Telcos Want Big Subsidies, Not Line-Sharing 340
It seems that a recent survey of global broadband practices by Harvard's Berkman Center at the behest of the FCC has stirred the telecommunications hornet's nest. Both AT&T and Verizon are up in arms about some of the conclusions (except the ones that suggest offering large direct public subsidies). "Harvard's Berkman Center study of global broadband practices, produced at the FCC's request, is an 'embarrassingly slanted econometric analysis that violates professional statistical standards and is insufficiently reliable to provide meaningful guidance,' declares AT&T. The study does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless. Most importantly, it 'should not be relied upon by the FCC in formulating a National Broadband Plan,' concludes the United States Telecom Association. Reviewing the slew of criticisms, Berkman's blog wryly notes that the report seems to have been 'a mini stimulus act for telecommunications lawyers and consultants.'"
We paid for the lines. Share them or get off. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:5, Informative)
The internet industry was already given tax money to implement infrastructure once. That money was distributed to shareholders as profit. And since there was no punishment clause, they never had to implement the infrastructure that they agreed to.
No problem, give them all the subsidies they want (Score:5, Informative)
Just require companies taking subsidies to cap wages including top executives at 100K a year and bonuses at 5K a year. They'll squeal like pigs and no one will touch the subsidies. Something similar happened with the bailout money. When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share. Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.
Linesharing (Score:5, Informative)
At least here in Finland line-sharing did wonders to consumers. It lowered prices and allowed small companies the possibility to offer broadband with completely different business models. Competition also forced the big ones to improve customer service quality. I can't think of any downsides for the customer.
Re:No problem, give them all the subsidies they wa (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. Plenty of small companies would be willing to do it though. Hell, if the govt wants to pay for the fiber and install, I'll start a small company to manage it and happily take $105K/year to do so. And I'll run it with an open access policy.
Re:Attn: Telcos (Score:5, Informative)
The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades
That's over 200 billion [newnetworks.com].
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the "telephone industry" was given money, not the "(I)nternet industry".
Re:We paid for the lines. Share them or get off. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We paid for the lines. Share them or get off. (Score:3, Informative)
Society through their representatives and the courts.
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB, totalling something like $700B - Obama was not the president, when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 [wikipedia.org]
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Separate ISP's businesses (Score:3, Informative)
This was tried in 1996, with the government mandating the cost of service - what part 1 had to pay part 2. Problem was, the mandated payment wasn't really enough to cover it. Works out fine when it is all just different parts of the same company.
Doesn't work at all for third-party company that wants to offer DSL service. Third party company starts out thinking they are getting a great deal and many investors flock to the new company with visions of how profitable it is going to be. DSL service explodes, at least it did in Northern Illinois.
Well, it turns out that with just about anything if you get a price that is too low to actually make anyone want to do the work, they end up not wanting to do the work. End result was that Ameritech (former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines) would get a request to put a different company's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away. If it did get installed, provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.
Having the State set the price for the service was a disaster. We had $14.95 DSL plans but you could never get connected. There were 10 different companies offering DSL service in some places - except they couldn't get their equipment installed. I believe some sanity returned four or five years ago and the idea of DSL competition at state-mandated fee levels was pretty much discarded.
I believe state-mandated T1 pricing is still in effect, however, and it results in some very odd market distortions. General rule that seems to apply is whenever anyone puts their thumb on the scale, be it the butcher or the governer, it turns out bad for the consumer in the end.
Re:Attn: Telcos (Score:3, Informative)
Do you like Cringely's presentation [pbs.org] better? If you're still unconvinced, which of the facts do you dispute?
We need a strong FCC mandate and we need it NOW (Score:3, Informative)
Getting my starts in IT at the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet and being present to see what it has developed into makes me think that the wireless telecommunications companies are off their bloody rocker!
One major difference from the Internet and the many wireless networks (3g, etc) out there is that the Internet through purchase or peering agreements are all interconnected. If the United States could dismantle the current wireless networks in place and deploy the strategically there would be no coverage gaps, even in the most rural of areas.
It makes neither technological or economical sense to maintain so many separate networks.
I don't know the answer, because I wouldn't want the government running the infrastructure, but if maintaining the wireless infrastructure was done by a single entity and if that entity was not any of the wireless service providers communications would be much better in this country.
There should be one unified wireless network that would sell its services for a fee, regulated by the FCC/FTC.
Wireless service providers would pay for access to this network and then resell it to consumers, with value added services.
Cell phone manufactures should not be allowed to be Wireless service providers. All phones made should work with any Wireless service provider. No locking, etc. Wireless service providers could still sell discounted phones in trade for contract commitments but there would never be a scenario like exists today such that a phone manufacture, like Apple, inc, could restrict their phone to work with one wireless provider.
Fees should be regulated to keep illegal price fixing that happens with all the providers today.
How providers bill would be up to them but real unlimited, all you can eat, service with absolutely NO restrictions. This is what happened with the Internet. It was once where you paid for a set number of hours per month or you paid by the minute as you used it. But, economies of scale and demand from the consumers forced the providers to go with unlimited service.
Today, even when a providers sells you an unlimited data plan, like AT&T forces you to do if you use an iPhone it is not unlimited. AT&T restricts tethering and if the feel you have used an excess amount of data they will terminate your account. So, it's not unlimited it just has a secret limit. This would have never been tollerated with Internet service.
