Major Carriers Shun Broadband Stimulus 190
jmcharry sends word that as the deadline looms for requesting broadband grants from the $4.7 billion available in stimulus funding, Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are conspicuously absent from the list of applicants. Quoting the Washington Post: "Their reasons are varied. All three say they are flush with cash, enough to upgrade and expand their broadband networks on their own. Some say taking money could draw unwanted scrutiny of business practices and compensation, as seen with automakers and banks that have taken government bailouts. And privately, some companies are griping about conditions attached to the money, including a net-neutrality rule that they say would prevent them from managing traffic on their networks in the way they want. ... Yet those firms might be the best positioned to achieve the goal of spreading Internet access to underserved areas, some experts say." Reader Michael_Curator notes that while the major carriers may be holding back, there were still enough applications to slow government servers to a crawl, resulting in a deadline extension.
No way (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what their real reasoning is, but you can be assured that it is not because they want to be responsible and expand with their own money.
Re:The Real Reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Among other things they don't like the idea of Net Neutrality which is one stipulation of taking the money.
Thanks but no thanks? (Score:3, Insightful)
they don't want real broadband... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:2, Insightful)
time for the US government to start their own broadband service.
Oh yes, because I want my internet connection tapped 24/7 and all my comments that criticize the US government to be flagged (or did you forget flag@whitehouse.gov?). And just look at the crappy service you get from other government agencies like medicare, the lackluster performance of veterans hospitals, the annoyances of the post office, the general greed of the IRS, and the pain of it all. Yah, I really want the US government to provide broadband.
Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner suck, but you can bet that the US government will suck even worse. Or are you forgetting all the times they've screwed up technology (BBS raids, DMCA, etc)
Re:No way (Score:2, Insightful)
The Explaination (Score:5, Insightful)
This has a simple explaination.
Money is power; simple as that. If you have money, you can get people to do things- it's power. There are other forms of power but money's the most common (and, in many but not all cases, the most powerful).
Restrictions on how you can spend your money devales that money. $1,000 is a nice sum of money for (almost) anyone to receive, but if it can only be spent on peanuts only you can eat? Can you eat a grand's worth of peanuts? What if you're allergic? In this case the money is basically worthless, because it has no power.
Almost all ISPs want the power to restrict the usage of their clientbase. In some cases this is benign- stopping spammers from throwing out millions of spam e-mails a day, for example. In other cases, not so (blocking/disconnecting high usage users then dramatically overselling their network). But want of power isn't a problem; everyone wants power. Everyone. Every individual, every corporation... everyone. So that's okay.
The reason why they are rejecting the money is because it has external factors. It has a stigma of being 'government bailout money'. It can only be used for certain things, and it has strings (a'la net neutrality). The ISPs have evaluated their money, decided that the restrictions limit its power too greatly and that it would be a net power loss for them.
It's as simple as that.
This is a good thing, yes? (Score:2, Insightful)
How can not taking taxpayer money be chalked up to greed?
Business as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
The big carriers will ignore the stimulus.
Small Start-ups will take the money and build into new markets.
the start-ups will then sell out to the big ISP's
the start ups get rich from tax money
the big ISP get expansion paid for by the government with no regulations attached.
We get screwed and pay for the privilege
Regulated monopolies? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for medicare service being worse than private insurers, is it? Medicare has far lower administration and advertising costs. They're not perfect, but most of the people I know with complaints about denied coverage have been from private insurers. (Although I was never creative enough to call them "death panels," ha ha).
So, I will agree private industry beats government when there is good competition - look at fast food, it's amazingly efficient. But compared to monopolies or duopolies, I'm more please with govt services.
Regional Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Those net neutrality rules would possibly threaten those regional monopolies... so they're like "F THAT! I want my control!"
For example, consider the recent obscenely low bandwidth caps in rural areas where there is no other option. That's a prime example of the power regional monopoly gives these companies.
Also as a side note, I find it hilarious that they think they can justify instating bandwidth caps when they apparently have more then enough capital. Wow, where did the argument that they were losing money due to excessive users go?
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:3, Insightful)
they don't really care about the speed. 256k of 3 meg cost them the about same. They only care about the price.
256 is great when priced accordingly (same as dialup). Its ideal for those who only use it for email (grandma)
real problem is ISPs want to use obsolete equipment they pulled from bigger markets and soak rural areas with substandard service at high rates with no cost to themselves while they take the money to upgrade bigger markets. eventually sending that equipment to the rural area once its obsolete.
The old anti-neutrality arguments don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the telcos claimed that net-neutrality would harm the industry by preventing them from collecting enough money to upgrade the infrastructure in the US?
This proves their previous anti-net-neutrality arguments were BS.
From http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-148385.html [zdnet.com]
"Republican backers, along with broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T, say it has sufficient Net neutrality protections for consumers, and more extensive rules would discourage investment in wiring American homes with higher-speed connections."
