[aklug] Re: Last days of unlimited?

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Tim Gibney wrote:

> I generally oppose regulation and believe in free enterprise. However, the
> government forces a monopoly on 1 phone line cable and 1 TV cable per
> household. Also our tax dollars were spent installing fiber backbones and
> these leeches want a government granted monopoly but do not want to play by
> special rules by being in a unique situation.

This doesn't completely detract from your point, but I think your point
needs to be tempered by the realization that part of the reason for those
subsidies exist do so for good reason.

First off, some markets those fibers are brought into aren't economical on
their own. In other words, after factoring in the cost of infrastructure,
operation, and maintenance, no company would otherwise pay out of pocket
without that subsidy because it wouldn't be profitable.

Secondly, a lot of the fiber laid has benefits for interstate commerce, but
could also become uneconomical after you factor in an individual company
having to get zoning, permits, right of ways, etc., from not just the feds,
but state and local governments as well. Not to mention having to hire the
work crews for each locality that have to have varying taxes and
regulations.

In short, because all of us (collectively), as apathetic unresponsible
voters have allowed government bureacracies to grow to the point where doing
business with more than one can become punitive. Thank you, all of you
idjits who don't bother to vote.

Because of the practical realities laid out here, I'm not entirely opposed
to the concept of subsidies to remove the sting. Nor that the company that
went through the significant hurdles to get that subsidy has monopoly
control. The fact is you can't "share" control of infrastructure like
that. The only feasible way would be to either let the government operate
it (epic fail) or force all fiber to be run independently by a
jointly-owned-by-all-carriers outfit, similar to the Alyeska.

> Its not capitalism if no competitors exist because there is no free market.
> In Europe you can use an Iphone with unlimited data and use another network
> if you wish without throwing away the phone for 1/4 the price of here. Oh
> and no abusive contracts! The fact that ATT is getting rid of unlimited
> bandwidth angers me and why my wife refuses to buy I-phones. She does not
> want to be pulled in and nickeled and dimed and then be stuck with higher
> fees every 2 years after the contract ends. I do not blame her. If ATT wants
> to do this that is there perogative but if my tax dollars go to their
> network then I feel I should have a say because I own part of it.

Company subsidizing cell phone development via exclusivity contracts is a
completely different issue altogether. I would point out that it's doubtful
that we'd have as sophisticated smart phones as we have now (well, not me,
I'm a luddite ;-) without the US model. Yes, development and innovation
does happen in Europe and Asia, but nowhere to the level that it does in the
US.

And one other tidbit: other programs like the USF are a money-losing
proposition. Alaska is a *perfect* example of this. When you look at the
infrastructure that has to be maintained by a carrier of last resort in
Alaska to get telephone service into a community which will not only never
provide a profit, but also never pay for the basic cost of installing the
infrastructure, you would understand why CLR status can be a serious burden.

That said, I'm not saying you have no grounds to be disgruntled. It's the
law of nature that every organism (and I'm extending that to corporations)
will seek every advantage to secure their livelihood. Sometimes they can go
too far. But in a semi-free marketplace like the US, I think the long view
vindicates the concept that things equilize over time. Even Ma Bell isn't
the same company she was, having been spun off and bought out several times.

> The lack of bandwidth is all made up and artificially limited. 98% of all
> fiber is dark because the mega telecom companies want to charge consumers
> more. They hire lobbyists to ensure this stays. In a free market competitors
> would be coming in and supplying better services at a cheaper price. I do
> not know if GCI has government subsidized cable backbones are not so this is
> debatable if bandwidth is truly limited or not. If they are then I would be
> angry as hell.

Again, I think you're letting emotion take your argument too far. Dark
fiber is a net drain on all companies, because it's still physical plant
that has to be tested and maintained but generates *no* revenue. No company
in their right mind *wants* fiber to stay dark. It's typically an issue
that managing a much more extensive network topology costs real money to
operate. More network nodes, more licensing fees for those nodes, possibly
only a small number of customers at then end of a strand that won't support
the cost of running it, etc. Not to mention the expanded infrastructure at
the NOC to monitor and respond to all events.

Personally, I believe that in 80% of the cases involving dark fiber there is
a very pragmatic and practical reason why it stays dark.

> Imagine paying $600 a month for water or $400 for sewer? If these utilities
> were not regulated we would paying this believe it or not. What else would
> we do? Regulations are needed if you are granting someone infinite
> bargaining power via a monopoly or oligopoly.

I don't believe it. Sorry. I agree that true freedom is anarchy, and that
a free market place needs some level of regulation, particularly in
anti-trust. But the reality is that most of the markets are over regulated,
and those regulations were paid for by lobbyists of corporations who
couldn't compete in the previously free-er market place. Yes, sometimes
those lobbyists represent the big dogs. But it's just as often a smaller
coalition of smaller pups that either can't or are too lazy to find a way to
differentiate their services from whomever is currently dominating the
marketplace.

In short, everyone is fighting for their piece of the pie, but very few of
them are bringing new ingredients to the pie, much less creating a new pie.
I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for those companies.

> I am glad Google at least is buying some of the dark cable and is starting
> their own ISP. They are furious of the net neutrality rules and being double
> dipped by the mega telecoms.

:-) Not to start another tangent, but Google is evil. Seriously. I like
the idea of anyone finding and getting a use for that fiber, but I have
serious concerns of how poor all of our lives will be if all of Google's
ambitions are achieved. Their marketing may be based on presenting them as
altruistic, but they are far from it. Money-grubbing, profit-driven
companies I can deal with. Cross that with political agendas and
governmental coziness, and it frightens the crap out of me.

         --Arthur Corliss
           Live Free or Die
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Tue Jun 22 09:08:28 2010