True unlimited cell service is inevitable I wish they would go ahead and accept it. Unlimited minutes, Unlimited texts, Unlimited data, no restrictions on tethering, etc..
The day is coming when we won't buy broadband because everyone will have their own personal Internet connection with them, in their pocket (their phone).
I just hope I live through the cell wars to see it. The economics work for the same reason unlimited Internet accounts are profitable. That's because of averages of large numbers. I might use tons of data and talk minutes but my dad, my sister, my roomate don't. It averages out.
All this bickering is making my head hurt. Consumers should group together and sue for being overcharged and price fixing in the cell industry.
ppfffffttt...
Nick Powers
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:3, Informative)
Simple economics seems to imply to my feeble mind that you need approximately the same money going into the unemployment fund as is coming out to remain solvent.
If everyone who is employed puts in 4% of their payroll, it takes about 12 workers to support one person on unemployment if they get 50% of the average pay of the employed people. Given the 12:1 ratio, unemployment can only remain solvent up to an unemployment rate of 8.3%. Anything beyond that and you run a deficit until you run out of money, reduce benefits or increase taxes.
These numbers are dramatically simplified, but the core concept remains valid.
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I've been through too much history. I never thought I'd see a worse president than Carter, but Bush proved me wrong.
Bush was a wonderful president -- if you make over $300k per year, that is. He was a disaster for everyone else. He started with a budget surplus and ended with the biggest deficit in history. Our country was attacked on his watch, and the previous administration warned him, but he didn't listen. Then he started a needless, pointless war in Iraq. Bush may possibly go down as History's worst president; I've been voting since Nixon and he is by far the worst I've seen.
It's far too early to judge Obama, but you Republicans have been doing so since before he took the oath of office.
Re:More competition needed (Score:3, Informative)
My mom lives about a mile and a half outside a medium-sized Midwest city. When my dad was alive, he once served as the campaign director for a friend of his who was running for County Commissioner, and they won the election. Fast forward about 15 years.
The county commission voted to enact a leash law. In this case, "county" means "sparsely populated area surrounding the city", not like Orange in SoCal. My mom owns a big, friendly mutt who pretty much kept her sane after my dad died. She was faced with a few options: get rid of her beloved pet (not gonna happen), turn the 100+ pound dog into an indoor pet (which would not have ended happily), or fence the yard. So she fenced it. All five acres. I have no idea what she actually paid for it, but that couldn't have been cheap.
Well, about a year later, Charlie The County Commissioner was running for re-election and called my mom for a campaign donation. After all, her dearly departed husband helped elect him, right? Mom told him, "sure! I'd love to! Put me down for $10,000. Oh, wait: that's how much I had to spend to build the redacted fence that your backward-assed commission forced me to put up to comply with the redacted leash law in the middle of the redacted countryside. Shove it up your redacted and don't ever call me again." She said that was the best phone call she's ever had.
Re:Isn't bread and circuses (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, what, you want your trash picked up?
I pay for that separately.
CA: "Waste Management" inc.
NV: I take it down to the transfer station myself and pay by the pound.
You want sewers built to your property? ... You want clean water running out of the tap?
CA: I pay for water and sewer: Alameda County Water District.
NV: I paid to put in a well and septic system and will pay again to have the latter cleaned out if/when whatever doesn't get biodegraded has to be pumped out and hauled away. Only have "homestead" water rights but that's all I need.
You want roads to drive on?
License fees, gas taxes. Additionally:
CA: Special assessment items on property tax bills.
NV: Ditto. Also: What roads? B-)
You want fire protection?
Property taxes again, both states.
You want the police to arrest those naughty black people who keep making you scared and nervous?
Nope. But I'd be happy to be able to carry my own gun to protect myself against anybody, any color, who tried to commit a crime against me that endangered my person (which most crimes do). The cops can come and sort it out later if they believe it necessary, when they get around to it.
NV: Can carry open most places and have my CCW so can carry concealed ditto. This is pretty important, since there is lots of the state where it might take all day for a deputy to get there even IF the passes are clear. Also there are lots of things besides people that might need attention: Starting with feral dog packs and I could go on for pages.
CA: I'd be happy to work it the same way. But in the bay area the government won't allow it - unless you're one of a very select few (mainly politicians and their contributors).
You want an army to protect your property claims against foreign and domestic threats?
The way the constitution SAYS it should work is for the states and/or the Fed to call up the militias in those situations - and for the state militias to consist of the general population ARMED WITH THEIR OWN WEAPONS and lead by officers chosen by the procedures each state designates (which was typically election from their number by the rank-and-file). Between callups there would be minimal, if any, government employees involved. Border and coast guard, navy, and other ongoing stuff (to the extent still required) can be funded out of tariffs. No reason the merchant marine shouldn't be armed for self-defense (and also subject to callup in time of war).
Care to come up with any OTHER excuses for the various layers of government to confiscate a third or more of my income and a chunk of each transaction and seize much of the rest, plus my existing assets, by devaluing the currency while forcing me to accept their printing-press (or electronic-bits) money as payment in private transactions?
Re:I see what they did there... (Score:2, Informative)