From http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-problem-with-network-neutrality [freedomworks.org]
"By contrast, mandatory network neutrality is bad for business. Unlike the narrowband phone lines of the twentieth century, broadband pipes are being built with billions of dollars of unsubsidized investment in a competitive environment. ISPs make this investment on the assumption they can recover the costs and profit. As such, broadband lines are not the "public resource" that monopoly networks were in the past. Companies that own high-speed lines have a right to recover the costs that other parties impose when they wish to use those lines to transmit high-bandwidth, revenue-rich services of their own. If network neutrality is enacted, ISPs will have no incentive to build new pipes. Consumers will therefore get less choice."
Their motivations (Score:0, Insightful)
These companies don't want to take the stimulus money because it has strings attached to it and also they don't want to be on the hook for what they did in the 90s. They know that when given the money, they will not do anything substantial with it, and it can potentially look for them. Besides they have invested the hundreds of millions we had given them and made a wild amount of profit off of it. Taking government money again will mean actually treating the customers and citizens fairly and with respect and they are not about to budge and inch on that. Since most of these companies also have cell network departments, they would do the same exactly thing if cell carriers were given the money. They hate the idea of a free and unregulated internet and are doing everything in their power as gate keepers for customers to keep it a walled garden with a toll booth to get over the wall. I swear the rules change when you become a multi-billion dollar conglomerate...
Re:The Real Reason.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)
time for the US government to start their own broadband service.
Oh yes, because I want my internet connection tapped 24/7 and all my comments that criticize the US government to be flagged (or did you forget flag@whitehouse.gov?). And just look at the crappy service you get from other government agencies like medicare, the lackluster performance of veterans hospitals, the annoyances of the post office, the general greed of the IRS, and the pain of it all. Yah, I really want the US government to provide broadband. Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner suck, but you can bet that the US government will suck even worse. Or are you forgetting all the times they've screwed up technology (BBS raids, DMCA, etc)
Yet people are perfectly willing to let the government fund, control and direct the military, some even might say we have the best military in the world; but when it comes to healthcare they become a pack of morons who couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a flashlight.
Re:No way (Score:3, Insightful)
Rock Carriers Hard Place (Score:3, Insightful)
so either they need this money to finally upgrade their networks or they have plenty of money so they should already be upgrading their networks.
What i would like to see is a commitment that a Minimum bandwidth be available per account. Having "Up To 70megabits per second" speed is all well and good but what good does that do you if 99.99999 percent of the time
you are stuck at 0.7 megabits per second because they have 400% of the pipe allocated.
Also it should be forbidden for a carrier to cut off a connection because the user is running %protocol
(unless of course actual "court of law" evidence exists that something illegal is happening)
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, they already did this with a more-than-willing corporate helping hand.
Spreading FUD is not the same thing as criticizing. And it's the content of the FUD they're asking for. (And speaking of spreading FUD, your post seems a shining example...)
You ask anyone who's on Medicare if they want it abolished. Go on, ask. Your odds are about 50/50 between being looked at like you have three heads and being called an idiot.
How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care [time.com]
Annoyances like being able to send a letter for a negligible amount of money?
Greed?? The IRS collects and passes on the money they're told to collect and pass on. It's not like they get to keep it.
Yah, fer sher, y'betcha. I do. I want as many players in the market as I can get, public, private, or otherwise. It'd be a damn sight better than the local monopolies we're screwed with now.
Re:No way (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that did factor into their decision, but I have to think that while there's plenty of hate for telecos among certain dark corners of the internets, like here, it's not going to resonate with the unwashed masses like the auto or bank bailouts did. Maybe I'm wrong, never looked at any polling data on it. My impression though is that net neutrality is fairly low to under the radar for most people.
They might actually have to upgrade (Score:2, Insightful)
If the buggy whip companies had owned the roads, they wouldn't take a government bailout to pave them for cars, either.
Yeah Smallbies! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let smaller companies have it. We have too many big oligopolies (the cousin of monopolies). Big companies tend to "win" by playing games using their shear size instead of outright compete. And they are more likely to bribe congress than smaller ones per portion.
As an example in the air business (Score:3, Insightful)
Look up the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. More or less what happens is you sign an agreement with the government. For their part, they give you money in the form of business contracts, and sometimes loans for planes and such. Your part? Oh nothing much, just that if the government needs your planes for military transport, they can call them up.
Now, for many companies, it is worth it. The government doesn't use the ability often, and you get good financial benefits from doing it. However it is for sure money with strings attached. If the government decides it needs your planes and crews, they can call them up in a day or two and use them for as long as they need.
That is often how these things go. The government is willing to give you money on favorable terms, financially speakings, but they want something for it. Now sometimes that is worth it. However, sometimes it isn't. Individual companies need to decide if the strings attached to a particular set of money is worth it or not.
