Good to see corruption and graft still thriving in the USA.
  • 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.
  • by kfg (145172) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:32AM (#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
  • by Toby The Economist (811138) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @08:06AM (#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.

  • by Umbral Blot (737704) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @08:15AM (#17323616) Homepage
    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21, 2006 @01:43PM (#17326722)
    Sweet! Maybe when netbeans finishes loading next year I'll try it out.

The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade

Working...