An analog in your life might be say you need $1000 to get your car fixed. You bank will make you an unsecured loan at 12%. I offer to make you a loan at 3%, however if you want that I say you have to spend it all on car repair and are going to have to let me borrow your car whenever I want. Which do you take? There isn't a simple answer. The bank's money costs a lot more, but there are no strings attached, you do what you want with it, even if that isn't spend it on the car. My money is cheap, but has provisions. It is really up to you if my provisions are worth the money you'd save.
Re:Does it matter why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it even matter why they aren't taking the money?
I fear it might.
If the application system is being flooded, that means that the market will potentially be flooded with companies that are required to respect net neutrality. Since they will by default provide a service that is better than the incumbent monopoly, then assuming that it is not a true natural monopoly the market place will become competitive.
There are two types of companies taking this money. The first are companies trying to compete in municipal areas where there is already competition. These companies, however, are still dependent upon the big boys who are not participating for backbone. That means the net neutrality can be castrated by those few. The second type of companies are trying to expand into unserved, rural areas. They are, again, wholly dependent upon one large company per area for access to the backbone. This provides the same problem as before. Anytime the big companies want they can move into these areas and undercut the little company that did all the hard work and all that government stimulus goes away, providing only the advantage that they sped up getting broadband to an area, not in making it any cheaper or more competitive in the long run.
Theoretically, small companies taking this money could grow and build their own backbone and compete with the big ones, but realistically we gave the big companies so many billions in subsidies in the first place that the playing field could only be leveled by addition monies given for this purpose as at a later date. Basically, we dug ourselves into an uncompetitive hole with government money and it will take either more money or serious legislation to undo the damage. Given how much the incumbents have to lobby with, it seems unlikely.
Re:The "Real Reason" (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, from an ethical standpoint, the Federal Government (that is, We the People) would be fully justified in telling them "net neutrality or give us our 500 billion back now".
Re:they don't want real broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unreformed medicare is exactly as sustainable as unreformed private health care insurance in the US - which is to say, not at all. The era of stratospheric health care inflation is about to end no matter what we do, because we can't afford it any more.
Most people already have no control over who their insurer is - your boss decides for you, or for an increasing number of people, you have no coverage at all.
That's nonsense, private insurers surprise people by denying coverage all the time. For that matter, even if your condition IS covered, they can still deny it; they'll go back through their records to find any excuse to retroactively cancel your insurance, like you saw a doctor for a hangnail 10 years ago and didn't state it as a pre-existing condition on your application.
Anyways, all the options that exist today will still exist, unless (I suppose) they run themselves out of business with ridiculous overhead, high advertising costs, and inflated executive pay. And if that's what you meant by "sabotaged" private insurers, I'd call that self-sabotage.
Certainly no more than what insurance companies do today. By the time you deny your claim, it's far too late to choose another insurer, since you obviously have a pre-existing condition.
Besides, doesn't it offend your sensibilities to accuse the government of pinching pennies?
Wow, that's quite a scary story, but at least some kid believed it enough to turn it in as a homework assignment. Hey, did you ever notice how the Dutch live longer than Americans [wikipedia.org] on average? Pretty good for being routinely denied life-saving medical care. I wonder if the teeming droves of Dutch people fleeing their land for the American medical paradise are counted in those longevity stats? Which reminds me, I sure wish we Ameicans were allowed to buy medicine from Canada, but I guess it's too cheap to be good anyways, right?
Do you see anything odd about scare-mongering that people might be denied coverage while defending a system under which 1 in 6 people have no coverage at all [news-medical.net]?
And then you go on about euthanasia, as if elderly Americans weren't already under a government plan. It's called Medicare. Try putting the elimination of Medicare on the ballot sometime and see how that flies with the 65+ crowd. The truth is nothing could be more empowering for old people than government run health care. Under private insurance, they're just a liability, they produce little and cost a fortune - but they do vote in droves. We can't muster the political will to make them stop driving after they lose their sight but now you think we're one step away from sending them to the glue factory? Oh yeah, I'd love to see somebody run for re-election on that platform.
Re:Warning (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps he did, and perhaps he didn't. Perhaps YOU are Twitter bringing attention to Twitter, AC. Perhaps I am Twitter bringing attention to Twitter's AC call to attention to Twitter. Perhaps Twitter is everywhere, and we are all but merely his sock puppets working his terrible twisted will.
My comment still stands, falling for it or not. I really don't care who said it, he had a good point. Just because he is the reviled Twitter doesn't matter much if he had a point.
If it was just Twitter posting AC to make Twitter look better, sobeit. I admit, I don't much like his tactics, and he does appear to be a dubious individual, but this is Slashdot, and a lot of our "minor celebrities" fall into this mold.